Book Review: Why the emigrants immigrate – Stories of the English and the New World

If there’s fake news, there’s fake history and this might be the very reason every U.S. citizen should buy a copy of James Evans’s book, Emigrants:  Why The English Sailed to the New World. 

American folklore – which all too often passes for historical knowledge – suggests the Pilgrims came ashore in 1620, made friends with the natives, settling peacefully along the Massachusetts coastline while earlier settlements, Jamestown, Virginia and Newfoundland, Canada, receive little, if any, attention in U.S. classrooms and in the country’s culture. 

And that’s the reason to buy this book.  What Evans does so masterfully is dispel many myths Americans hold near and dear about the country’s founding and writes it so that is neither accusatory nor presumptuous. 

Nearly 400,000 English men, women and children sailed for the New World (which included the Caribbean) in the 17^th century for any number of reasons – to find riches, to escape religious persecution, for safety because they were loyal to the executed English king, Charles I, or because the Old World’s economics provided so few opportunities that they were without a reason not to take what was, for many, a fatal voyage. 

The Pilgrims, of course, are dominant in the story about American settlement.  But as Evans, a BBC historian, suggests, “... religion was not the reason which prompted English men, women and children to emigrate ... Some went to fish – astonished at the teeming resource in the western Atlantic, at a time when European (fishing) stocks were much depleted, thinking that while many crossed and re-crossed the ocean to do so, there might be a benefit in staying to live.”

“In spite of all these reasons for emigrating, there is little doubt that the majority who went from England to America during the seventeenth century did so for none of them.  They were, as it was said of one shipload, ‘mostly miserable poor people.’  They went because they were desperate, and because this was a course, perhaps the only course, which offered some hope ... England, then ... (with) ... Its rising population – what one Londoner called the ‘late unspeakable increases of people’ – ... made ... the majority of opinion (certainly of published opinion) backed a ‘diminution of the people’, by transplanting ‘no small number of them’ into some other soil,” Evans writes.

In other words, as English leaders saw it, the country needed to rid itself of its poor.  If those leaving thrived in the New World, wonderful, that would benefit England.  If they died, well, so be it, a point-of-view that seems all too similar to Mexico’s view of its citizens heading to the United States:  They’re expendable and the home country is better off without them.

Why does any emigrant leave their country – to become an immigrant in a different one? 

The same reason so many Latin American emigrants (as well as others from across the globe) leave their homes – hope that the new country will be better than the current one.

Seventeenth-century England was dangerous, especially during its Civil War, when pitched armed battles between those for Parliamentarian rights and those defending the government and the monarch of Charles I were fought in the 1640s, taking about 85,000 lives.[i]   Charles would eventually be tried and beheaded and the country ruled by Parliament’s leader, Oliver Cromwell. 

England’s economy and employment opportunities were also undergoing fundamental change, colliding with numerous years of crop failure and the “cloth industry, that bulwark of England’s economy, was sickly and collapsing,” leading one man to lament that everything was “‘in a heap of troubles and confusions.’” 

But if political danger and economic troubles weren’t precarious enough, there was always the trouble of being part of a faith that wasn’t fully trusted.  Much of the trauma suffered by those seeing profound problems with the Church of England, or having a different faith, whether it was Puritan, Catholic or Quaker, could suffer dearly at the hands of the authorities, as detailed not only by Dr. Evans but also in an earlier book, by John Barry, entitled, Roger Williams and The Creation of the American Soul:  Church, State and the Birth of Liberty.

The first English settlement – more likely a seasonal fishing camp, say some historians – in the western Atlantic was St. John’s, in what is Canada’s Newfoundland, in the 1580s.  It was a harbor for fishing ships and, in time, the English were joined there by many European fisherman, too. 

