The Spaghetti Hoax, April 1, 1957

Listen Here

In our age of instant worldwide communications, most hoaxes don’t get very far. Even the most popular e-mail hoaxes, forwarded to millions of people, have very short effective life spans. But those of us over 35 remember a time when a well-orchestrated hoax could fool millions of people at once for as long as the perpetrators wished to carry on the charade. Tonight, we will chronicle one such event from 1957.

In this case, the creators of the hoax worked for the British Broadcasting Company’s current affairs show ‘Panorama’. For those who live in the United States, think of ‘Panorama’ as the UK’s ’60 Minutes’. The show is still on the air and is the worlds oldest televised current affairs news program, having begun in 1953.

To fully appreciate the impact of the hoax we are about to discuss, it’s important to understand television during its first decade as a widespread means of communication. In the UK, as with most Western nations at the time, television during the 1950’s was a limited affair. The BBC has been broadcasting regular television transmissions since 1936, but the beginning of the Second World War in 1939 halted television service in the UK until 1946. At the time of the hoax, in 1957, there were only two television channels covering all of England, Scotland and Wales.

Today, we are used to dozens of television channels ranging from the deadly boring to the outrageously offensive. Viewers today would have found the BBC shows of 1957 a bit stodgy by comparison, but the news presented there was treated as practically gospel by viewers. So when the April 1st edition of ‘Panorama’ came on the screen, the audience expected a serious presentation of news and events.

The last report on the show that evening discussed the spaghetti harvest in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino. The past winter had been a mild one, so the harvest was bountiful and viewers saw young women picking strands of spaghetti from local spaghetti trees and placing them in the sun to dry. The spaghetti weevil had been all but eradicated from the area, a fact that also contributed to the bumper crop of 1957. Also shown was a local harvest festival and farmers discussing the difficulties in obtaining a strain of spaghetti that would grow to just the right length.

Half the homes in Great Britain had television sets at the end of the 1950’s. It is estimated that eight million people watched ‘Panorama’ on the evening of April 1st, 1957. For the vast majority, spaghetti was something with which they were either completely unfamiliar or knew only as something that came in a can with meat sauce. The fact that almost all spaghetti is made from wheat flour and water was simply overlooked by many viewers.

The phones at the BBC television offices began to ring immediately. The calls fell into three categories. First were those who appreciated the joke. Second were those who knew the story was a hoax and were outraged that such foolishness was aired. Then there were those who were so interested in the spaghetti trees of southern Switzerland and Italy that they wanted to try their hand at growing one at home. Some enterprising staffers told callers to fill up a tin can with water, insert an uncooked strand of spaghetti and “hope for the best.”

What made the hoax that much more believable or funny, depending on your perspective, was the fact that Richard Dimbleby, the host of ‘Panorama’, delivered the story in perfect form without the slightest hint of humor. Dimbleby was well-known in the UK, having been BBC radio’s first wartime correspondent during the Second World War. The only thing he added to the script was one line at the end, a hint to those who were wondering about the story’s veracity: “Now we say goodnight, on this first day of April.”

Before the station went off the air for the night, a statement was issued acknowledging the final segment of ‘Panorama’ as a hoax. Despite this, the BBC continued to receive calls for several days.

Elections in Bloody Kansas, March 30, 1855

Listen Here

Today in 1855, groups of Missouri citizens invaded the Kansas territory in order to ensure the election of a pro-slavery legislature. This act was only one in a series of actions, both violent and non-violent, that would be called the Border War, or Bloody Kansas. This conflict became a microcosm of the tensions being felt in the United States as a whole in the 1850’s. In that way, Bloody Kansas really marked the beginning of the Civil War.

The trouble began in 1854 with passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the legislation which created the two territories. It also overturned the Missouri Compromise by stating that the question of slavery in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska would be decided by the territories’ inhabitants. It was hoped that pro-slavery settlers would move to Kansas and anti-slavery settlers (called abolitionists) would move to Nebraska. This hope came to fruition in Nebraska, where a majority of abolitionist settlers found homes.

Kansas was another matter. People on both sides of the slavery issue rallied their forces in order to ensure that their side maintained a majority in the territory. The abolitionist movement brought in people from as far away as Maine to settle in the area, while most of the pro-slavery settlers simply crossed the border from Missouri. There was a third party present in Kansas: the Free Soil movement. On the surface, the Free Soilers appeared to be anti-slavery, and they were. But their main goal was to make the territory a “whites-only” state free of the plantations which, they believed, kept whites from land ownership. 

Violence quickly ramped up as settlers moved into Kansas. John Brown, who would later go on to greater infamy with his raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, brought a group of abolitionists to the area with the expectation of an armed conflict. The conflict grew in 1854 and 1855 to the point where it had actually become a small civil war. Realizing that Bleeding Kansas had national importance, a coalition of Whigs, Northern Democrats and Free-Soilers who opposed slavery formed the Republican Party. In 1860, a middle-aged lawyer named Abraham Lincoln would run on their Presidential ticket.

The state legislative election in March, 1855 was rife with fraud. Over 5,000 people crossed over from Missouri to cast their ballots in support of a pro-slavery legislature. When the counting was finished, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters in the territory. Afraid of more conflict, territorial Governor Andrew Reeder approved the election.

In 1856, a Congressional Committee traveled to Kansas in order to investigate matters there. It was agreed by all members that the elections had been fraudulent. Furthermore, the committee decreed that the will of the people was that Kansas should be a free state. President Franklin Pierce ignored the Committee and continued to recognize the pro-slavery legislature.

It is believed that 55 ultimately died during the fighting in Kansas. The violence continued off and on until until 1859, when a state constitution was finally approved that recognized the abolitionist view. It was approved by voters with a 2-to-1 margin. Kansas, a free state at last, entered the Union in January, 1861, just three months before the beginning of the US Civil War.

Accident at Three Mile Island, March 28, 1979

Listen Here

Today in 1979, the TMI-2 reactor located at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant experienced the most serious accident in US commercial nuclear power plant operating history. No deaths or injuries occurred because of the accident, either to workers or to people living in nearby communities. Nevertheless, the events of that day marked the beginning of the end of the growth of nuclear power in the United States.

The Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station occupies 814 acres on an island in the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In 1979, the number 2 reactor at the site was just a year old and had only been operating for a few months. At 4AM on March 28th, the main feedwater pumps on the secondary side of the plant stopped running. This prevented the steam generators, the giant heat exchangers that remove heat from the primary, or reactor, side of the plant, from removing heat. The reactor shut down, but pressure in the primary system began to increase. A relief valve opened to relieve the pressure; it was designed to close when pressure decreased to an operational level. However, the valve remained open, allowing primary cooling water to pour out of the reactor side of the plant. This exposed the core of the reactor, causing it to overheat.

The reactor operators on duty, like ROs everywhere, could only react to what their instruments told them. In this reactor design, the water level in the core was determined by the pressure reading in the primary side of the plant. Since the pressure was high, it was assumed that the core was still covered with water. In fact, one-half of the fuel pellets in the core were already melting. This is what is known as a core meltdown. Fortunately, the containment building was not breached, a situation that would’ve released toxic amounts of radiation into the outside environment.

There were other concerns which arose over the next three days that were serious enough to cause the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to call for an evacuation of those most vulnerable to radiation within a 5-mile radius of the plant.

Studies over the years have shown that no significant damage was caused by the small amount of radiation released during the crisis. Despite this, the accident led to a re-evaluation of training and safety standards at all nuclear power plants in the United States. But no amount of redesign and retraining would curtail the psychological damage done to the American public in its opinion of nuclear power. Support for nuclear power dropped 20 percent to a point where only half the population supported the building of more nuclear plants. Of the 129 plants that had been approved at the time of the accident, only 53 were ever completed. It can be argued that nuclear power was already in danger the late 1970’s due to inexpensive oil and a nation that was already beginning to forget about the oil embargo just a few years earlier. If this is so, then Three Mile Island helped to nail the coffin shut.

