Tag Archives: history

Things in American History Worse than Obamacare

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

In the news, I’ve been hearing things about what these Republicans in Congress are griping about how Obamacare is the worst thing that has ever happened in American History. As a former history major in college, I have to disagree big time. Obamacare may not be the best thing since sliced bread but as the worst, not even close. So here I have a list of things in American History that are much worse than Obamacare just to put people in perspective which assures me, the US is certainly going to be okay with it.

Things in American History Worse than Obamacare (Some of these might be according to my opinion):

Concepts: slavery, DDT, Birth of a Nation, Fox News (couldn’t resist), for-profit health care (yes, even the system Obamacare replaces), Blackwater, the Atom Bomb, Social Darwinism, Monsanto, racism, smallpox blankets, anti-intellectualism, abuse of laissez faire, sexism, napalm, child labor, Hays Code, blackface minstrel shows

People (Hall of Shame): Thomas Midgely (inventor of leaden fuel and CFCs), J. Edgar Hoover, Dick Cheney, Bernie Madoff, Jerry Sandusky, Lance Armstrong, Newt Gingrich (first used the government shutdown as a political ploy), Whittaker Chambers, Joseph McCarthy, Jack Abramoff, Dr. James W. Watts (helped popularized the lobotomy in the US), Roger B. Taney (said that blacks have no rights which whites are bound to respect in the Dred Scott Decision), Benedict Arnold, Henry Wirz (warden of Andersonville Prison and only person in the Civil War convicted and executed for war crimes), Nathan Bedford Forrest (responsible for the Fort Pillow Massacre and was first KKK Grand Wizard), Strom Thurmond, Richard Nixon, Anthony Comstock, Jeffrey Amherst, Anita Bryant

Groups: the KKK, the Religious Right, the Dixiecrats, robber barons, global warming deniers

Places: Andersonville Prison, Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, Indian Reservations

Events:

Wars: The Civil War, the Indian Wars, Vietnam War, Korean War,Spanish American War, Mexican Wars, WWI, Attack on Pearl Harbor, War of 1812, Iraq War, Battle of Little Bighorn, Wounded Knee Massacre, Philippine American War, Bataan Death March

Scandals: Watergate, Iran-Contra, Teapot Dome Scandal, Savings and Loans Scandal, Lewinsky Scandal, Plamegat, Enron, Chappaquiddick, Black Sox Scandal, 21 Game Show Cheating Scandal, Hollinger Scandal, Abramoff Lobbying Scandal, doping scandals

High Crimes and Attacks (non-war related): Kennedy Assassination, RFK Assassination,  Lincoln Assassination, Oklahoma City Bombings, Haymarket Riot, Kent State shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Jonestown, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, 9/11,Valentine’s Day Massacre, O. J. Simpson Trial (1990s), Waco, MLK Assassination, the Boston Massacre, Boston Marathon Bombings, Bleeding Kansas, Trayvon Martin shooting, LA Race Riots, the Murder of Matthew Shepard, Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping, New York Draft Riots, lynchings, Tuscon shooting

Disasters: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, Challenger Explosion, Columbia Explosion, BP/Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, San Francisco Earthquake, Johnstown Flood, The Dust Bowl, Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, Chicago Fire, Three Mile Island.

Economic Upheaval: The Great Depression, Panic of 1837, Stock Market Crash of 1929, Wall Street Meltdown of 2008

Crises: Spanish Flu Epidemic, Cuban Missile Crisis, Iran Hostage Crisis, Secession Crisis

Others: Scopes Monkey Trial, Salem Witch Trials, slave trade

Legal Actions: Jim Crow laws, Dred Scott Decision (worst Supreme Court decision in history), Chinese Exclusion Act, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Citizens United ruling, Alien and Sedition Acts, Patriot Act, Fugitive Slave Act, the Intolerable Acts, Comstock Laws, 18th Amendment, Kelo vs. New London (government can use eminent domain for the benefit of selling it to private developers), Indian Removal Act, Death of the Voting Rights Act, Shoot First Laws (unjust when it comes to certain cases)

Bad Policies: Japanese Internment Camps, Prohibition, the Pardon of Scooter Libby, Nullification Crisis, Trail of Tears, US-Soviet Nuclear Arms Race, Cold War, Palmer Raids, spoils system, McCarthyism, voter discrimination, Imperialism, government shutdowns, death penalty, 3/5 Compromise

Of course, this is only as much as I could think of but feel free to list more in the comments section. Still, I don’t think Obamacare is in any way worse than all the things I have already listed from American History, which I can offer a decent explanation. Of course, there are certain items I didn’t list since they may be subject to controversy. Still, if the United States can survive as a country through all this, then I’m confident, it will be fine under Obamacare.

Underrated, Overlooked, Forgotten, and Ignored Historical Heroes who Need More Love

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

Some historical heroes get all the glory and praise even though they didn’t really deserve it. Others perform great deeds but are barely recognized for them for some reason whether it be by race, gender, job, or just that they don’t really fit into the historical narrative. Others are famous for one reason or another but aren’t really fully recognized for their work because they may share some unlikable quality the status quo doesn’t like or their accomplishments just get lost in the historic record. In some ways, history doesn’t do much justice to them either. Here are some of the great historical heroes who need more love. (I’m not including Tesla because he’s on too many lists already.)

1. Frank J. Wilson

His Feats: He was the IRS agent who nailed Al Capone, used the serial numbers on ransom notes to help solve kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby (well, he nailed Bruno Hauptmann), and eventually became head of the Secret Service where he successfully resisted attempts of an FBI takeover orchestrated by J. Edgar Hoover, nearly eliminated the production and distribution of counterfeit money through a nationwide education program, and initiated practices in presidential security which have since become standard procedure, all before retiring in 1947. It’s been said that Al Capone had a plot to kill him which he later cancelled and came to regret.

Why He’s Ignored: Wilson couldn’t bask in the glory of his accomplishments since secrecy was part of his job. Even during his three year investigation of Al Capone, he didn’t even tell his wife about his work if that gives you any idea. So naturally the credit went to Elliot Ness instead.

2. Mary Seacole

Her Feats: She’s best known as a nurse in the Crimean War who used her own resources to set up her own hospital to treat the wounded even though she ended up bankrupt afterwards and her popular made it possible for much of the British public to support her. Known as “Mother Seacole.” Her autobiography was one of the first written by a black woman in Britain as well as successfully combated racial prejudice.

Why She’s Ignored: Well, she’s not actually ignored in Britain and her home country Jamaica, most people in the world have barely heard of her. Also, she was black (though her father was Scottish), not conventionally educated (mostly learned to be a nurse from her mother), and her presence in the Crimean War doesn’t fit well with the Florence Nightingale. Also, Nightingale criticized her for keeping a “bad house” in the Crimea and was responsible for “much drunkenness and improper conduct.” Whether Nightingale was either telling the truth or acting out of jealousy is unclear. Not to mention, there’s some debate over whether Seacole’s achievements were exaggerated for political reasons, especially in recent years. Of course, she’s no Florence Nightingale but even that shouldn’t dismiss her from the history books or even as a pioneer in nursing since she did have an amazing story as well as helped make nursing a more respectable profession . Still, since she was quite popular with the soldiers who were willing to raise money for her, she was certainly no fraud.