The first versions of diversity are also seen in some 17^th century English settlements in America.  William Penn never wanted an exclusively Quaker community in Pennsylvania, telling those who followed him that liberty of consciousness (religious faith) was paramount, especially since he witnessed religious discrimination in England.  In earlier decades, Roger Williams promoted religious tolerance in Rhode Island and the stock holders of some English colonies told their colonists, upset that there was a lack religious cohesion, that it was the least of their worries.

Of course, settlement in America was more than just about fishing, harvesting tobacco and an improved life.  It was also about the century’s global politics.  In other words, it was a chess match, with a series of moves and countermoves.  In many ways, the St. John’s settlement and those that followed were checks against England’s significant European rivals, like Spain, which built a fort in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565, and the Dutch, who started settling New York in 1614.[ii]

Is any of this significant 400 years later?  The great 19^th century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck thought so, Evans writes.  When asked what he thought the pre-eminent fact of the modern world was, Bismarck said, it was that the United States spoke English, inheriting just enough English culture to keep it tied to Great Britain.  Although Bismarck passed before they happened, he likely wouldn’t be surprised to know that this shared language and heritage weighed heavily in 20^th century history, deciding the outcome of both World Wars, the Cold War and the post-war world.  This combined language, culture and history will likely determine world events long into the future.

(For those readers curious to know what distinguishes an emigrant from an immigrant, see the following:  https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/immigrant-emigrant-emigre-refugee-how-to-tell-the-difference)

---

[i] http://www.olivercromwell.net/english-civil-war-casualties.html

[ii] http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/the-united-states-of-america-and-the-netherlands/first-dutch-settlers.php

Publishing Information:

Emigrants: Why the English Sailed to the New World, by James Evans, published Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 2017, 303 pages, including endnotes and bibliography, price:  £20.00

The book is currently available on Amazon.com’s UK website, amazon.co.uk., and the prices you pay will be in British pounds, converted into your local currency on your credit card bill.  The book won’t be available in the United States – according to Barnes & Noble – until early March 2018.

Ich bin ein Berliner

The tragedy of watching President Kennedy’s inspirational 1963 speech in West Berlin, and hearing his now famous phrase, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” met with cheers from the city’s citizens, is that too many people can’t put his words into historical context. 

What they don’t see is what it took for JFK to earn the crowd’s adoration.  It was coming from a people experienced in living under a totalitarian regime, Hitler and his Nazis, who, very suddenly, found themselves at the epicenter of the next greatest political stand off – the fight between freedom and Soviet-style oppression.

Having received the news about the Berlin Wall in August 1961, President Kennedy could have written off West Berlin, letting it fall into the hands of the Soviets and East Germans.  He could have stated there was no strategic consequence to ceding the city.

But instead of taking the easy way out, President Kennedy made a difficult decision, ordering what would become known as the “Berlin Brigade,” a 1,500 strong contingent of U.S. troops, into West Berlin, demonstrating that the United States wasn’t about to allow the Soviet Union and East Germany to occupy the entire city – at least not without a fight.

By doing so, Kennedy was challenging Moscow to a dare – to find out how serious they were about taking West Berlin, since only days earlier they started building the Berlin Wall.

Today, we’re at the same point with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the issue of Ukraine’s sovereignty.  If ever there were an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment for President Barack Obama, this is it.

This isn’t the fight the United States and its allies want.  Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula likely come with more problems than we would prefer to solve.

But the issue isn’t Ukraine alone.  It’s what happens next if we don’t stop Putin now.

Are a country’s borders for real?  Or can they simply be shifted back and moved around at will, depending on which army invades?

When does Putin look at a map of the United States, to see where Russian émigrés are living, and do the unthinkable:  Decide his fellow citizens, inhabiting towns like Ashland, Brookline, Newton, Millers Falls and Sharon Massachusetts; Sharon Springs, New York; Mountain View, California, and various suburbs around Chicago, like Northbrook and Wheeling, Illinois, and think they, too, need to be protected.[i]

In fact, according to the source for that information, there are 101 cities and towns in the United States where many Russian immigrants are living.