Today, TMI-1, the first reactor at Three Mile Island, continues to operate. The cleanup of TMI-2 lasted for more than 14 years and cost approximately $975 million. In the end, it was determined that a few simple water level gauges (already standard on some designs) would have prevented the accident.

This Side of Paradise Published, March 26, 1920

Listen Here

Today in 1920, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel This Side of Paradise was published. The book launched his career as a writer and celebrity both in the United States and in Europe during the 1920’s and early 30’s. Today, F. Scott Fitzgerald is considered one of the greatest American writers of the 20th century. His works have helped define the “Lost Generation” (the generation who fought in the First World War) for those of us who came after him.

Born in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1896, Fitzgerald was named after his famous distant relative Francis Scott Key. After attending various private schools, Fitzgerald entered Princeton University in 1913. When the United States entered World War One in 1917, he quit school and enlisted in the army.

It was during officer’s training at Camp Sheridan in Alabama that Fitzgerald met Zelda Sayre. Zelda was from a wealthy and well-connected family, something to which young Fitzgerald aspired. The war ended before he could be sent overseas and the two were soon engaged. Fitzgerald moved to New York City alone to set up a life for himself and his betrothed. He worked in advertising and wrote short stories, but his efforts were not enough to convince Zelda that the couple could live the kind of life to which she had become accustomed. She broke off their engagement, which sent Fitzgerald packing back to his parents’ house in Minnesota. 

Back home, the young writer began to revise a novel he had written during the war entitled The Romantic Egotist. After much work, he renamed the book This Side of Paradise. It was accepted by Scribner’s and first published in March, 1920; Zelda, evidently deciding that Fitzgerald showed promise after all, came back to him. The two were married a week later and had their first and only child, a daughter, in 1921.

During the rest of the 1920’s, Fitzgerald wrote many short stories, but only two more novels, The Beautiful and Damned and The Great Gatsby. The Fitzgeralds moved to Paris, where they ran in the same literary circles as Ernest Hemingway. Although Scott was famous and made good money, the couple’s lifestyle far outpaced his ability to earn. They were constantly in deep debt, a condition that required continual loans from Scott’s literary agent and editor.

Zelda was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1930, a condition that led her to be hospitalized in Baltimore, Maryland in 1932. While living nearby, Scott wrote his fourth novel, Tender is the Night, about a young psychiatrist and his wife. Zelda would spend the rest of her life in and out of mental institutions.

Scott spent the second half of the 1930’s in Hollywood doing various writing jobs. He also began work on his fifth novel, The Love of the Last Tycoon. The Fitzgeralds were separated by this point: Zelda was hospitalized on the East Coast and Scott was living with his mistress in California. Scott’s drinking, a problem since his college days, spun out of control. He had two heart attacks in 1940; he died the day after the second one on December 21, 1940. He was 44 years old.

Zelda lived another eight years, dying in a mental institution fire in Asheville, North Carolina in 1948. Scott never finished his last novel, although it was eventually published using notes and outlines he left behind.

Alcatraz Prison Closed, March 21, 1963

Listen Here

Today in 1963, the federal prison on Alcatraz Island, located in San Francisco Bay, was closed. The Rock, as the island became known, is probably the most famous prison in the US federal system and remains today, more than forty-five years after its closing, the stuff of legend.

Alcatraz Island was named by Juan Manuel de Ayala in 1775 while he was exploring San Francisco Bay for Spain. He named the place La Isla de los Alcatraces or “Island of the Pelicans”. Except for the birds, the island was barren and surrounded by swift currents. The island was all but ignored until 1847, when the US Army first noticed the value of the Rock as a military installation. The discovery of gold in California the next year spurred the Army to begin building a fortress on the island. When finished in the mid-1850’s, the fort housed four gigantic, 15-inch cannons capable of engaging enemy warships at a distance of three miles. The cannons were only used one time against an unidentified ship; the single shot missed.

The Army began sending prisoners to Alcatraz in 1861 during the early months of the Civil War. Between that time and 1933, thousands of military personnel would be imprisoned on the island. In October, 1933, the Department of Justice acquired the island and turned it into a federal prison. The first civilian prisoners arrived in August, 1934.

Alcatraz became the place where the worst of the worst in American crime were sent to pay their debt to society. Al Capone, “Machine Gun” Kelly and many others found themselves on the windswept rock. The federal government claimed that escape from Alcatraz was impossible due to the tide and strong currents of San Francisco Bay as well as the fact that the closest point of land was over a mile away and that the average temperature of the Bay water is 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

Despite this, there were 14 escape attempts involving 36 men (two tried to escape twice) during the federal prison’s 29-year history. All but five of the prisoners are accounted for: 23 were caught, six were shot and killed and two were drowned. The remaining five are presumed to have drowned but there is no conclusive proof of this. Despite urban legends to the contrary, it is not impossible to swim from Alcatraz Island to the mainland; dozens of people have made the swim under monitored conditions. Also, the rumors of man-eating sharks in the Bay are not true as the sharks in that area tend to be bottom-dwellers of a smaller variety. 

By early 1960’s, Alcatraz had become the most expensive federal or state prison to operate. The federal government decided that other, newer institutions could serve same purpose for less expense to the taxpayer. Another issue was the effect the pollution from the island was having on San Francisco Bay. The prison was closed on March 21, 1963.

Iranian Oil Industry Nationalized, March 20, 1951

Listen Here

Tonight's transcript was written by Amir Mans of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Thanks, Amir, for your hard work in putting this show together.

On this day in 1951, nationalist members of the Iranian parliament led by Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq nationalized Iran's petroleum industry. This historic event inspired a lot of other movements in the Middle East region and has had consequences which have continued up to the present day.

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) had been founded in 1908 following the discovery of a large oil field in south west of Iran and on May 26th of that same year, the first oil well in the region was drilled. It was the first company to use the oil reserves of the Middle East and eventually became the British Petroleum Company (BP) in 1954. High volume production of Iranian oil products eventually started in 1913 from a refinery built at Abadan, for its first 50 years the largest oil refinery in the world. Also in 1913, shortly before World War I, AIOC managers negotiated with a new customer, Winston Churchill, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty. At Churchill's suggestion, and in exchange for secure oil supplies for its ships, the British government injected new capital into the company and, in doing so, acquired a controlling interest in the oil company and as a result, the British government became the de facto hidden power behind the AIOC.

From 1949 on, sentiment for nationalization of Iran's oil industry grew. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of $112 million and gave Iran just $19.6 million. In late December 1950 word reached Tehran that the American-owned Arabian American Oil Company had agreed to share profits with Saudis on a 50-50 basis. The British Foreign Office rejected the idea of any similar agreement with AIOC.

On 20th March 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the AIOC and its holdings, and shortly thereafter elected a widely respected statesman and champion of nationalization, Mohammed Mosaddeq, as Prime Minister. Iran had gained its democratic parliamentary system after its 1906 constitution revolution which was the first event of its kind in Southwest Asia.

This led to a virtual standstill of oil production as British technicians left the country and Britain imposed a worldwide embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil and increased output from its other reserves in the Persian Gulf. In September 1951, Britain froze Iran's sterling assets and banned export of goods to Iran. The British ratcheted up the pressure on the Iranian government and explored the possibility of an invasion to occupy the oil area. It challenged the legality of the oil nationalization and took its case against Iran to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The court found in Iran's favor, but the dispute between Iran and the AIOC remained unsettled.