3. Helen Keller

Her Feats: Overcame her blindness and deafness after a bout with illness as a toddler as well as graduate from Radcliffe College. Later she became a writer, lecturer, and lifelong activist for the disabled, disadvantaged, women, and ethnic minorities as well as sent money to the NAACP and helped co-found the American Civil Liberties Union.

Why She’s Ignored: Helen Keller isn’t really ignored as a historical figure per se, but almost everything about her and the reason why she’s such an influential figure often is. Of course, this is because to talk about her adult life and how she achieved fame is to acknowledge Keller’s radical politics, namely the fact she had been a Socialist since she was in college. Her radical political views stemmed from her realization of how social conditions had an impact on how likely a person was going to end up disabled. Not only that, but she also knew full well that she was able to receive the guidance she got from Anne Sullivan was because of her privileged background. Her Socialist politics and activities were very well known at the time and she made no secret about them either. If you don’t believe it, here’s a quote of hers from 1911, “The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all … The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands—the ownership and control of their livelihoods—are set at naught, we can have neither men’s rights nor women’s rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease.” Of course, you’ll never hear that from Helen Keller in elementary school. Of course, many conservative parents wouldn’t really want their children to glorify a Socialist, would they? Still, you don’t make it to the TIME 100 of the 20th Century just by overcoming being blind and deaf.

532px-Clarabartonwcbbrady

4. Clara Barton

Her Feats: Well, she was a teacher who started New Jersey’s first public school, a patent clerk (first female to work in the US government), army nurse, humanitarian, political activist, and founder of the American Red Cross as well as ran the Office of Missing Soldiers.

Why She’s Ignored: Well, she’s not really much ignored when it comes to moments of her life such as the Civil War and founding of the American Red Cross. Of course, most people know her for being a Civil War nurse but she wasn’t just that. For one, she started out as a teacher for a dozen years in schools in Canada in West Georgia and was rather successful. She even started a free school in New Jersey which she ended up quitting after being past over for a promotion. After that she worked at the U.S. Patent Office as a clerk, which made her the first woman to hold a job in the US government. After the war, she ran an office to find missing Civil War soldiers whose fate were unknown other than they didn’t come back. Before the Civil War, searching for dead soldiers wasn’t done before even though we take the concept for granted today. The Clara Barton National Historic Site is one of the first national historic sites dedicated to the accomplishments of a woman. However, in American history class, she’s only a footnote.

Helen_Hunt_Jackson_NYPL

5. Helen Hunt Jackson

Her Feats: She was one of the early Native American rights activists who wrote A Century of Dishonor chronicling the mistreatment of Indians that was legally sanctioned by state and federal policy and a novel Ramona. Both books remain in print to this day as she also attracted considerable attention to her cause.

Why She’s Ignored: Well, for one, she was living at a time when Native American rights was a fairly controversial issue (like gun control in some states), especially since the US government’s higher priority was taking land from the Indians and placing them on reservations. Speaking of the US government, she wasn’t well liked by them, the settlers, or the military officers she documented as being corrupt as well as encroaching and stealing Indian lands. Doesn’t fit in the Western movies does it?

6. Dr. Charles R. Drew

His Feats: He was a physician, surgeon, and medical researcher best known for developing techniques for blood storage and applied his expert knowledge in developing large-scale blood banks early in WWII, allowing medics to save thousands of lives of Allied Forces. Also, bears distinction as the first black surgeon selected to serve as ab examiner on he American Board of Surgery.

Why He’s Ignored: Unfortunately the racial politics at the time cost Drew his job after he protested the racial segregation in the donation of blood over it lacking scientific foundation. Also, he was black and most black doctors and scientists weren’t going to be the ones winning the Nobel Prizes in Medicine or be talked about in a school history or science class. I mean most of history was written by white men, right? Then there’s the fact that he’s responsible for saving thousands of lives back in WWII which many white veterans might not even want to admit, especially if they’re from the South. Not to mention, his work in blood storage continues to save people’s lives to this day but not many would want to hear that it was a black man who made that possible.

7. Percy Julian

His Feats: He was a research chemist who pioneered in the chemical synthesis of medicinal drugs from plants. He was first to synthesize the natural product of physostigmine and a pioneer in the large-scale industrial chemical synthesis of human hormones, steroids, progesterone, and testosterone from plant sterols such as stigmasterol and sitosterol. His work would lay the foundation for the steroid drug industry’s cortisone, other cortisteroids, and birth control pills. Later, he started his own company for synthesized steroid intermediates of the Mexican wild yam, greatly reducing the cost of these products to large multinational pharmaceutical companies, helping significantly expand the use of several important drugs. Received more than 130 chemical patents and was the first African American to hold a doctorate in chemistry as well as inducted into the National Academy of Sciences and second African American scientist inducted from any field.

Why He’s Ignored: Still, though Julian’s scientific contributions radically changed the world, perhaps the only recognition he gets nowadays is his own Nova episode called Forgotten Genius. Still, most people outside the black scientific community don’t really know who this guy is. His race has a lot to do with this since any white scientist with a similar list of accomplishments would’ve certainly become a household name. There are other factors in his life that play a role as well. For one, unlike his much more famous counterparts, Julian didn’t spend most of his career at a college but in a corporation (mostly because he couldn’t get an academic position after a scandal got him fired from Howard University. Not to mention, he didn’t have a good chance getting hired anywhere else mostly because he was black and this was pre-Civil Rights Era). Still, working in a corporation isn’t going to help a scientist’s chances receiving a Nobel Prize which Percy Julian certainly didn’t receive (but definitely deserved). Nevertheless, for a man like him to make the kind of contributions he did despite tremendous odds makes him a very significant figure indeed.

JamesMadison

8. James Madison

His Feats: Founding father, “Father of the Constitution,” secretary of state, and 4th President of the United States. He was the first president to lead a nation into war (reluctantly after negotiations and embargoes had failed), first president to face enemy gunfire while in office, and the first (and only) president to exercise his authority as Commander in Chief while in battle. He did all this while presiding over a divided cabinet, a factious party, a difficult Congress, and useless generals. In 1814 as the misnamed War of 1812 continued, he and Dolley were forced to flee Washington while British troops burned down the White House and Capitol. Yet, he still signed a peace treaty with Great Britain later that year, which ended the “Second War of Independence” and resulting in the US losing no territory. Madison miraculously brought peace to America (despite near-treasonous actions by New England), and showed that the new nation still had what it took. Outside the War of 1812, created the Second Bank of the United States, a stronger military, a high tariff to protect the new factories opened during the war, and a federally subsidized road and canal system. When he stepped down in 1817, ex-president John Adams wrote to ex-president Thomas Jefferson (Madison’s former mentor, predecessor, and close friend) that Madison had, “acquired more glory, and established more union than all three predecessors…put together.”

Why He’s Ignored: As a founding father, Madison is very well known since he’s the one delegate from the Constitutional Convention who devised much of the system of the US government as we know today. As president though, he’s best known as Dolley Madison’s husband. And though Mrs. Madison might have had plenty of contributions of her own such as stopping Congressmen from killing each other, playing hostess, saving critical memorabilia from the British, and set precedent for the role of First Lady, Mr. Madison is continually placed on the lists of Top 10 US presidents by academics. Also, the War of 1812 isn’t a significant war on the American radar mostly because it lasted less than 3 years, didn’t have Americans fighting each other or abroad, was fought at a time before photos and film documentation, and didn’t result in the loss or gain of any territory. Not to mention, it only comes up when we talk about “The Star Spangled Banner,” Tecumseh, the Battle of New Orleans (fought two weeks after the war had ended due to slow communication), and Dolley Madison’s heroic actions as the White House burned.