Do they require the services of the Russian Armed Forces?

President Obama needs to make the hard decision.  He needs to put a contingent of troops on the ground in Ukraine and in the Crimea, showing Putin that he better withdraw his ground forces.

If he does so, he might just get the “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment he so very much wants.

If he cedes so much as an inch of ground to Russia in this latest international standoff, he looks no better than Jimmy Carter or, worse, Neville Chamberlin.

---

[i] http://www.city-data.com/top2/h64.html

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!

 That iconic American, Mark Twain, said it best:  “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

It shows in the comments from Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, justifying his country’s military takeover of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula:

“He … insisted that if Russian-speaking citizens in the east of

 Ukraine ask for Russia's help, Russia has the right ‘to take all

 measures to protect the rights of those people.’”[i]

And from Adolf Hitler as his forces entered Austria – without a shot fired – in what’s termed the “Anschluss” (or union) in March 1938:

            “The Reich will not permit Germans to be persecuted any longer

             in this territory because of their membership of our nation or

their loyalty to certain views … I have, therefore, decided to place

the assistance of the Reich at the disposal of the millions of Germans

in Austria … soldiers of the German armed forces have been

marching across the entire border of German Austria … They

will guarantee that the Austrian people will shortly be given the

opportunity to decide their future and their destiny by means

of a genuine plebiscite.”[ii]

Before long, posters were going up, declaring, “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!  (One people, one empire, one leader!)

Soon after, Hitler broke up Czechoslovakia, by taking over the Sudetenland, where ethnic Germans lived, and, later that same year, with the acquiescence of Great Britain and France, ended the country’s existence (at least until the war ended).

So here we are, facing the greatest fascist since Hitler, figuring out how to prevent Putin from issuing the next order, which will likely send his troops into combat in the Crimea and on a march toward Kiev.

There’s speculation, by one CNN military analyst, President Obama told Putin he wouldn’t commit American soldiers to resolve this problem.[iii] 

So what’s Putin doing?  Biding his time before making a move that will shock the world even more. 

The tragedy of this situation is that it parallels Germany and the 1930s, a time when a forceful response from Great Britain and France, maybe even the United States, to Hitler’s provocations could likely have averted an even greater calamity, a European war that, all totaled up, killed about 40 million people, maybe more.[iv]

Just like today, no western European nation then had the stomach for military action, even a limited amount, which could stop something worse.

Sure, it’s hard to find a reason Americans and its western European counterparts will fight in the Crimea or in Ukraine but it’s better to initiate a standoff now, when the situation is more favorable to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

In fact, if Putin isn’t forced to withdraw, you can be certain, just as we learned from Hitler, he’ll strike again.  He was emboldened after Obama failed to involve the United States in Syria.  You have to fear what Putin will do next if Obama does nothing now.

Coincidence?

The Anschluss happened nearly 20 years after the end of World War I, a time when many people viewed Germany as a defeated warrior.  It was just over 20 years ago today that Soviet leaders learned they lost the Cold War. 

Right now, many look upon Russia and see what their grandparents and great grandparents saw in Germany up until September 1939 – a country that was.

Putin knows this and, like his long ago predecessor, the czar Peter the Great, he’s reestablishing his country’s former dominance. 

In addition, if this latest provocation shows anything, it’s this:  There’s no such thing as a “peace dividend,” when defense budgets can be cut.  With the end of the Cold War, the world’s more dangerous.

What’s next? 

That’s the question that needs to be answered.  The possibilities are endless but Putin could do any of the following:

• ·      Move against the Baltics.
• ·      Team up with China (one of the few countries supporting Putin’s actions) – it could send one submarine to make sure the United States and its Asian allies are prevented from keeping the South China Sea open to international fishing.
• ·      Align with China to prevent Japan from asserting its sovereignty over the Senkaku islands.  Here again, Russia could send a submarine to make a statement.
• ·      Russia occupies the rest of its former Soviet state, Georgia, also located along the Black Sea.