In the following months, the crisis became acute. By mid-1952, an attempt by the Shah to replace Mosaddeq backfired and led to riots nationwide; Mosaddeq returned with even greater power. At the same time however, his coalition was fraying, as Britain’s boycott of Iranian oil eliminated a major source of government revenue, and made Iranians poorer and unhappier by the day.

The administration of President Truman initially had been sympathetic to Iran's nationalist aspirations. By 1953 both the US and the UK had new, more anti-communist and more interventionist administrations. Britain was unable to subvert Mosaddeq as its embassy and officials had been evicted from Iran in October 1952, but successfully appealed in the U.S. to anti-communist sentiments, depicting both Mosaddeq and Iran as unstable and likely to fall to communism in their weakened state. If Iran fell, it was theorized that the enormous assets of Iranian oil production and reserves would fall into communist control, as would other areas of the Middle East.

In June 1953, President Eisenhower's administration approved a British proposal for a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Prime Minister Mosaddeq and committed the CIA to execute this assignment. This plan became reality in August 1953 when the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddeq was overthrown by the CIA with support from the British government and the Shah was reinstated on the throne. He remained an authoritarian monarch for more than 25 years. Mosaddeq, whose efforts to nationalize the oil industry and democratize Iran had already earned him Time Magazine’s Man of the Year award for 1951 was sentenced to three years imprisonment for trying to overthrow the monarchy, but he was subsequently allowed to remain under house arrest in his village outside Tehran until his death in 1967.

This event inspired a lot of other movements in the Middle East region. Many believe that the fall of the two British allied kingdoms of Egypt and Iraq in the 1950s and the nationalization of Suez Canal in 1958 all were inspired by the movement of Iranian nationalists.

The 1953 coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civil government. In the US, Operation Ajax was considered a success, with immediate and far-reaching effect. Overnight, the CIA became a central part of the American foreign policy apparatus, and covert action came to be regarded as a cheap and effective way to shape the course of world events, but the coup caused long-lasting damage to the United States' reputation.

The joint US-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. The coup was a critical event that destroyed Iran’s secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years as it has been widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the pro-Western Shah and replaced the monarchy with an anti-Western Islamic Republic that brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism. The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries including those who give refuge to terrorists who eventually have gone on to attack the US.

Some Middle East observers have claimed that the anger against the US that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. While this remains just a theory, the reality is that this coup left the most open-minded and civilized people of the Middle East under 25 years of dictatorship and 30+ years of tyranny and brutality at the hands of the Islamic Republic.

Questions and Answers, March 18, 2010

Listen Here

I haven’t done a question and answer show in a while, so I thought tonight might be a good time to do one. The volume of e-mail I receive has increased about five-fold since we began the 500 for 5 campaign and some of the questions are identical. I’ve chosen five of them to answer with the assumption that if 2 or 3 people write with similar questions, there are even more people out there with the same thought.

The first question concerns the fate of frame 313 of the Zapruder film, which we discussed in episode 424. If you recall, Abraham Zapruder sold his film to Life magazine on the condition that the publication never show frame 313, which shows the impact of one of the rounds to the back of the President’s head and its resulting exit in gory detail. Zapruder believed the American people should never be shown the horror that he witnessed.

When the film was shown on television for the first time, however, frame 313 was back in the picture. In 1968, a U.S. District Court had ruled that use of the Zapruder film came under the rules of fair use because of its historical and societal importance. Thus, no one who used the film after that was under any obligation to take out the offending frame.

Interestingly, the first time the film was shown to a public audience of any kind was in a courtroom in 1969 during the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, which was re-created in the 1991 film ‘JFK’.

Of all the shows I’ve recorded, I probably received the most comments about the story of D.B. Cooper and his subsequent jump out of a hijacked airplane with $200,000 into one of the most densely wooded and remote areas of the United States. And so the question is asked: what do I think happened to Cooper? Put simply, I think he walked away and started a new life somewhere. Cooper’s strict instructions to the pilots indicate to me that he intended to jump at a specific time when the aircraft was over a specific point. All he needed to know was the plane’s direction, airspeed and time of departure, all factors that he controlled.

My guess is that he either had an accomplice on the ground or a stash of clothes, food and hiking equipment somewhere near his jump point. I believe he was an experienced parachutist and a former soldier, perhaps even Special Forces. He had about a 12 hour head start on any pursuers, enough time for someone with evasion training to cover a significant distance, perhaps 15 miles. At some point he arrived in a small town or met up with his accomplice and made his escape. If he is still alive today, he would be a senior citizen, probably 70 or so years old.

I receive a lot of e-mail from people who want to start a podcast of their own and who ask what my setup is for recording the show. It’s very simple: I have an Audio-Technica model ATM61HE microphone that hasn’t been produced in several years. That plugs into an M-Audio Fast Track audio interface with connects via USB to my PC, which is now running Windows 7. For recording, I use Audacity version 1.3, which is free. I have tried other software but I find I can produce better results with this simple and well-written application.

Question number four concerns my career. This query comes mostly from people who either began listening to the show recently, or who pick and choose episodes based on their interests. The question is whether or not I am a history teacher. I am not. I began college as a history major but allowed family members to convince me that a degree in Business Management was much more practical. I deeply regret that decision. Through a series of twists and turns in my life, I ended up working in IT, or Information Technology. I work for a medium-sized company in Louisville where there are only three of us in the IT Department. This means I do everything from helping to manage the network to handling helpdesk calls to working on the owners’ home computers.

Finally, several people with whom I am friends on Facebook have asked me where the initials TLK come from. It stands for The Lovely Kelli, my wife of nearly 12 years. I began using that term of endearment early in the life of the podcast after hearing a radio talk show host use the term ‘fetching’ whenever he mentioned his wife. It seemed like a sweet idea. Without The Lovely Kelli’s support and patience, there would be no podcast. She has been especially understanding during the 500 for 5 campaign.

The Stamp Act Repealed, March 18, 1766

Listen Here

Today in 1766, King George III of Britain agreed to the repeal of the Stamp Act. This ended the highly contentious provisions of the bill, which was instituted in the American colonies in order to help pay back the costs of the Seven Years War that had ended 2 years earlier. The Americans' reaction to the bill was just a precursor to what the next decade would bring.

The Stamp Act was ratified without much deliberation on March 22, 1765 by the British Parliament. It levied taxes on the American colonies in the form of duties paid on every piece of paper that the colonists purchased. This included legal documents, newspapers, printed publications, and ships’ papers. The general purpose of the Stamp Act was to pay back the massive debt Britain incurred through its participation in the Seven Years, and to raise around £ 60,000 annually in order to support the cost of quartering English troops in the colonies.

Parliament had successfully used stamp acts throughout Britain in previous years. It produced over £100,000 in revenue, with low enforcement costs. The provisions were easy to implement because only documents with an official stamp were valid. Moreover, Prime Minister George Grenville was extremely supportive of imposing a new tax, even after passing The Sugar Act only a year before. Official colonial protests to the Stamp Act were ignored in Parliamentary debates, and it passed 259-49 in the House of Commons, and unanimously in the House of Lords.

The colonies’ response to the Stamp Act was one of anger and disbelief. Although the overall cost of paying for the Bill was rather low in monetary terms, it only added to the burden the Crown was imposing on the colonists as it sought to expand its sphere of influence. Britain had already put into effect the Molasses Act, The Navigation Acts, and Sugar Act, which were severely hampering colonial economic affairs by regulating commerce and economic transactions. Furthermore, colonists were hostile to the Stamp Act because it had been passed without any form of colonial representation in Parliament. Taxation without representation would become the main issue surrounding the Stamp Act, and colonists were up in arms about the infringement on their rights as British citizens. They felt that Parliament, which was thousands of miles away in England, was out of touch with the colonies and arbitrarily issuing taxes with no limitations to its power.