9. Elizabeth Kenny

Her Feats: She an unaccredited Australian nurse who devised a controversial new approach for the treatment of polio before Dr. Jonas Salk developed the vaccine which eradicated the virus in most countries. Her findings ran counter to conventional medical wisdom, which demonstrated the need to exercise the muscles affected by polio instead of immobilizing them. Her principles of muscle rehabilitation would become the foundation of physical therapy. Polio survivor and actor Alan Alda basically stated that she was his main reason for being a feminist since his mother used her methods for treating him.

Why She’s Ignored: Her idea of physical therapy to combat polio though successful stirred significant controversy in the medical community, especially in her own country who questioned her results and methodology. Also, she wasn’t formally trained as a nurse (and might have learned her craft from a midwife.) Then there’s the fact she’s a woman whose methods challenged conventional medical wisdom. Not to mention, her treatments weren’t always successful. Even so, they helped improve the quality of life of thousands of people who probably would’ve ended up paralyzed otherwise and her methods nowadays are considered medical gospel.

10. Beulah Henry

Her Feats: Known as “Lady Edison” she had a role in over 100 inventions though she was more of a visionary who relied on model makers and engineers to bring them to life since she lacked the technical knowledge. Of her many inventions lists the vacuum ice freezer, the “protograph” (a primitive photocopier), the inflatable doll, the can opener, hair curlers, the “Latho” (a sponge that held a bar of soap in the center), and an umbrella with a snap-on cloth cover that allowed it to be color coordinated.

Why She’s Ignored: For one, she’s a woman at a time when the most famous inventors were men. Also, she only took 49 patents while many of her male counterparts took way more for things they weren’t totally their own ideas (I’m talking to you Edison).

11. Walter Reuther

His Feats: Labor activist, trade unionist, and helped make the United Auto Workers a force to be reckoned with as well as helped legitimize the presence of unions as a method of leverage for employers and a powerful political force. He successfully led major strikes against Ford and General Motors during the 1930s and 1940s. Founded Americans for Democratic Action in 1947, negotiated a merger that formed the AFL-CIO, marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, and the list goes on.

Why He’s Ignored: Well, to put it this way, politics. Although Reuther’s union activism was responsible for improving the lives of millions of Americans, he’s not a kind of guy Red State school board would want to see in an American History textbook. Also, the fact he was a Socialist in the 1930s and spent a stint in the Soviet Union don’t help his case either along with a 200 page FBI file. Not to mention, how unions continue to decline in power since the 1980s. I mean conservatives don’t like him at all.

gallery_6

12. Frances Perkins

Her Feats: First US female cabinet member who served as Secretary of Labor under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. She played an essential role in the New Deal program as well as the second-longest US cabinet member in history. Not only did she help pull the labor movement into the New Deal coalition, she also championed many New Deal aspects like the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration (succeeded by the Federal Works Agency and the labor portion of the National Industrial Recovery Act she also played a role in). She helped established unemployment benefits, elderly pensions, welfare,minimum wage, overtime laws, and defined the standard of the 44 hour workweek. She pushed to reduce workplace accidents and helped craft laws against child labor as well as formed policy dealing with labor unions and alleviating strikes through the US Conciliation Service. The US Labor Department building is named after her in her honor.

Why She’s Ignored: Well, there was a recent scandal involving a mural depicting her in the Maine Labor Department Headquarters, which the governor wanted removed. The claims were that he received complaints from state business officials and an anonymous fax charging it was reminiscent of “communist North Korea where they use these murals to brainwash the masses.” He also ordered that the names of seven conference rooms in the state’s labor department be changed, including one named after Perkins. If that gives you any idea why she’s seen as a token cabinet member in a U.S. History book, then here it is.

Historical Villains Who May Not Have Been That Bad

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

427px-King_Richard_III

History is meant to teach us about the past since people are bound to repeat it. However, history has a tendency to be rather subjective since it was written so many years ago so it’s not without bias since people aren’t perfect. Not to mention, history has a tendency to be written by the victors as well as be adapted to certain dramatic media that may not have much account for facts or cares more for entertainment. As a result, some historical villains may end up with undeserved reputations or may seem to be worse than they actually were. So here I have a list of those whose reputation as a villain was based on accounts that were heavily biased or exaggerated. However, this doesn’t include bad guys who deserve their reputation even though they did great things, except in special cases or people considered a hero in one culture but villain in another.

1. King Richard III

You know him as: The villain protagonist in Shakespeare’s Richard III who locks the two princes in the Tower and later kills them just to get the throne of England, drowns his brother in a vat of wine, killed Anne Neville’s father and first husband, and poisoned his wife. He’s also said to be a hunchback and have a limp arm as well as a creepy old man.

Why he may not have been that bad: This is perhaps the most famous case of history being written by the victors since Shakespeare wrote about Richard III during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I whose grandfather defeated the guy at the Battle of Bosworth Field that ended the Wars of the Roses. Not to mention, Richard III was the last ruler of a royal dynasty and it’s almost always the last ruler of a royal dynasty is stuck with the bad historical reputation (Queen Elizabeth I is an exception since she had arranged James VI of Scotland to succeed which made the transition of power rather peaceful, ruled for over 40 years, helped England on its way to becoming a world power, and was called “The Virgin Queen” even after her death). Oh, and there’s the fact he seized power from his own nephews (who were children but still). Still, though Richard III may have been a ruthless ruler but he not much unlike most rulers of his day, especially during the Wars of the Roses. As for taking the throne, yes, he probably did put the Princes in the Tower but we really don’t know what happened to them. However, Richard III just simply had them declared illegitimate on account that their dad was engaged to another woman before he ended up marrying their mom, which was perfectly legal at the time. He also had their sisters and his other brother’s kids declared illegitimate as well and he didn’t do anything with them. Besides, when Richard took the throne, he was already running the country as regent for a child king and England already had two child kings who didn’t turn out that great so many probably would’ve preferred to see an adult on the throne anyway. Not to mention, Henry VII would’ve done the same thing. Still, Richard III probably didn’t betray his older brother Edward, murder any family members, didn’t kill Anne Neville’s father and first husband or forced her to marry him nor poisoned her, and wasn’t as deformed as portrayed even though he had a mild case of scoliosis. And he certainly wasn’t a creepy old man for he died at only 32.

2. Macbeth

You know him as: The villain protagonist in Macbeth whose wife berates him into killing King Duncan after it’s imminent that he will become king of Scotland. Yet, once he does kill Duncan and becomes king him and his wife not only become driven mad with guilt but also he starts a killing spree of his own before he’s killed by a guy who was born via c-section.