What can be done?

What’s surprising is that not even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editors saw this one.  They suggested deploying the U.S. Sixth Fleet into the Black Sea, long the dominion of the Russian (and, previously, Soviet) navy. 

An even better idea comes from the playbook of the one president Obama likely admires, Jack Kennedy.

On August 13, 1961, East Germans sealed off the crossing points between East and West Berlin and started building the Berlin Wall.  There was a very good chance they would move into West Berlin, kicking out the United States and its allies from the city. 

Instead of playing a weak hand, President Kennedy and his generals played a strong one.

They created the Berlin Brigade and seven days later, on the 20^th, marched 1,500 U.S. troops into West Berlin.[v]  Tensions were high but East Germany and the Soviet Union received the message – the United States would not be thrown out of West Berlin without a fight.

The same play could be used in Ukraine, perhaps in the Crimea, too.  Put U.S. troops, and allied ones on the ground and on patrol, saying very publicly they’re going to make sure the rights of those supporting the Kiev government are protected.

This puts Putin on notice.  If he fires a shot at an American or allied solider, there will be a vigorous military response.  Otherwise, we’re there as a peaceful force.

Journalist Gordon Brook-Shepherd, in his book about the Anschluss, states that Austria was always the world’s rehearsal ground.  Today, it’s in the Crimea and Ukraine.

If the United States and its allies fail to stand up to Putin, where does the stage go next?  How much worse will it be?

These critical questions require answers from President Obama and his foreign policy experts.

---

[i] CNN.com -- http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[ii] Gordon Brook-Shepherd, The Anschluss, (New York:  J. B. Lippincott Company, 1963), page 188.

[iii] CNN.com -- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1403/03/cnr.05.html

[iv] http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html and http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Austria/Anschluss01.html

[v] http://www.armyheritage.org/education-and-programs/educational-resources/education-materials-index/50-information/soldier-stories/303-berlinbrigade

On The Other Hand: American Troops Defeated

Friday, February 26, 1943
By Combined News Services
ALLIED FORCES HEADQUARTERS, NORTH AFRICA – Germany’s battle-hardened Afrika Korps soldiers, led by the infamous “Desert Fox,” attacked U.S. troops in Tunisia’s Kasserine Pass, handing the Allied forces its second defeat in two months at the cost of more than 6,000 American casualties.

The three-day battle, which pitted American troops against Nazi soldiers led by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, nicknamed the “Desert Fox,” cost U.S. troops dearly: 300 were killed, 3,000 were wounded, and another 3,000 were reported missing, most of them likely to be prisoners of war, Allied military officials said.

German forces pushed American soldiers back more than 80 miles.

This was the second Allied defeat in North Africa in eight weeks and puts the entire Allied war plan on the continent into doubt, Allied military officials said.

“The general accepts full responsibility for this defeat,” said Maj. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith of his commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allies’ commander-in-chief in North Africa. “It causes us to reconsider our strategy and tactics.”

As the Germans struck U.S. lines, American military officials said, chaos ensued, with troops abandoning their positions and weapons and fleeing to the rear. It was, said a U.S. general who requested anonymity, “The worst performance of U.S. Army troops in their whole proud history.”

The first defeat came back in December, just after Christmas, when Allied forces were prevented from liberating Tunis, an important Allied objective because the city’s ports are vital to re-supplying Nazi troops in North Africa.

More than 350 U.S. troops were reported killed, wounded or missing in December’s battle while another 180 British troops were reported killed, wounded or missing.

Earlier this week, British Lt. Gen. Harold Alexander was appointed the new ground commander, leading all Allied ground forces in North Africa and reporting to General Eisenhower.

After inspecting U.S. soldiers on Wednesday, Alexander told one American reporter that “American troops are soft, green and quite untrained. They lack the will to fight.”