Protests in the streets occurred throughout the colonies, but most notably in Boston, Massachusetts. On August 14 1765, a large crowd opposed Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson’s order to take an effigy down that mocked the distributor of stamps in Massachusetts and Prime Minister Grenville for role in approving the Stamp Act. They ransacked the stamp distributor’s home and called for his resignation, which he ultimately agreed to the following day. On August 26th, a crowd looted Hutchinson’s home of valuables in their fury over the Stamp Act and its negative aspects on society.

A soon-to-be famous group, the Sons of Liberty, was also established around this time. Although they had been around since early 1765, this brotherhood of American patriots did not form into an organized group until November of the same year. They spread their influence to each of the 13 colonies by forming correspondence links with major cities and recruiting at large public demonstrations. The Sons of Liberty were instrumental in the eventual repeal of the Stamp Act by shaping Colonial resistance and coordinating boycotts of British goods.

Parliament became well aware of the protests and boycotts by early 1766. British manufacturers were being hit hard by them and losing a great deal of money from lack of business. In the end, Parliament had no choice but to begin debate on the merits of the Stamp Act. On January 14, 1766, they convened and Prime Minister Lord Rockingham, successor to Grenville, proposed a repeal of the Stamp Act. He felt that any changes to it would be fruitless and much too late to do any good. William Pitt, British hero of the Seven Years, made an impassioned speech to Parliament defending the rights of the Colonists. He said in part: “It is my opinion that this Kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. They are subjects of this kingdom equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by its laws, and equally participating in the constitution of this free country.  The Americans are the sons, not the bastards of England.” When Grenville, still a member of Parliament, responded with a denouncement of the Colonies and their failure to contribute their share of burdening the debt, Pitt proclaimed, “I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.”

Following Parliamentary debate on February 21st, a resolution was drafted for the repeal of the Stamp Act. It passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 276-168. One month later, on March 18, 1766, the Stamp Act was officially and completely repealed by King George III.

Beware The Ides Of March, March 15, 44 B.C.

Listen Here

Today in 44BC Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated in Rome. His rise to power against seemingly impossible odds and his subsequent rule has made him a figure of both derision and curiosity more than twenty centuries after his death.

Caesar's childhood was consumed by the fires of war. His uncle, Gaius Marius, was an influential politician and military leader in Rome. When Caesar was a teenager his uncle engaged in a civil war with Lucius Cornelius Sulla, another Roman general. Sulla seized control of Rome and subsequently executed many of Marius’s supporters and forced the rest into exile, including Caesar.

After being forced from Rome, Caesar joined the military and served in Asia. He served with distinction and was awarded the civic crown, a headpiece woven from oak leaves that was the second highest military honor in ancient Rome. In 78 BC Lucius Sulla died and Caesar attempted to return to Rome. However, his bad luck persisted and he was captured by Cilician pirates and held for ransom. When Caesar learned the pirates had only asked for twenty talents of silver he felt insulted and insisted the pirates raise the bounty to fifty talents. After the ransom was paid Caesar returned to Rome where he raised a private army. He then set sail and captured the pirates, fulfilling the promise he made while in captivity. Caesar crucified the pirates as an example. However, Caesar had their throats cut to demonstrate his ability for mercy. He was already becoming a cunning politician.

Upon returning to Rome, Caesar was elected as military tribune. His political career gained momentum when Caesar formed a three way division of power. This alliance known as The First Triumvirate included Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus or Pompey, and Marcus Licinius Crassus. Each man controlled considerable territory and possessed political and military strength. This powerful alliance dominated the Senate and controlled Rome.

In 69 BC while Caesar was in modern Spain to supervise financial affairs he encountered a statue of Alexander the Great. Caesar was roughly the same age that Alexander was when he had conquered most of the known world. Perhaps Caesar felt inadequate when he looked upon Alexander, a vision of success that mirrored the shadows of his ambition. Motivated, Caesar resigned from his post and returned to Rome. He was elected Pontifex Maximus, or head priest, of the Roman state religion. Using his shrewd political tactics Caesar climbed the ranks of the government until he was appointed Consul, or Governor, of Gaul, an area that encompassed most of Western Europe. Caesar used his military prowess to raise an army and began expanding the borders of the Roman Republic. In fact, his conquests spread to the shores of England. This military accomplishment gained Caesar a powerful reputation among Rome’s citizens. In 50 BC Caesar’s former political ally and friend Pompey was in control of the Senate. He ordered that Caesar disband his army and return to Rome as Caesar’s Consulship had expired. Caesar rolled the dice and marched his legion on Rome. When his army crossed the Rubicon River in northern Italy on its way south, it ignited a civil war. Although Pompey’s forces outnumbered Caesar’s, Pompey retreated from Rome with the Senate. Caesar pursued them across the known world, winning decisive battles along the way. Finally, in Egypt, Pompey was killed.

While in Egypt Caesar met Cleopatra. This started a romantic relationship that would last for more than a decade. While in Egypt Caesar once again exercised his power and overthrew the existing government. In 47 BC Caesar installed Cleopatra as Queen of Egypt. This led to a prosperous trade alliance that contributed to the growing wealth of the expanding Roman Republic.

Upon returning to Rome in 49 BC the Senate had no choice but to elect Caesar as Dictator of Rome. At this time Caesar’s arrogance had alienated him as much as his position as Dictator did. Caesar made himself into a God. He claimed to be a descendant of Aeneas who was a hero of the Trojan War and the son of a Roman Goddess. Aeneas is the mythical father of Rome so by Caesar tracing his lineage to Aeneas he solidified himself as rightful heir of Rome. He used this association to further tighten his grip on Rome. He became the first living Roman to put his face on a coin, an honor normally reserved for those who had been deified after death.

A growing hostility in the Senate transformed a group of some 60 Senators into conspirators, and on the Ides of March, 44 BC they confronted Caesar and stabbed him twenty-three times as he made his way to the Senatorial forum.

William Shakespeare romanticized and glorified the epic tale of Julius Caesar. There are many different ideas of what exactly Caesar’s dying words were. The most famous are the ones penned by Shakespeare. “Et tu brute?” meaning: you, too, Brutus? This referred to Caesar’s friend Brutus, who was among the conspirators. It seems that Caesar’s ambitions had left him, at the end, a man alone in the world.

In history and fiction Caesar didn’t fear death. He feared irrelevance. The following monologue from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar best exemplifies this mentality.

Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.

Julius Caesar was responsible for transforming the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. His actions were a catalyst that allowed his adopted grand-nephew Augustus to become Rome’s first Emperor. Julius Caesar was followed by five Emperors of his lineage, known as the Julio-Claudians. They reigned until 68 AD. Rome was never again returned to a Republic.

George Eastman Dies, March 14, 1932

Listen Here

Today in 1932, George Eastman died at the age of 77. His name is the “Eastman” in “Eastman Kodak”, the company that, more than any other in the world, brought photography to the masses during the last decades of the nineteenth century. Eastman’s story is one of poor boy made good, hard work rewarded with wealth and selflessness rewarded with immortality.

George Eastman was born in 1854 in Waterville, New York. His father ran a nursery business on the family land, but sold it when George was five in order to start his own school, the Eastman Commercial College. The senior Eastman died when George was 14, leaving the young man as the only bread winner for his mother and two sisters. He dropped out of school, never to return.

Eastman got his start as a messenger boy for a local insurance company and eventually ended up writing policies. Still not making enough money, he studied accounting at night and, five years later, was hired at a Rochester bank as a clerk. His hard work was paying dividends, but the real fruits of his labor were yet to come.

When Eastman was 24, he purchased the equipment necessary to take photographs and planned a vacation to Santo Domingo. He never made the trip, but he fell in love with photography. The problem with his new hobby was the weight and bulk of the equipment; it was no exaggeration to say that a pack mule was needed to carry everything a traveling photographer needed in the late 1870’s. Eastman read of advances being made in England with dry plates, which led him to start his own business preparing dry plates for sale to photographers in bulk. 