Why he may not have been that bad: Believe it or not, Macbeth was a real king of Scotland but he’s nothing like the guy in that Shakespeare play that bears his name. Not to mention, Shakespeare wrote him like to appeal to King James I who was a descendent of King Duncan. And Shakespeare couldn’t depict Duncan as the weak, ineffective, and/or tyrannical ruler he really was which was tantamount to treason in 1606. Also, this was to echo King James I’s belief in the notion of the Divine Right of Kings (despite his succession in England being prearranged). The only thing the play gets right is that  Macbeth killed Duncan, became king of Scotland, and was later killed in battle. However, the real story was that Macbeth killed King Duncan after defeating him in battle who was encroaching on his lands. Though he was eventually killed  in battle himself by the future King Malcolm III, by that time he had ruled Scotland successfully for 17 years as well as known for his charity toward the poor and had even visited Rome during that time. So Macbeth was probably a good king. Not to mention, Malcolm III was even gracious enough to have the guy’s stepson succeed him. Sure Macbeth was an usurper but he wasn’t much of a tyrant. As for Lady Macbeth, we don’t know much about her except she was real, she had at least one child from a previous marriage, and her name was Gruoch (though how much of a role she did have in Macbeth killing Duncan might be debated.)

3. King George III

You know him as: If you’re from the United States, he’s the tyrannical king who raised all those taxes after the French and Indian War that got the colonists rattled up into declaring independence and raging the American Revolution.

Why he may not have been that bad: King George III was actually said to be a decent king who had absolutely nothing to do with those policies that brought on the American Revolution since he was a constitutional monarch who wasn’t really running the country. It was Parliament who saw no problem with instilling taxes without the colonists’ consent and was unwilling to see their American counterparts as equals. George was just a convenient scapegoat who the colonists can blame these policies on since he was head of state as well as the fact that news didn’t travel so fast in those days. I mean the colonists may know that Parliament was running the country but they probably didn’t have any idea who the prime minister was but they certainly knew who was the king. Besides, he very interest in politics. Not to mention, there’s a city in North Carolina named after his wife, Queen Charlotte. In England, George III is remembered as one of the best members of the Hanoverian Dynasty as well as grandfather to Queen Victoria and the king who went nuts near he end of his life (probably senility or dementia).

spanish_inquisition_desktop_copy-5580

4. The Spanish Inquisition and Co.

You know them as: The fanatical religious hit squad that tries and burns people at the stake for heresy, witchcraft, and anything else that challenges the status quo or goes against the Catholic Church. Real frothing at the mouth types and agents of persecution you know.

Why they may not have been that bad: Sure the Inquisition may have been a tool of oppression but they weren’t really living in more enlightened times where it wasn’t unusual for secular governments to persecute people either, especially during the Reformation. I mean until very recent times, there wasn’t really such thing as freedom of speech or religion while torture was considered a standard method of interrogation until the 18th century. Every system of authority tortured people at the time of the Inquisition whether it be a king or a local sheriff. The Spanish Inquisition preferred a psychological method of torture by imprisoning people without letting them know who denounced them and the charges against them until the actual trial. Not to mention, heretics weren’t really much enlightened folks either since there many of them who aren’t much different than radical anarchists. And Protestants also had their own system of persecution of heretics that included other Protestants of different sects and Catholics alike. Still, the Catholic Church may have used the Inquisition to root out heresies in Europe, but they didn’t really execute or harshly torture anyone because clergymen were forbidden to shed blood and usually turned their convicts to the secular authorities to execute them (even though they could still confess and repent before sentence was carried out via auto de fe). As with witchcraft, the Inquisition just saw it as superstitious nonsense and since the 7th century the Catholic Church explicitly forbade belief in witchcraft and persecution of people accused of it and merely investigated witchcraft cases to relieve the witchcraft hysteria. Still, witchcraft was considered a crime under secular law, accused witches were more likely to be executed under the Protestants since the witch craze was more of a Protestant thing, and that the Spanish Inquisition actually ended witch burning in Spain a whole century before the witch-hunts began to wane in the rest of Europe. They also held that allegations of witchcraft be backed by solid evidence and if you were accused as a witch in a case that involved the Inquisition, your chances of surviving the accusation were pretty good. And in some ways, the Inquisition was more progressive for it’s time since it introduced the legal concept of presumption of innocence, had inquisitors provide the accused with legal counsel, considered confession without factual corroboration an unfit grounds for sentence, and was forbidden to accept accusations from ex-convicts or people who could benefit from the sentence. Secular courts at the time observed none of that. Also, most of what we hear about the Inquisition came from Elizabethan Era writings that basically greatly exaggerated them and not all Inquisitions were religiously motivated either. For instance, the Spanish Inquisition was more of a state ministry started by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to convert the Moors and Jews, reform the Church, punish heretics, and correct superstitions. But mostly the Inquisition was more or less after heretics and didn’t have as many killed as many would think. By our standards the Inquisition may only seem like notorious villains in history but by the context of the day, not so much, especially given the events of the day.

5. Cardinal Richelieu

You know him as: One of the villains in the Alexandre Dumas story The Three Musketeers and subsequent adaptations. Said to be pretty devious guy. Has awesome red robes and a cool mustache to boot.

Why he may not have been that bad: Cardinal Richelieu actually ran France while King Louis XIII was still a child and even though he was a devious man, is considered one of the greatest statesman of France who helped make the country a superpower later in the 17th century. There’s even a painting of him that depicts him standing proudly in armor. Dumas probably thought that shiny red robes and awesome mustache would make him a great villain. Not to mention, many of those adaptations were British and American after all and Britain was an enemy of France at the time. Ruthless leader, yes, but what kind of person in power wasn’t in the 17th century?

6. Emperor Nero

You know him as: The Roman Emperor who fiddled when Rome burned and blamed it on the Christians even though he set the city on fire deliberately to make room for a palace extension. The one who killed his mother and first two wives as well as an arrogant and insane megalomaniac who forced people to attend his performances and locked them in the auditorium so they wouldn’t leave. Saw himself as the greatest artist who ever lived. Not to mention, eventually committed suicide.

Why he may not have been that bad: Most of what is written about Nero that survives to this day was by people who personally knew and hated him (an exception would be his friend Senectus who praised him). So there’s a question of historical reliability here and some of the bad things he did might have been exaggerated. Sure he may not have been a pleasant man and he probably was a great lover in he arts yet as an emperor, he probably was not much worse than those who ruled in his day. He might have blamed the Great Fire of Rome on the Christians but he most definitely didn’t set fire to the city and when he heard the news of the fire while in Actium, rushed back to the city to oversee the relief efforts and paying out of his own pockets quite generously. As for his second wife, she might have died due to a difficult pregnancy and it’s said he had a good reason for killing his mother. Was also said to have great affinity from the common people which doesn’t really look good for the aristocratic Roman historians.

Rasputin-PD

7.  Grigory Rasputin

You know him as: The “Mad Monk” and evil sorcerer and madman who had the Russian Imperial family under his supernatural spell and took advantage of them because it was said to be able to heal the Czar’s hemophiliac son.

Why he may not have been that bad: Rasputin wasn’t an evil sorcerer and though he did enjoy great perks for his close relationship with the Royal family, he certainly didn’t have an affair with the Czar’s wife Alexandra and might have helped Czarevitch Alexei by not giving him aspirin. At worst he was probably a harmless and eccentric religious figure that many of the Russian aristocracy was jealous of him as well as a convenient scapegoat for Nicholas II’s failed policies in Russia. I mean Russia was an absolute monarchy so Nicholas II might have had the aristocrats executed if they blamed him. Rasputin was no saint but he wasn’t a monster and certainly didn’t kill the Imperial family since he was dead before the Russian Revolution ever took place.