Officers on General Eisenhower’s staff told reporters that some American generals in the African theatre may be relieved of their duties as a result of this latest defeat. Eisenhower, however, apparently remains safe in his job.

“There will be no change at the top,” said U.S. Army chief of staff, Gen. George C. Marshall, from Washington. “Eisenhower is our general.”

The latest casualty numbers from North Africa come about six weeks after the War Department reported that the United States lost 60,000 soldiers, Marines, sailors and aviators last year.

Meanwhile, in the Pacific Theatre, Army Maj. Gen. Alexander M. Patch, commander of American forces on Guadalcanal, announced that the island has been liberated from the Japanese. Nearly 1,600 American soldiers and Marines were killed in the six-month battle for the island.

The U.S. Navy also lost of a number of ships and sailors during the battle.

“Total and complete Japanese defeat on Guadalcanal effected today,” said General Patch.

Allied forces on New Guinea are making progress against the Japanese, too.

The latest Gallop poll shows that 53 percent of Americans say that Japan is America’s chief enemy while only 34 percent report that Germany is.


Writer’s question: Would American confidence on World War II have suffered if some of the battles had been reported in this fashion?

On The Other Hand: What Could Have Been

Sunday, December 27, 1942
By Combined Wire Services
WASHINGTON – While U.S. casualties continue to increase across the Pacific, and with a ground offensive recently initiated against Nazi-held North Africa, the president’s war plan to halt Germany's and Japan’s ambitions is under scrutiny by a skeptical Congress, with some members saying that President Roosevelt deliberately provoked a needless war against the two countries.

Nearly 13 months after the most damaging military attack on U.S. soil, the strike against Pearl Harbor, on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu, is now under Congressional investigation. In some quarters of Congress, there are concerns that the President may have either previously known about Japan’s plans to attack the U.S. base – or deliberately and clandestinely provoked a war with Japan, which forced Germany to declare war against the United States.

Worse, Roosevelt’s critics say, once he knew of Japan’s plans to strike Pearl Harbor, he refused to alert his military commanders, so U.S. forces in the Pacific would be caught by surprise. This would then gain U.S. public support for America’s entry into World War II, the president’s Congressional critics say.

Prior to the attack, the Gallup opinion poll said there was little domestic support for fighting either Japan or Germany. After Pearl Harbor, public opinion shifted drastically in favor of fighting both countries.

“If you look at FDR’s actions between 1940 and 1941,” said U.S. Rep. Martin Sweeney (D-OH), “he was trying to find a way to have Japan and Germany fight the United States.”

Shortly after the attack, Congress formed a joint Senate and House committee to investigate its causes as well as the administration’s policies toward Japan prior to the attack.

“We’ve come across a very interesting memo,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), who chairs the committee investigating the surprise attack. “It appears to confirm some concerns that the administration may have been overly aggressive in its approach to Japan” before it attacked Pearl Harbor.

The Senator would give few details about the note but described it as “written by a naval officer who appears to have great knowledge of the Japanese.”

The War Department would neither confirm nor deny the memo’s existence.

Congressional support for the Roosevelt Administration’s war policies is weakening, critics say, because of heavy U.S. military losses.

The Army and the Marines, battling Japanese troops on the Pacific Islands of New Guinea and Guadalcanal, have suffered thousands of casualties. In addition, the Navy has lost a number of ships, including five aircraft carriers, to the Japanese, this year.

Congressional critics say the United States, unprepared for war against Japan, was forced to surrender some of its most strategic Pacific possessions, including Wake and Guam Islands as well as the Philippines.

“Had our military commanders been better led by the President,” said U.S. Sen. Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), “there’s a good chance we would not have been forced to give up our strategic outposts in the Pacific.”

The loss of the Philippines was particularly devastating because 76,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. military force to ever capitulate in the country’s history, surrendered to the Japanese. Coincidentally, the troops surrendered on the 77th anniversary of the day that Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered his army to lay down its arms to forces led by Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, which ended the Civil War.