It was during this time in the early 1880’s that Eastman began to focus on the task of making photography available to the masses. He invented roll film which replaced the rigid plate with a roll of cellulose-like material. It was easier and lighter to transport and made it possible to make cameras smaller than they had ever been. The race was on to make, in his words, “the camera as convenient as the pencil.”

And so the Kodak camera was born in 1888. The word ‘Kodak’ had no meaning other than as a brand name. Eastman liked the letter ‘K’, so he made up a word that started and ended with the letter. He also came up with the first slogan for the product “you press the button, we do the rest”---since early Kodaks were sent back to the factory for the film to be developed and the camera to be reloaded.

Eastman became famous for the generosity he showed his employees and the world. He set up a ‘Wage Dividend’ in his factories, which was a bonus paid to each employee yearly based on the company’s financial gains that year. In 1919, he gave one-third of his holdings in the company to his employees.

During his lifetime, it is estimated that Eastman gave away more than $100 million. He gave $20 million of that to MIT under the name ‘Mr. Smith’---it took years to find out who ‘Mr. Smith’ really was. Eastman gave the money to the school because he had hired some young men from MIT and he felt that they were his best assistants.

During the last two years of his life, Eastman was in great pain from spinal stenosis, although that diagnosis was unknown in the 1930’s. Knowing that he would spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair and refusing to do so, he ended his own life on March 14, 1932 by firing a single bullet into his chest. The note he left simply said, “My work is done. Why wait?”

The Butler Act Passed, March 13, 1925

Listen Here

Today in 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly passed the Butler Act, a law which stated, in part:

"That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals {schools whose purpose was to train teachers} and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

The man who lent his name to the Act was John Washington Butler, a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives. He had concluded that teaching about the evolution of humans in public schools discredited the creation story as told in the Bible. This motivated him to become the author of the law. While many statutes such as the Butler Act had been passed in the United States and elsewhere since the publication of Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’ in 1859, this particular one would become an important part of history because its passage led the way for what was called at that time “the trial of the century”--- Scopes v State, better known today as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Teachers could be fined between $100 and $500 for violating the Butler Act, which was considered a misdemeanor. As written, the law did not forbid the teaching of natural selection or, for example, that mammals such as dogs are descended from simpler animals and share a common ancestor with, say, cats. It simply prohibited the teaching of evolution as related to human beings.

One of the strong voices behind the Butler Act was William Jennings Bryan. Bryan, from Illinois, was already a well-known figure in early 20th century America. He had been the Democratic nominee for the Presidency three times and was a leading public voice on many of the divisive issues of the day. Some referred to him as “The Great Commoner” because of his populist beliefs. Bryan argued that evolution could not be logically proven and was immoral in its assumptions and conclusions.

On the other side of the issue stood the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU, which offered to defend anyone accused of violating the Butler Act. The man who they first chose to defend was a high school football coach named John Scopes. Scopes was not the full-time science teacher in his school, but he had taught the class as a substitute. Since the state-mandated science book used in Tennessee at that time contained a chapter on evolution, Scopes argued that he had, in effect, taught evolution. Two local prosecutors (both friends of Scopes’) had him charged with violating the Butler Act. Thus, the trial was a test case---Scopes wanted to be charged with violating the Act and the state of Tennessee wanted to see how it stood up to scrutiny.

The trial was held in Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee over eleven days in July, 1925. It was described in Time magazine as “the fantastic cross between a circus and a holy war.” The potential for the trial to become a media circus was enormous. The proceedings were broadcast on radio, a fairly new medium that was exploding in popularity. Additionally, both the prosecution and defense teams contained men who were already well-known in the public eye, primarily William Jennings Bryan (who we've already discussed) for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defense.

Attorney Clarence Darrow was a leading member of the ACLU and was already famous for his participation in many well-known and controversial trials. Today, Darrow would be considered a liberal in the United States, although the meaning of that term has changed in the past 85 years and it is doubtful Darrow would have accepted our definition. In a nation that was, at least to outside observers, devoutly Christian, Clarence Darrow was an agnostic and made no secret of it.

The defense’s main argument wavered during the trial. At first, Darrow argued that the Butler Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s wording on the separation of Church and State. As things became more heated, Darrow called Bryan himself to the stand to defend the legitimacy of Biblical history. Scopes himself never testified. After a week and a day of trial, it took the jury less than ten minutes to find Scopes guilty; the judge ordered him to pay a $100 fine. William Jennings Bryan, lead prosecutor, offered to pay the fine for the teacher.

Scope’s team appealed the decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court set aside Scope’s conviction on a technicality, but ruled that the Butler Act was constitutional. The US Supreme Court finally ruled on a similar law in 1968, saying that such acts were in violation of the US Constitution’s Establishment Clause because their primary reason for existence was religious. The Butler Act had already been repealed in Tennessee in 1967.

The effect of the Butler Act and the Scopes trial on science education in the United States has been enormous and volumes have been written about its impact on society at large. However, the act and trial have suffered greatly at the hands of historians of all political stripes who have done their best to bend reality to their will. Most Americans' knowledge of the trial comes from the play 'Inherit the Wind', which debuted in 1955. The play contains a disclaimer stating that the events portrayed therein are not based on any actual event, even though the intention is to reproduce the events of the Scopes trial in a more dramatic fashion than reality provided. The play has been adapted for film and screen several times since the mid-1950s, yet the trial itself was not mentioned in any American history textbooks until the late 1960's, and even during my time in high school was only discussed in passing as part of a discussion of the early 20th-century South.

The Anschluss, March 12, 1938

Listen here

Today in 1938, Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany. This union, or Anschluss, made the nation part of Greater Germany and brought Adolf Hitler one step closer to his goal of unifying all the German-speaking areas of Europe under one government. It also tested the resolve of the Allies and their commitment to upholding the agreements which ended the First World War.

The idea of a unified German-speaking nation in Europe was not new; in fact, talk of it had occurred as early as the 18th century. By 1930, a majority of Austrians supported a union with Germany. After Hitler came to power in 1933, however, enthusiasm for such a move cooled, especially among government officials in Vienna. Although today it may seem like splitting hairs, Austria's type of government at that time was referred to as Austro-fascism, more like Italian Fascism than Naziism. Austrian Nazis who supported a union with Germany attempted a coup in 1934 in which the nation's reigning Chancellor was killed, but its failure and the short civil war that followed caused many of them to escape to Germany. The remainder were rounded up and placed in internment camps. Support for unification dropped sharply during the next four years, despite the fact that Hitler was from Austria.

By early 1938, the German dictator was ready to put his expansionist plans into action. That February, he summoned Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg to Bavaria for a meeting. During their discussion, which would later be remembered as more of a lecture, Hitler demanded that the Chancellor lift his ban on political parties and release all imprisoned Nazis. Furthermore, the freed Nazis were to be allowed to participate in Austria's government. Hitler made it clear that failure to take these actions would result in military action. Schuschnigg did as Hitler demanded and placed two Nazis in high Austrian offices, that of Minister and Interior Minister.

Other demands were soon made, including a call for the dismissal of the Austrian Army's Chief of Staff, who had created an extensive plan for the defense of Austria in the event of a German invasion. Hitler did not want to expend any military capital in Austria, so the removal of the top military leadership in Austria was of vital importance. Once again, Schuschnigg agreed to Hitler's demand. 