8. Catherine de’ Medici

You know her as: The French queen who instigated the Saint Batholomew’s Day Massacre in which tens of French Protestants were killed. Said to be a “Catholic bigot” who washed  her hands in the blood of innocent Protestants. She was an admirer of Machiavelli and used The Prince as a self-help manual to ensure that her husband and sons ruled France. Hundreds of noble and wealthy Frenchmen died by her hand or otherwise. She even arranged to have her son Charles to be sexually abused by courtiers in an unsuccessful attempt to turn him gay so that he died childless and his younger brother Henry (who she adored) would become king (Charles died childless anyway).

Why she may not have been that bad: As one of the cruelest rulers of the early Renaissance, Catherine de’ Medici certainly deserves her bad reputation as a ruthless power behind the throne of France as well as an abusive mother not above using her children as political pawns. Though to be fair, she was running the country during a very unstable time such as the Reformation which put France in almost complete chaos with a significant Protestant population. Not only that but three of her sons succeeded to the French throne at a very young age so it’s pretty understandable why she’d rule through her kids. However, calling a “Catholic bigot” is a bit much for she probably wasn’t as much of one as English contemporaries make her out to be. Sure she was pro-Catholic and certainly no friend to the Huguenots, yet she wasn’t the most anti-Protestant ruler in Europe out there. Yet, she was more of a pragmatist than anything who was willing to at least try to make peace with the Protestants and was only willing to enact hard line policies against them and only out of anger and frustration because she failed to grasp the theological issues that drove the movement. Even so, she was willing to let her daughter marry one who did (who would later become Henry IV of France by the way and issue the Edict of Nantes). As for the St. Batholomew’s Day Massacre, though she probably does bear the brunt of making the whole thing an honest to goodness massacre, it’s very unlikely that she was totally responsible for it (actually most modern historians think the Guises instigated it out of fear of the marriage between Margaret of Valois and Henry of Navarre, but it was only Henri, Duke of Guise who went around placing Huguenots under his own protection and was one of the few Catholic participants to apologize for the whole affair) and was certainly more of a spur of the moment event (might have been kicked off by accident with the killing of Admiral de Coligny). However, if she was partly responsible, it had more to do with preventing a Huguenot insurrection over the death of de Coligny more or less acting on Machiavelli’s advice to kill all enemies in one blow. Still, accounts of the slaughter are pretty much a tangled mess and soon spiraled out of control of Catherine or any other leader. Also, there were even some Catholics like the Guises whose attitude against Protestants Catherine found too extreme. In turn, the Guises thought she was letting the Huguenots have it too easy. Still, though Catherine de’ Medici was the de facto leader of France, her authority was always limited by the effects of the French Civil Wars of Religion. Cruel and ruthless she certainly was but she seemed to have a good reason to be.

Antonio_Saleri_by_Natale_Schiavoni

9. Antonio Salieri

You know him as: Contemporary of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as well as his chief rival and discreet murderer who poisoned him while he requested the Requiem Mass, which would be the younger composer’s last. Always had a inferiority complex toward Mozart, though he did have talent. Also said to be a celibate pervert who lusted after students. This perception was popularized by Amadeus.

Why he may not have been that bad: Of course, Salieri wasn’t nearly as talented as Mozart was, he was still a fantastic composer and would later end up mentoring later composers like Ludwig von Beethoven, Franz Lizst, and Franz Schubert along with plenty of others. Heck, it could be said that Salieri’s legacy is one of the greatest in European music so he was no mediocre talent by any standards. Besides, he could listen to a music composition in his head while reading the manuscript which is quite a feat of musical ability in itself. Still, Salieri and Mozart weren’t rivals but friends and collaborators though Mozart was said to be pretty annoying that it was even remarked by Franz Joseph Haydn that he made a hundred enemies at a single party. Sure they were competitors on a professional basis but the two greatly respected each other (though they had one major dispute over The Marriage of Figaro) as well as attended each other’s operas. Salieri actively helped to bring about the premieres of several of Mozart’s later works as well as arranged concerts celebrating Mozart’s work after his death. And when Salieri was given the chance to set up a production in Vienna, of anything he wanted, he chose The Magic Flute. He even taught one of Mozart’s sons. Still, Salieri certainly didn’t kill Mozart (it was said to be an epidemic of rhuematic fever), didn’t commission the Requiem Mass (though Mozart never knew who did but we know it was Franz von Walsegg), didn’t try to sabotage his career behind the scenes, didn’t go nuts and try to kill himself, and wasn’t a celibate pervert (he had a wife). Actually, the rivalry between Salieri and Mozart was made up in the 19th century to represent the musical rivalry between Germany (well, Austria’s a separate country, but they speak German there, too) and Italy.

10. King John

You know him as: That selfish royal asshole as well as greedy and ambitious Prince John in the Robin Hood stories who has desires on becoming king and is willing to seize the English throne while his brother Richard the Lionheart was away on Crusade. Known as an incompetent and idiotic king who managed to get the whole country excommunicated, losing territory to the Welsh and the French, and was forced to sign the Magna Carta. Always put himself first and would kill anyone who’d get in his way as well as willing to betray his father and brothers on several occasions to further his goals.

Why he may not have been that bad: Sure King John wasn’t one of  England’s greatest kings but he certainly wasn’t the villain the Robin Hood legends make him out to be. However, the reason why King John is depicted as such is that he could never get away from Richard’s shadow who seemed to be the pinnacle of knightly chivalry and charismatic leader. John, on the other hand, had a nasty habit of making enemies (like the nobility who basically forced him to sign the Magna Carta, but then again, Richard the Lionheart’s constant absence sort of gave the nobles too much free rein so John’s attempts to take control again were met with hostility) and like his older brother also increased taxation to incredible levels to fund wars commanders deemed hopeless. Still, except in matters in military and public relations, John wasn’t a totally incompetent ruler and unlike his brother, actually spent most of his reign running the country. He wasn’t illiterate or stupid by all accounts and  was even known to be seen as a bookish scholar who had written many books on law as well as considered one of the premier legal minds of his age, so much so that his judgement had often been sought prior to his kingship in regards to legal disputes. He’s also recognized as the founder of the modern British navy (which is a pretty big distinction since Britain basically amassed an empire with it). Many of Richard’s disastrous peacetime and his hostage situation basically bankrupt the country so there’s probably a good reason why John would scheme to become king. And though John always put himself first and would kill anyone who’d get in his way even in his own family to further his own goals, this wasn’t an uncommon characteristic of a medieval monarch. In fact, from watching Lion in Winter, you can say his whole family was like that. King John may not have been a nice guy but he wasn’t a complete idiot who just lusted for power.

11. Emperor Caligula

You know him as: That crazy megalomaniac Roman emperor known to make his horse a consul, talking to statues, locking granaries, declaring war on Poseidon (and then “winning,” then commanding his soldiers to collect seashells as war prizes), boning his sisters (or anything else that moves), having a god complex, possibly killing his uncle, and the list goes on and on with many of these deeds making even a Third World dictator blush. And since Caligula means “Bootsie,” kneel before Bootsie, you plebeians! And he hated his nickname, reportedly.