While the Navy stopped the Japanese at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May and again, in June, at the Battle of Midway, an archipelago just north of Hawaii, the losses for these two victories were costly, including hundreds of planes and two aircraft carriers. The other three U.S. aircraft carriers were lost during other Pacific battles against the Japanese.

Japan’s losses at the Battle of Midway, Navy intelligence says, were even higher, including four aircraft carriers, two cruisers, three destroyers and some small boats. Japan's losses have not been confirmed by Tokyo.

Another military success against Japan, although limited in its effect, included the bombing of Japan. Many of the operation’s details remain secret.

On the ground, however, the fighting situation is quite different. U.S. soldiers and Marines find themselves bogged down battling an entrenched enemy. U.S. losses on New Guinea and Guadalcanal are heavy – into the thousands – because Japanese troops, military commanders say, often fight to the death rather than surrender.

“I’m afraid a lot of people think the Jap is a ‘pushover,’” said Army Air Force Lt. Gen. George Kenney, who heads up the Allied Air Forces in the southwest Pacific. “We will have to call on all our patriotism, stamina, guts, and maybe some crusading spirit or religious fervor thrown in, to beat him.

“No amateur team will take this boy out. You take on Notre Dame, every time you play,” the general said.

Shortly after the mid-term elections, the Army landed troops in Algeria and Morocco to liberate North Africa from German occupation. The operation, under the command of Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, if it is successful, will allow the Allies to move more freely around the Mediterranean Sea.

Prior to Germany’s declaration of war against the United States, diplomatic relations between the two countries had reached a stand-off, with the United States closing 24 German consulates across the country, saying they were havens for Nazi spies.

In addition, the United States loaned Great Britain 50 destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on certain British Naval Bases, including those in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies.

“The destroyer trade was an ‘out-right declaration of war’,” said U.S. Sen. Gerald Nye, (R-ND). “It was a belligerent act that weakened our defenses.”

Seven months prior to the outbreak of war with Germany, the Navy started engaging the Third Reich’s submarines while escorting merchant ships sailing between the United States and Great Britain.

The United States even started supplying Great Britain with materiel it needed to survive Germany’s onslaught. The President defended U.S actions by saying, “If your neighbor’s house is on fire, you lend him your garden hose so your house is safe.”

“We were fighting Germany before the war even happened,” said Senator Ferguson. “It’s becoming quite clear that the President acted without Congressional authority to do that.”

(Writer’s note: This account is entirely fictional. Some of the information is accurate. This article is intended to be thought-provoking. Is it possible for anyone to understand the action’s any country takes during wartime? Are there any similarities between President Roosevelt’s actions, in his attempt to defeat fascism, and those of President George W. Bush, in his attempt to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Could World War II have ended differently?)

Inspired to attack

Let's keep something in mind: The appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain inspired Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain tried hard to keep Hitler in a bottle and even gave away Austria, thinking it would satisfy him.

As we all know, it didn't. Hitler attacked Poland and then followed up that campaign with one against Western Europe.

So, if anyone tells you that the war in Iraq is only inspiring the terrorists and making the United States more vulnerable to attack, ask them this: What did the United States do, before 9/11, to inspire the terrorists?

If anything, we've done more for Muslims than they've ever done for Christians or, for that matter, Jews. At the direction of President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the United States, and its NATO allies, defended Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo with bombing campaigns over Serbia and other parts of the Balkans.

And, I note, there were no Saudi fighter jets, or any other planes from Muslim and Arab countries, flying sorties against the Serbians. If they hate us, fine. But, at the very least, Arabs and Muslims could do a better job of defending their own kind.

In addition, the United States has provided millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians.

Sometimes a country can do nothing, like Great Britain, and yet still be hated by another country, like Germany of the 1930s, or a terrorist group.