As the weeks went by, it became clear that the new Nazis appointed to government positions in Vienna were working to undermine the Chancellor's authority. Desperate to save the independence of his nation, Schuschnigg called for a referendum to be held on March 13th in which the citizens of Austria would vote on whether or not they wanted to remain a separate nation. Upon hearing this, Hitler became enraged. The German Ministry of Propaganda released information to the world's press outlets claiming that unrest was sweeping the towns and cities of Austria and that the population was calling for the intervention of German troops to put an end to the rioting and looting. Schuschnigg appeared in public and denounced the reports as false, but the refutation was of little value. On March 11th, two days before the referendum, Hitler issued an ultimatum to Schuschnigg: hand over power to the Austrian Nazis or face an invasion. Before the ultimatum expired at 2PM local time that day, Hitler signed an order to send troops across the border. It was formally issued just hours later.

Schuschnigg hoped for support from England or France since the union of Austria and Germany was forbidden by the Versailles Treaty, the agreement which ended the First World World War in 1918. But both nations remained essentially silent, so the Chancellor resigned his office that evening. At about 10PM, the German government published a forged telegram that appeared to be from the Austrian government. In it, Vienna requested that German troops enter Austria. By this time, all the major government buildings in the nation were in hands of the Austrian Nazi party. By the time the 8th Army of the Wehrmacht crossed the border the next morning, the issue had been decided.

Newsreels from March 12, 1938 show cheering crowds greeting German troops as they enter town after town. Hitler was received in Vienna by a crowd of 200,000 people, all of them presumably supporters of their nation's absorption into Greater Germany. But while many Austrians did, in fact, support unification, it is doubtful that a majority did so. While the March 13th referendum was canceled in most places in Austria, several small villages not immediately occupied by German troops held their vote anyway. In each one, a very large majority voted for Austrian independence.

The Anschluss was rubber-stamped into law on March 13th, one day after the invasion. The law required that a referendum be held in which the Austrian people would approve or disapprove the German intercession. 99.73% of voters voted in favor of unification with Germany. This number seems incredible until one learns that Nazi officials watched every voter as he cast his ballot and that more than 70,000 voters, mainly communists and Jews, had been arrested and more than 400,000 more had been denied the right to vote. 

Austria remained a part of Greater Germany until April 27, 1945, when the Austrian government declared the Anschluss null and void. The nation was occupied by the Allies after World War Two and did not fully regain its independence until 1955.

Since the end of the Second World War, historians have debated the actions of the Allied nations, especially Great Britain and France, before, during and immediately after the Anschluss. It has been argued that a simple threat of military force against Germany would have brought Hitler back in line, at least with regard to his expansionist desires. While we tend think of the German war machine as being unstoppable during the Blitzkrieg months of Spring, 1940, France alone had a much larger military than Germany in 1938. The training and modernization levels of the French and British armies may not have been comparable to the Germans, but the two forces together could certainly have forced at least a stalemate and reconsideration of Germany's actions on the Continent.

As mentioned earlier, Germany's annexation of Austria was a major breach of the Versailles Treaty. At first glance, one might imagine that such a violation would have been met with harsh criticism in the capitals of Europe. But Germany had begun ignoring the Versailles Treaty as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933. While Hitler's rebuilding of the German war machine was supposed to be a closely-held secret, it was nothing of the kind. Winston Churchill began warning his countrymen in 1930 that the Nazi Party in Germany would one day lead Europe into another war and by 1935 the strength of the German military could no longer be hidden.
But it is important to remember the times in which that generation of leaders lived. During the 1930's, the Great Depression gripped the entire industrialized world. Military budgets had been slashed to the bone in most countries. Furthermore, Hitler came to power in Germany less than 15 years after the end of the First World War. Nearly 17 million human beings had died in Europe during the war years of 1914-1918, a total so large that it was considered doubtful another war of that magnitude would ever be fought between modern nations. The terrible losses in the trenches of western Europe gave birth to a generation of British and French citizens for whom nothing was worth another war. Even though the losses experienced by the United States during the First World War were small in comparison to those suffered by the European powers, Americans tended more than ever towards isolationism during the 1920's and 30's.

We will, of course, never know what diplomatic or military action by the Allied powers would have done towards stopping the Anschluss or even preventing another world war. Two things are certain: in this case, inaction proved to be action in another direction and history, however terrible, would repeat itself yet again with humanity paying a cost that no one in 1938 could even begin to imagine.

USS Monitor Meets CSS Virginia, 1862

Listen here

Today in 1862 the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia fought a one-on-one battle off Hampton Roads, Virginia. While neither ship was seriously damaged in the encounter, this engagement was historic because it marked the first time that two ironclad warships met in battle.

The ironclad was a logical improvement in warship design. Until the 1850’s, the world’s navies built ships made from wood and shipbuilders were as much artisans as engineers. Wood made sailing ships light and fast and trees were a renewable resource. While ship designs improved over the centuries, the materials used to build them scarcely changed from the dawn of recorded history.

Naval armaments were a different story. At one time, ships rammed each other while soldiers fought from one ship to another in order to win a battle. Early cannons placed on warships meant that fighting could be done at a distance, but they were crude, heavy and inaccurate. They improved with time and by the mid-19th century, naval gunnery had become much more deadly not only to sailors, but to their wooden-hulled ships as well.

Koreans were probably the first people to use iron to protect their warships; their “turtle ships” saw action as early as the 16th century. The western powers first grasped the importance of iron as armor during the Crimean War. The British and French navies developed pre-ironclad vessels, essentially artillery batteries that floated and had to be towed into position. These were used against Russian shore defenses that had previously defeated wooden-hulled ships. With this early success in mind, France launched its first ocean-going ironclad warship in 1859.

While the British and French ironclads were actually traditional sailing vessels with armor plating, the use of steam power led to a completely different design. The USS Monitor was the first ship of this new type (all ships like her would henceforth be referred to as monitors). Her top deck was only 18 inches above the waterline and the only structures rising from the hull were a small pilothouse and a rotating turret that housed two cannons. Although not called this at the time, the Monitor was really a semi-submersible ship.

The CSS Virginia began life as the USS Merrimack, a 40-gun frigate commissioned in 1856. When the Union Navy evacuated the Norfolk Navy Yard in April, 1861, they burned the Merrimack down to the waterline to keep her from falling into Confederate hands. However, the rebels raised the hulk and rebuilt her as what they called an ironclad ram, essentially a wooden ship covered with iron plates and carrying non-rotating cannons. Many people still refer to the Virginia as the Merrimack, since the Union never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate government.

The Virginia’s first mission was to attack the Union blockading squadron near Hampton Roads, Virginia. The Virginia began her attack on March, 8, 1862 and consequently sank the USS Cumberland and the USS Congress. The USS Minnesota was run aground to avoid sinking. But when she returned on the 9th to finish the job, the Monitor was waiting for her.

The battle that followed lasted four hours. Neither ship was seriously damaged and tactically speaking, the fight was a draw. However, the Monitor had successfully defended the blockading squadron while the Virginia had to return home without sinking anything. Strategically, the Union won the day.

Neither ship would survive to see the end of 1862. The Virginia continued to sail down the James River in hopes of confronting the Monitor again, but the Monitor’s captain was under orders not to engage her opponent. In May, 1862, the Union re-occupied Norfolk. The Virginia could not retreat up the James River due to her deep draft, nor was she very seaworthy. Instead, her crew set her ablaze and watched as her magazine exploded, sending the ship to the bottom.

The Monitor lasted a while longer, but her very design sealed her fate. While under tow near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, she was swamped by the high waves crashing over her low deck. She sank, losing 16 of her 62 crewman.

Pancho Villa Raids Columbus, March 8, 1916

Listen here

Today in 1916, two hours before sunrise, more than 500 Mexican raiders led by Francisco "Pancho" Villa crossed the US border and attacked the small town of Columbus, New Mexico. The raid marked the beginning of a confrontation with the Mexican revolutionary and helped the citizens of the United States wake up to the fact that isolation and neutrality brought no guarantees of security and peace.