Why he may not have been that bad: Well, there’s no mistake that he probably had megalomaniac tendencies since he and his entire family were killed by his own bodyguards (everyone but Claudius who the guards thought he was too stupid to be a danger. They fell for it. And, yes, they even beat his two-year-old daughter to death, too.) I mean how crazy do you have to be killed by your own bodyguards along with your entire family? Sure he wanted to increase his authority which made him unpopular with the Senate. However, there aren’t that many contemporary sources out there and what sources we do have about him were written about 80 years after his death during another dynasty of Emperors (who always liked to demonize their predecessor). Thus, how much of those stories are true or whether there were exaggerations is up for debate. He probably didn’t make his horse a consul or bone his sisters (though one of them served as his empress but they were both married to other people. His degree of craziness is also questioned though many agreed that he probably was a decent emperor until perhaps 6-8 months into his reign when when he was struck by a serious illness that might have resulted in brain damage and altered his personality. Yet, recent archaeology revealed he may have been a redhead. Crazy megalomaniac, absolutely but we don’t know how much.

12. Captain William Bligh

You know him as: That sadistic captain on Mutiny on the Bounty. A ruthless autocrat on his ship who subjected his men to harsh punishments that caused the deaths of at least two sailors. Soon the crew grew fed up with him and committed mutiny against him after their vacation at Tahiti staged by First Mate Fletcher Christian. However, though he managed to make home despite amazing odds, he manages just to get a slap on the wrist for it.

Why he may not have been that bad: Though Bligh might not have been the greatest captain, he certainly not the worst by 18th century Royal Navy standards. In fact, he was probably no more brutal than your average 18th century Royal Navy captain and in his time, Bligh may have been seen as fairly strict, but fair, and not as strict as he could have been. In some ways, Bligh might have been too lenient for his own good. More modern historians tend to blame the cause of the mutiny not on Bligh’s harsh disciplinary methods but on him giving the crew a nice long vacation in the tropics of Tahiti, causing them to be oversensitive to discipline. It also didn’t help that Bligh wasn’t a likeable captain who inspired loyalty and that some of the crew members began to develop relationships among the Tahitian women, including Fletcher Christian. Not to mention, there were crew members who remained loyal to Bligh after the mutiny who were in the lifeboat with him. Otherwise, he might not have been able to make it back.

458px-Marie-Antoinette,_1775_-_Musée_Antoine_Lécuyer2

13. Marie Antoinette

You know her as: The French queen who told her impoverished French subjects, “Let them eat cake” prior to the French Revolution which cost her and her husband’s heads. Sometimes seen as an airhead but other times she’s a decadent noblewoman who spends all her time and state money on partying and dresses while callously ignoring the suffering of the people. Some say she was a slut or the real power behind the throne.

Why she may have not been that bad: Marie Antoinette might not have done anything to start the French Revolution at least intentionally. Of course, her husband Louis XVI is demonized as well but he was the one who was actually governing the country at the time and was a weak and indecisive ruler. Also, he spent way more money than she did (mostly on wars like the American Revolution). And though she was spending money on dresses and her time partying, so was everyone else at Versailles so she basically had to. Yet, Marie Antoinette didn’t much care for the Versailles party scene and even had a retreat house where she could relax once in a while. But, still, France’s problems were very much in existence even before Marie Antoinette arrived in France and it’s very unlikely that she didn’t even know anything about the country’s problems because Louis XVI didn’t consult or even inform her on matters of the state so she had no influence whatsoever on his policies. Not to mention, Marie Antoinette was really a kind young woman who was unprepared for becoming queen, and tried to cope with things the best she could. She never said, “Let them eat cake” either. Still, because she was Austrian, she was a frequent target of the pamphleteers which were the tabloids of the day. Though she was certainly extravagant, she was no more extravagant than other royal family members.

14. Niccolo Machiavelli

You know him as: The author of The Prince, a book long time considered as a go-to guide for unruly despots with its endorsements of ruthlessness and amorality, which caused such a scandal. Also, it was the first political treatise and entirely secular work during the Renaissance. Ever since his name has been associated with duplicity, ruthlessness, dishonest, and other unsavory character traits. Best known for saying, “And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”

Why he may not have been that bad: First, The Prince is really not a book that advocates selling your soul for power or endorses policies of  Third World dictators, but is merely about maintaining for the good of the prince and ultimately the state and “However, it is important above all to avoid being hated.” Thus, Machiavelli wrote The Prince with its original message being about the importance of pragmatism, one of the attributes of modern politics. However, “the ends justify the means” is more of a mistranslation and something Machiavelli  would approve of. It’s more or less “one must think of the final result” or the ultimate effect the words would have on a prince’s political image. Also, he kind of advised to avoid being hated which many people tend to forget. Second, at the time he wrote the book, Italy was in a chaotic state so to keep order, a prince had to pretty much rule with an iron fist and there was plenty of competition for power. In that time a ruler had to be ruthless, nasty, and tyrannical just to get and maintain the job. Third, Machiavelli probably wrote the book in order to ingratiate himself with the Medici family who had just taken over Florence (who promptly ignored his advice since they chose to be universally loved and ended up massively in debt for it). Then there’s Machiavelli himself whose other works (that were discovered in more recent times) mostly were about supporting republican regimes with a major emphasis on freedom (though advocated using similar means to operate and maintain). Also, he was actually more of a very sociable satirist who who also happened to be and observant historian and good rhetor. He was probably more or less the Jon Stewart of his day and friends with Michelangelo.

15. Lucrezia Borgia

You know her as: The scheming, amoral poisoner who abetted her father and brother in their Machiavellian plans to dominate Europe. Her last name was a synonym in Victorian times for sadistic female poisoner. Also said to have committed incest with her father and brother.

Why she may not have been that bad: Technically, this could apply to her family since the Borgias were no more murderous than any other prominent family at the time in Renaissance Italy and mostly got a lot of flack since they were social climbers, were mentioned in
The Prince, and were Spanish. As with Pope Alexander VI, a recent biography states that there’s no evidence that he had any kids since there are no contemporaneous records of him having a wife, mistress, or children it’s unsure how he’s related to Giovanni, Caesare, and Lucrezia. Thus, it might have just have all been gossip since Savonarola criticized him on committing every sin but sexual immorality. However, I’m mostly sticking to Lucrezia since she got most of the blame even though she’s the most innocent of the bunch. She only got the bad rep by her contemporaries because she was a convenient scapegoat. Rather, there’s no evidence that she ever harmed a flea, let alone commit multiple murders. Still, she might have had it much easier if she had been a poisoner. She was more or less used as a pawn for the family to ally with powerful families through marriage, and then canceling the marriages when they weren’t useful anymore. Also, she didn’t commit incest either (for she was certainly not the mother of the mysterious baby that appeared between her two marriages) and she probably never had sex until her second marriage (though there is some speculation). However, she did have a few affairs during her third marriage but that’s just as bad as she got. Not to mention, as the respectable and accomplished Duchess of Ferrera, she managed to rise above her previous reputation and survive the fall of the Borgias following her father’s death.

515px-Cleopatra_-_John_William_Waterhouse

16. Cleopatra VII

You know her as: Last ruler of Egypt who was seen as a scheming femme fatale whose sins led to her death and to the destruction of Egypt as an independent nation. Known for seducing Marc Antony and Julius Caesar and killed family members like the two half-brothers she married. Killed herself via asp.