Columbus, New Mexico was a typical border town. Its only distinguishing characteristic in 1916 was Camp Furlong, a nearby Army post manned by 350 men from the 13th Cavalry Regiment out of Fort Meade, South Dakota. Their presence brought a sense of security to the area. But a revolution was raging in Mexico, a revolution that would soon spill across the border and into the lives of both the town's citizens and the unprepared soldiers of the camp.

The attack came from the southwest around 4:20AM. The raiders were not in Columbus to kill, but to raid. While their true intentions remain unknown, it is likely that the group was short on supplies, weapons and ammunition. This theory is supported by the fact that most of the damage was wrought in Columbus' business district. Had they wanted to destroy the town and kill its citizens, they most likely could have done so. Some townspeople believed that the rebels were retaliating against a local arms dealer who had received payment from Villa for weapons and then never delivered them.

As it was, the damage they caused was extensive. Most of the buildings in the business district were either totally consumed by flames or suffered major fire damage. Camp Furlong was attacked but received little damage, possibly because the raiders did not know how many soldiers were stationed there and did not want to find themselves surrounded by a numerically superior force. Many residents fled their homes and either headed for the desert, the local schoolhouse or the Hoover Hotel.

The noise from the raid alerted the garrison at Camp Furlong. Soldiers were soon running to the business district, weapons in hand. Two crew-served machine guns were set up, one in front of the Hoover Hotel and another on East Boundary Street. This created a deadly crossfire. As the sun began to rise and Pancho Villa's men ran from the murderous machine gun fire back towards the border, the damage assessment began. Almost 75 of Villa's men lay in the streets of Columbus; 18 Americans, mostly civilians, died there as well.

The American response to the raid was swift. General John "Black Jack" Pershing arrived from Fort Bliss, Texas, two days after the raid and established Columbus as his base of operations. In less than 48 hours, soldiers from other cavalry regiments began to arrive. Soon, they numbered over 5,000 and made Columbus, at least temporarily, the largest city in New Mexico. On March 16th, exactly a week after the raid, Pershing and his men crossed the border into Mexico on what came to be called the Punitive Expedition. Their mission was to capture Villa and scatter his rebel army.

Supporting a growing army of 5,000+ men in northern Mexico proved to be a logistical nightmare. Pershing could not initially gain permission to use the Northwest Railroad to transport men and supplies, so his army resorted to using trucks and mules. Army trucks of 1916 were not the specially-designed, rugged machines we know today---they were mostly bought straight from the manufacturer in the same configurations that were offered for sale to the public. On the crude and often non-existent roads of Mexico, maintenance soon became a major problem. In addition, thousands of horses needed to be shod, feed and watered at regular intervals. 

Pershing had Army aircraft at his disposal for aerial reconnaissance, but the small, underpowered planes were easily grounded by strong winds. In addition, Villa's men knew the area well and utilized the rough terrain to remain virtually invisible. Still, Pershing's use of airplanes and his partial reliance on mechanized ground transportation helped bring the US Army into the 20th century.

The expedition eventually pushed 300 miles into Mexico, but Villa was nowhere to be found. The local population was of little help as many citizens supported the rebel leader and disliked the idea of foreign troops riding through their country. In January, 1917, the expedition was recalled; by then, it was a force of more than 10,000 soldiers. Pershing took his force to El Paso, Texas, where they were welcomed as heroes. The Punitive Expedition marked the last time a unit of United States Cavalry took to the battlefield on horseback. 

Pershing called the journey into Mexico a learning experience, and a timely one: in April, 1917, the US Congress declared war on Germany, drawing the nation into the First World War. The strategies of modern combat devised in Mexico would serve the American Army well in Europe, considering that Pershing was placed in command of the American Expeditionary Forces. One of the young officers who gained valuable experience in Mexico was a man named George Patton.

Pancho Villa retired from rebellion after three more years of fighting. He reached an agreement with the Mexican government in which he would move to Durango. It was near there on July 20, 1923 that he was killed by gunmen while driving home. He was 45. Although never proven, it has been theorized that powerful players in the Mexican government arranged the assassination.

The Zapruder Film Premieres, March 6, 1975

Listen here

Today in 1975, the Zapruder film was shown to the American public on television for the first time. It is the most complete visual record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which took place in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963. The story of the film’s creation, subsequent ownership and virtual disappearance from public view for 12 years has become the stuff of legend and one of the many twisting, turning tales to emerge from that terrible day in Dallas 47 years ago.

Abraham Zapruder was the very essence of the American Dream. Born in the Ukraine, he immigrated to the United States with his parents in 1920 during the turmoil of the Russian Civil War. Just 15, he studied English at night and spent his days learning about the garment industry in New York City. In 1954, he co-founded his own clothing company in Dallas, Texas; his office was located in the Dal-Tex Building just east of the Texas School Book Depository and diagonally across from Dealey Plaza. On the day of President Kennedy’s visit to Dallas, Zapruder announced his intention to watch the motorcade as it passed by. He had no intention of filming the proceedings, but went home earlier in the day to get his Bell + Howell Zoomatic movie camera at the insistence of an assistant. Abraham Zapruder’s life would never be the same.

The film that would one day form so much of our national memory of that day is 26.6 seconds long and without audio. Zapruder caught the President's motorcade as it turned onto Elm Street and passed Dealey Plaza. The fatal shot to the President's head occurred when the car in which he was riding passed almost directly in front of the camera.

Zapruder knew immediately that his camera and what it contained were now of vital importance. As he walked back to his office, he encountered a local reporter who had contacts in the local Secret Service branch. The reporter told Zapruder that he would send a Secret Service agent to the clothing manufacturer's office. Once he arrived back at work, Zapruder sent an assistant out to find a Secret Service agent in case the reporter failed in his mission. Once Agent Forrest Sorrels of Secret Service arrived at the Dal-Tex building, Zapruder agreed to hand the film over on the condition that it only be used to aid the investigation and not be broadcast or otherwise shared. The agent agreed and the men went to local TV station WFAA to have the film developed. While there, Zapruder was interviewed live about what he had seen. The station could not develop the film, so it was taken to Eastman Kodak's Dallas processing plant. Zapruder kept the original and a copy and gave the Secret Service two copies, which were flown to Washington for analysis.

Later that night, Zapruder received a call from a Life magazine editor. The next day, he agreed to sell the magazine the original film and print rights for $50,000. The agreement was amended two days later with Life agreeing to pay Zapruder six annual payments of $25,000 for the television and motion picture rights as well. He donated the first payment to the family of Officer J.D. Tippit, the policemen killed by Lee Harvey Oswald on the day of the assassination. He later added a condition to the sale: that frame 313 of the film be removed from any public showing. That is the frame that shows the fatal shot to the President's head and Zapruder did not want the public to see the horror of the event.

Abraham Zapruder went on to testify before the Warren Commission, the first body convened to investigate the Kennedy assassination. A big fan and supporter of Kennedy, Zapruder broke down while testifying before the panel. He was also called to testify at the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969. This was the case re-enacted in the film JFK. Zapruder died of stomach cancer in 1970.

Life magazine retained ownership of the film through 1975. On March 6th of that year, the ABC network late-night show 'Good Night America' hosted by Geraldo Rivera aired the Zapruder film for the first time. The public response to the event was sudden and intense and eventually resulted in several more government investigations.

Today, the original Zapruder film resides in Washington, DC as part of the National Archives. Abraham's family retained copyright to the film until 1999, when it was turned over to the Sixth Floor Museum, located in the School Book Depository building in Dallas. That museum also owns one of the original copies of the film made during the afternoon and early evening of the day of the assassination.

In the end, Zapruder and his family benefited a great deal financially from the film. An entire generation of conspiracy theorists have also done well for themselves by using the film as proof that there any number of alternate realities related to the assassination. As late as 2003, an ABC News poll showed that 7 out of 10 Americans believe the Kennedy assassination was part of a plot and not the act of a lone killer. Perhaps the Zapruder film raised more questions than it answered.

Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech, March 5, 1946

Listen Here

Today in 1946, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave an address at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri entitled "The Sinews of Peace" in which he stated that "an iron curtain" had been placed across Europe. Every eastern European country behind this iron curtain had fallen or would soon fall under the Soviet Union's influence, both economically and militarily. While it is arguable whether Churchill's speech marked the beginning of the Cold War, it was certainly an accurate predictor of the events that would shape Europe for the next 45 years.

Use of the term iron curtain to describe the divide between eastern and western Europe was not new. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, had used the term early in 1945 to describe the oncoming Soviet sphere of influence. However, it was Winston Churchill who brought the term to public attention. It was soon a household word across the English-speaking world.

Churchill's speech was initially met with widespread condemnation. President Harry Truman even went so far as to offer to send the USS Missouri to pick up Soviet Premier Josef Stalin and bring him to the United States so he could refute Churchill's assertions. Most of the American public still viewed the Soviet Union as an ally since the Second World War had ended a mere seven months before. Their control of half of Europe was still seen as a temporary measure.

The tension between the Soviet Union and the rest of the allied powers was nothing new. During the Russian Civil War of 1918-1920, England, France, Japan and the United States had sent troops to support the White Russians, the forces who wanted to restore the monarchy in Russia. It was not an action easily forgotten by the communists.

On the eve of the Second World War, the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, a non-aggression agreement that, while only lasting two years, made many in the West believe that Josef Stalin was willing to do business with anyone. At the Yalta Conference in February, 1945, Stalin demanded a buffer zone of Soviet client states be allowed to exist to guard against any future attacks on the communist nation. While Churchill was dead set against such a division of Europe, President Franklin Roosevelt agreed to the plan. It would lead to the virtual enslavement of millions of Eastern Europeans.

While many in the western world were angered by Churchill's assertions, those who worked behind the scenes were beginning to see the truth of his words. George Kennan, Deputy Chief of Mission to the Soviet Union, sent a cable to the US State Department on February 22, 1946, a document that would become known as the Long Telegram. In it, Kennan asserted that the Soviet Union perceived itself to be locked in an unending struggle with capitalism and that Soviet leaders did not have an accurate picture of either the outside world or events in their own nation. He went on to call for economic pressure against the Soviet Union. 

Kennan's telegram, which more closely matched Churchill's assertions than any other observation to come from behind the Iron Curtain, was widely circulated at the US State Department and even the White House. The Long Telegram helped to form the basis of American Cold War strategy.

While it can be argued that Churchill's claim of the existence of an Iron Curtain may have been premature in March, 1946, it didn't talk long for its existence to become obvious. By the end of the year, the Truman administration was saying behind closed doors that a reunification of Germany was an impossibility, despite Soviet promises to the contrary. Early in 1948, the Soviets declared their zone of occupation in Germany to be a separate nation, thus creating East Germany. That summer, the Berlin Blockade began when the Soviets closed all the roads from West Germany to Berlin, which was located deep inside East Germany. 

While the blockade ended on May 11, 1949, the Cold War was well underway. Tensions in Europe would rise and fall over the next four decades, but a constant state of pseudo-war always existed along both sides of the Iron Curtain. The fall of the USSR in 1991 and the subsequent opening of Soviet archives has given us a glimpse of what went on in Moscow during those early years of the Cold War.

Churchill's assertion that the Soviets were bent on expansion was true, as was his belief that communist activities in nations around the world were being funded by Moscow. In the end, Churchill was vindicated. His words were true---they were simply delivered to a nation not yet ready to accept reality.

The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapped, March 1, 1932

Listen Here

Today in 1932, Charles and Anne Lindbergh’s 20-month old son, Charles Lindbergh III, was kidnapped from the family’s home in Hopewell, New Jersey. The ensuing months became a strange tale of con men, mob figures, ransom notes, and other details more numerous than can be covered in one short podcast. Because of this event, a German immigrant would go to the electric chair, kidnapping would become a federal crime in the United States, and a nation would become enthralled in an event so heavily reported that writer H.L. Mencken dubbed it “the biggest story since the resurrection.”

The Lindbergh baby, as the couple’s son came to be known, went missing on the evening of March 1st when the family’s nanny found the child missing at 10pm. Charles Lindbergh immediately searched the house and the surrounding grounds, which led to the discovery of a ladder on the ground below the nursery’s second floor window. He also discovered a letter on the windowsill, but did not open it in the hopes that it might contain fingerprints of the kidnapper.

The local police soon arrived and were followed by the New Jersey State Police. It was at this early hour that the investigation began to break down. None of the property was marked off, meaning that policemen and reporters were soon walking in areas that potentially contained clues of the child’s disappearance. No fingerprint evidence was found on the ransom envelope; when it was opened, a poorly written note demanded $50,000 and said that instructions for delivery would be sent in 4-5 days. The note also demanded that the police not become involved.

Lindbergh’s concern for his son’s safety lead him to make many rash decisions and follow many leads without telling the police or, later, the FBI. His advisors initially told him that the Mafia had been involved in the kidnapping, so he contacted two speakeasy owners who were reputed to have mob ties. They turned out to also be working for a New York newspaper, who bought a copy of the ransom note from them. The distinct markings on the note were soon common knowledge, meaning that anyone now had the ability to pose as the kidnapper. 

The Lindberghs eventually came to trust a man named John Condon, who became the go-between for the family and the kidnappers. On April 1, Condon received a letter claiming that the kidnappers were ready to receive their payment, but that the ransom was now $70,000 since the police were involved. The ransom was delivered to a cemetary by Condon and Lindbergh, who were given a note claiming that the child was being held aboard a boat named The Nelly in Martha’s Vineyard. No such boat existed. The Lindberghs had been fooled.

Six weeks later, the body of a toddler was found in the woods about five miles from the Lindbergh home. It was immediately identified by the Lindbergh and the child’s nanny as, indeed, being that of Charles Lindbergh III. However, the body was badly decomposed and even the child’s physician later said that there was no way he could have identified the child beyond a certainty.

With their child supposedly dead, the Lindbergh’s only hope was to catch his killer. They hoped to do this by use of the ransom money, which was composed of marked bills and gold certificates. Their serial numbers had been sent around to any public place in the area where they might turn up. On September 18, 1934, an alert gas station attendant found one of the bills mixed in with others that a customer had used to buy gas. He wrote down the license plate number of the car and called the police. This soon led to the arrest of a German immigrant, Bruno Hauptmann.

A search of Hauptmann’s home turned up $15,000 of the ransom money. As with the Lindbergh home two years earlier, the house was not secured and reporters roamed the place freely. Hauptmann was arrested and charged with kidnapping and murder. The trial was held in Flemington, New Jersey, a small town that was soon overrun with reporters and the curious. Unable to afford an attorney, a British newspaper hired one for him---a man named Edward J. Reilly. People who knew him called him “Deathhouse Riley” because so many of his clients ended up on death row.

Between his incompetent defense team and public pressure, Hauptmann never stood a chance. Despite a lack of certain proof, Hauptmann was convicted of the crimes and was sentenced to death. His appeals process netted the same outcome, except for the fact that the Governor of New Jersey at that time actually intervened on the man’s behalf to no avail.

Bruno Hauptmann was executed on April 3, 1936. The Lindbergh family donated their New Jersey estate to charity and moved to Europe to escape the media spotlight. Soon after and probably because of the Lindbergh kidnapping, the United States soon made kidnapping a federal crime. It remains so to this day.