Why she may not have been that bad: Cleopatra may not have been a great beauty but she certainly wasn’t embarrassed about her looks either. She did have a bewitching voice and a strong, forceful personality. Also, she was Macedonian Greek and descendant from one of Alexander the Great’s generals. Still, though she did seduce Marc Antony and Julius Caesar, she probably saw it as a legitimate way to convince them to help restore order in a country quickly approaching lawlessness and poverty while at the same time preventing Rome from invading and enslaving the populace. Of course, she didn’t entirely succeed in the end, but neither did she entirely fail either. Oh, and the killing off family members, that was standard practice in Egyptian royalty. There are also some scholars who believe that the asp story was a cover-up and that Cleopatra was killed on the orders by Octavian. She might have been a schemer, but her aim was to keep Egypt independent and only failed because Rome was the stronger power and that Marc Antony was there who was also Octavian’s rival at the time as well as dumped his sister.

17. Queen Hatshepsut

You know her as: The wicked stepmother who stole the throne from Thutmose III and had herself crowned King of Egypt as well as ruled the country with an iron fist until her death despite her stepson being a competent adult for most of her reign and was in control of the military. Proof? After Hatshepsut’s death, Thutmose walled up all her inscriptions, tore down her statues, and obliterated her name from the histories. Also, Thutmose is said to have murdered her before becoming Egypt’s most  successful and best loved ruler.

Why she may not have been that bad: So how could a woman in ancient Egypt like 1514 BCE stage a successful palace coup while her opponent had complete control of the military? Chances are Queen Hatshepsut probably wouldn’t have lasted that long and Thutmose would’ve certainly have killed her as she done so. Yet, she was even in charge while he was an adult. Also, Hatshepsut’s obliteration from the historical records didn’t begin until twenty years after her death. Historians now think that Hatshepsut and Thutmose III were co-rulers and allies and that Thutmose III or one of his sons only began to wall up her inscriptions because even decades after her death, people saw her as a more legitimate ruler than Thutmose. Perhaps Thutmose III wasn’t ancient Egypt’s most successful and best loved ruler after all. Also, Hatshepsut more likely died of cancer than anything else.

Historical Heroes Who Probably Don’t Deserve Their Fame

Posted by historymaniacmegan on

Image

As with fictional heroes, there are plenty of real life examples of real life heroism as well, especially in history. Some of them could be said to be our role models and inspirations as well as those whose stories are told time and time again. Of course, there are those who do great deeds in history which are heroic and then there are those whose heroism is just a load of crap and doesn’t seem to hold still to the facts. Of course, I’m not going to use recent examples unless there are really serious implications. For instance, I may love to put Ronald Reagan on here since I think he’s one of our worst presidents in the US as well as a highly overrated historical figure, but since many people’s opinions of him usually depend on their political affiliation, I know that to make that move would be controversial. Not to mention, I’m not going to put on movie stars, writers, and other celebrities unless known to accomplish something big.

1. Wyatt Earp and Co.

Known for: The famous 1881 gunfight at the O. K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona against a group of outlaw Cowboys of ranches who were unhinged of the silver boom in the area, which killed Tom and Frank McLaury as well as Billy Clanton. Of course, Wyatt Earp is the best known but his brothers Virgil and Morgan as well as friend Doc Holliday were there as well. However, I’m just going to stick to Wyatt Earp since he’s the most famous of the bunch. Wyatt was said to be a respected and fearless lawman who helped bring law and order to the town of Tombstone. Has the reputation as the “toughest and deadliest gunman of his day.”

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: Wyatt was very savvy with PR  as well as blessed with the gift of longevity so he was able to develop his modern image, which he did during the 1920s as a consultant for an article and a movie about his life. He even gave an interview for a biography that was published after his death (which is now considered mostly fiction by today’s standards). However, before the 1920s, he was pretty much known as a dubious minor figure in Western history. And his reputation has been confused by inaccurate, conflicting, and false stories told about him by others and by his own claims that cannot be corroborated. And though he did have a reputation as a lawman, he didn’t really help bring law and order to the Old West, especially with the gunfight at the O. K. Corral. In fact, the gunfight only made things worse. For one, after the gunfight, Ike Clanton tried to get the Earps and Holliday charged with murder but the four got by with self-defense. Later on, Virgil was ambushed and shot in the left arm and shoulder by a shot gun in a saloon where Ike Clanton’s hat was found in a building across the street. A few months later, Morgan was shot in the right side by gunmen firing from a dark alley while playing billiards, in which the bullet shattered his spine as well as killed him forty minutes later and eventually lodged in the thigh of George A. B. Berry. Wyatt was almost shot there himself.  Wyatt then decided to take the law in his own hands and resolved to kill all his enemies so he gathered a posse and to pursue the Cowboys in revenge which the Tombstone sheriff tried to stop him from doing. which was bloody. Separating the fact from fiction from Wyatt Earp’s life may be a difficult process, but one thing’s for sure, he didn’t leave Tombstone a better place and was more shadier and self-interested.

2. Jesse James

Known for: Famous Western outlaw and most famous member of the James-Younger Gang who staged many train, stagecoach, and bank robberies and shootings. Said to be a manifestation of frontier lawlessness or economic justice. Said to be the “American Robin Hood.” Said to be shot by the coward Robert Ford.

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: Again good PR comes into play which Jesse was willing to take advantage of and it was mostly done in efforts to encourage the rise of the ex-Confederates in Missouri during Reconstruction, which many ex-Confederates like those in the James-Younger Gang were not too happy about at all and it’s pretty much a given they were no friend to racial minorities. Also, the notion of James being the “American Robin Hood” is pure bullshit because the James-Younger Gang only robbed for themselves and weren’t above killing unarmed soldiers and civilians. Many modern scholars have now placed the James-Younger Gang among those regional ex-Confederate insurgencies following the American Civil War. Not to mention, James was an unstable cold-blooded killer and after the demise of the gang, even the people of Missouri eventually got fed up with him. Oh, he once said he was absolutely committed to slavery and vowed to shoot any black in Missouri not fulfilling his role of a slave. As for Robert Ford, he wasn’t a coward and certainly no fool since he killed James with the governor’s blessing. Still, a lot of famous outlaws have this kind of image, Jesse James is the best known in America.

Image

3. Elliot Ness

Known for: An American Prohibition agent famous for enforcing the 18th Amendment in 1920s Chicago as well as leader of a team of law enforcement agents known as the Untouchables. Also credited with taking down Al Capone.

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: Though he led many raids in Chicago with the help of wiretapping as well as claimed to seize $1 million in booze, Ness had almost nothing to do with taking down Capone at all and his efforts had very little impact on Capone’s operations. Also, is mostly by media savvy where Ness attained his reputation as a man who tried to rid illegal vice wherever he went but was later withered by a series of grisly murders in 1930s Cleveland followed by a string of business ventures such as a stint as chairman of the Diebold Corporation and a downward spiral after that. Not to mention, was said to be a heavy drinker, ironically. Still, if you want to know of the true people who took down Al Capone, then look to the IRS who got him on tax evasion in which the guy on his case was IRS agent and former accountant Frank J. Wilson who also worked on the Lindbergh kidnapping case in which his investigation of the money led to the arrest of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and eventually became head of the Secret Service who nearly eliminated counterfeit operations through an education program, resisted pressure from J. Edgar Hoover to transfer the Secret Service under the Justice Department under FBI jurisdiction, and initiated the practices of presidential security which is now standard procedure. Now where’s Frank J. Wilson’s TV show, Hollywood?

4. Robert E. Lee

Known for: Famous Civil War general and head of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Said to be a father to his men as well as a symbol of Southern Confederate honor that hearken to the days of the Old South.

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: Of course, Robert E. Lee certainly deserves his fame as Jefferson Davis’ top general as well as a Father to his Men. However, his star has been amplified by the Lost Cause Southern historians after the Civil War who paint him as some sort of saint which he certainly wasn’t. In some ways, many Southern whites tend to see him in a way that many Republicans view Reagan. Sure he graduated with no demerits at West Point which still stands, was a great soldier, and sacrificed a lot for his beloved Virginia (such as buddies, citizenship, and Arlington), but he wasn’t great with his family and was certainly no friend to black people, especially his slaves. Sure he might have hated slavery, but he was a slavery apologists as well as one of slavery’s greatest defenders and was very upset about Lincoln’s anti-slavery actions. Oh, and he committed treason against his country as well as partially responsible for so many deaths and why his four daughters were never able to find husbands. As a military leader, Lee might have been able to win battles early in the war, but he was very much a 19th century general who couldn’t adapt to the strategy and tactics that Grant and Sherman were using to defeat him and his colleagues. Oh, and then there’s Gettysburg which was the result of Lee’s planning to stage a Northern Invasion. And we know how that worked out for him.

Image

5. Betsy Ross

Known for: Designing and producing the first American flag during the Revolutionary War. Was said to be a patriotic role model for young girls and a symbol of women’s contributions to American History at least in the 19th century.

Why she doesn’t deserve her fame: Although Betsy Ross was a real women who did have an upholstery business in Philadelphia, the claim of her sewing the first American flag is dubious and might as well been cooked up by her grandson since there’s a lack of historical evidence of the famous story with her and George Washington. Also, her story didn’t come out until after her death. Not to mention, though it wouldn’t be unusual for an upholster to sew flags, she would’ve been one of 17 women who did sew them and might have contributed by using 5-point stars instead of the traditional 6-point stars or the production of it. Then again, the banner might more likely have been designed by Francis Hopkinson who was originally credited with the flag design. Still, there are plenty of Revolutionary heroines out there and other American heroines who contributed much more.

6. William Wallace

Known for: Being Scotland’s greatest hero as well as the inspiration for that God awful Mel Gibson movie (historical inaccuracies abound). A martyr for Scottish independence.

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: Well, not much is known about Wallace but we’re pretty sure that he didn’t sleep with Princess Isabella (who was a child) nor did he father Edward III (who was born nearly a decade after his death). He also wasn’t a Scottish highlander but a minor aristocrat from the Scottish South whose dad fought for the English. Oh, and Robert Bruce never betrayed Wallace either (and was far more successful than him and was actually referred to as Braveheart as well as one of the greatest Scottish heroes whose claim Wallace staunchly supported). Not to mention, Wallace wasn’t above raping women and burning down schools with children and monks still inside. Then again, everybody was pretty brutal during the Middle Ages.

CheHigh

7. Che Guevara

Known for: Being one of the architects for Cuban independence as well as the highest selling T-shirt image. Seen as a hero figure who fought for freedom as well as represented civil disobedience and rebellion.

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: Well, aside from being a Communist (not that there’s anything wrong with that, just ask Upton Sinclair whose novel The Jungle helped start the FDA) he was buddies with Castro and is sort of responsible for putting him and his brother in power and without the Castros, there probably wouldn’t be a Cuban Missile Crisis. Also, personally killed hundreds of people to spread communism to “liberate” the poor. Not only that, but had a strong dislike for rock music that he saw as a product of American Imperialism, even going as far as to have Cuban rock fans imprisoned in labor camps. Then there’s the fact that there some fellow Communists who couldn’t stand him either.

8. Guy Fawkes

Known for: If V for Vendetta is a guide, he’s basically known as a tragic hero who tried to blow up Parliament and died trying to strike a blow for freedom. He also gave rise to V for Vendetta and the Guy Fawkes mask.

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: He and his co-conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot were terrorists and were more interested in replacing a Protestant monarchy with a Catholic one. Also, he was one of the last men brought in since he worked as a mercenary in Spain that gave him the Catholic sympathies and the demolitions expertise. And it was a Catholic who turned Fawkes in (who got a tip from one of the conspirators Francis Dresham). Not only that, but King James I was quite tolerant of Catholics and might have possibly been married to one (his son Charles had a Catholic wife and son James was openly Catholic for most of his life and his mother was known as the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots). He even handled religious issues remarkably far better than his own successors. However, King James might have granted Catholics greater freedoms if the Gunpowder Plot didn’t happen and he only went along with stricter laws on Catholics because Parliament passed them (is it difficult to explain why?) and were willing to give a load of cash to do so. Thus, Guy Fawkes actually did more to harm the freedoms of English Catholics than good at least in the 17th century. So perhaps having a terrorist represent freedom isn’t such a good idea.

index

9. Saint Sir Thomas More

Known for: One of the best minds of early Renaissance England who served as chancellor to Henry VIII as well as wrote Utopia and corresponded with Erasmus. Refused to recognize the king as the head of the English Church as well as opposed the formation of the Church of England and Henry VIII’s dissolving his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne Boleyn. His bravery for sticking up to his principles even if it meant his gruesome death provided the inspiration of the play A Man for All Seasons where he’s presented as a champion of the freedom of individual conscience.

Why he probably doesn’t deserve his fame: This is a complicated case but in large part Sir Thomas More certainly does deserve his fame as one of the great Renaissance figures in Tudor England as well as his sainthood for he did stick to his religious principles. But as a champion of the freedom of individual conscience? Well, maybe according to 16th century standards where he’s perfectly fine with the burning of heretics and believed the state had every right to suppress any open dissent (guess which one went back to bite him) as well as base his defense on the plea he had not made his personal opinions known. Also, he’s certainly a guy who would certainly not be okay with his daughter marrying a Protestant as well as had his own opinions about the Catholic Church which might shock some people nowadays (such as perhaps not having a pope and more conciliatory power). Oh, and did I say he was friends with Erasmus and Thomas Cromwell (who was godfather to his first grandchild)? Catholic martyr and Renaissance intellectual, absolutely but advocate for free speech, absolutely not.

10. Hypatia

Known for: She was a female philosopher in ancient Alexandria who was said to be a martyr to science, atheism, and rationalism since she was killed by a bunch of misogynist religious fanatics.

Why she probably doesn’t deserve her fame: As a female philosopher and scientists whose teachings influenced many, she certainly deserves her fame for there aren’t many women in that field, especially in ancient times. As an atheist martyr and poster child, certainly not since she was a monotheist pagan (Neo-Platonist to be exact) who was respected and beloved by the people in Alexandria even by Christians, some of whom were her students, including a future bishop. And no one cared about her being a woman either. So what led to her death? Politics. Also, despite the Rachel Weisz portrayal, she was sixty-five at the time of her death. Still, the myth that rises from her story means that religious people aren’t the only ones to believe in ridiculous things (and I’m talking to you Carl Sagan).