The First Barbary War

January 18, 2010

After the American War for Independence, the fledgling United States had no navy and little military standing in the eyes of the world. American merchantmen in the Mediterranean became valuable prizes to the corsairs of Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis and Morocco, the four members of the Barbary States.

These Muslim nations were the scourges of the sea, and many countries felt the sting of their depredations. Most of the victimized nations preferred to buy off the pirate states with annual tributes and presents rather than deal with them by force. For years America was forced to take this approach as well, due to our lack of naval power.

After a close-fought presidential race, the newly elected Thomas Jefferson issued commands for increased naval construction, as well as sailing orders to our existing warships, sending them to the sunny Mediterranean in what would become the First Barbary War. For several years they carried on a blockade of Tripoli, which served as a main capitol for piratical crews.

Commodore Edward Preble

The first several years of the conflict were relatively calm, consisting mostly of blockading the coast and giving protection to America's increasing merchant fleet. Neither Admiral Richard Dale, nor his successor, Richard Morris, showed much interest in their duties, preferring the lush ballrooms of surrounding friendly nations. It was not until the fighting Commodore Edward Preble, already recognized as a rising star in naval operations, was appointed Admiral that the war took a more serious turn. Preble captured numerous enemy ships, and bombarded the city of Tripoli itself.

While I do not have space or time to set down the many glorious events of the First Barbary War, it is a fascinating struggle, and one which I recommend for readers to study. Interestingly enough, it was this conflict that trained the sailors who fought in the subsequent War of 1812 against British high-handedness and hostility.

USS Enterprise defeats the pirate ship Tripoli

So, you might ask, how does this tie in with R. M. Ballantye, the Scottish novelist? Well, one of RMB's most famous books, The Pirate City, is based in Algiers and gives a wonderful feeling for the way in which that city commanded tribute of the greatest nations on the earth. After studying the war from a historical view point, it's a lot of fun to dive into the winding streets, meeting famous characters and trudging along in chains with captive Christians, as pictured by the pen of R. M. Ballantyne!

Tutela ex Vulnero,

John

Posted by John Horn at 08:39 PM | Permalink

The "Scotch Thistle"

December 30, 2009

The "Scotch Thistle"

Imprinted on the cover of each Vision Forum reproduced "Ballantyne" book is a thistle. This, however, is no ordinary thistle. Instead, it is the beloved Scotch Thistle, the emblematic flower of Scotland. Why is this humble, weed-like flower beloved by the Scotch people? Read and find out!

Long ago, wild Norseman pillaged the coast of Scotland, spreading rapine and destruction among the scattered villages near the. Occasionally, whole armies of the wild pagans would invade the craggy Scottish countryside, giving battle to all they met.

One particular night, as legend would have it, the daring invaders hatched a plan to surprise a Scotch encampment, taking advantage of the darkness. The fierce warriors crept carefully forward, sure of an easy victory and much plunder. The grass was wet with dew as they neared the encampment. Each step brought them nearer to their unsuspecting victims.

All at once, one of the creeping soldiers pressed his foot down, expecting soft, cool grass to meet his tread, but instead a thistle pierced his skin. The spiky leaves cut into his foot, eliciting a shout of pain. With that shout, the Scottish soldiers sprung to their arms now aware of the invaders' proximity. Disheartened by the failure of their surprise, the barbarians could not defeat the awakened defenders, and the attempt failed.

While the legend could very well be false, there's a good possibility that at least the foundation was set in truth. In my opinion, it's a likely story. At any rate, the Scotch Thistle has been a national emblem since the 1200's, and has been found imprinted on coins since James III's reign in 1470.

The reason Vision Forum chose the thistle emblem is to represent the strong ties which R. M. Ballantyne felt towards his homeland of Scotland. The author was firm in his patriotism and love for the old times of Scotland as expressed by Burn's Auld Lang Syne:

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll take a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne!

For those more scientifically interested, the "official" name of the Scotch Thistle is Onopordum acanthium. It's a biennial, with spiky leaves, (which the Norseman found out to his regret.) Hurrah for Scotland, and the Scotch Thistle!

Tutela ex Vulnero,

John

Posted by John Horn at 02:39 PM | Permalink

Important Events of 1825

December 12, 2009

When studying history, I find it very helpful to see what else was happening in the world around the time that I am learning about. It was in 1825 that R. M. Ballantyne was born, and so I decided to give a list of other interesting events that happened that same year, both in American and European history.

• March 4 - John Quincy Adams succeeds James Monroe as President of the United States.

• September 27 - The world's first modern railway, the Stockton and Darlington Railway, opens in England.

• October 5 - First Photograph ever taken.

• October 26 - The Erie Canal opens, providing passage from Albany, New York to Lake Erie.

• November 9 - A. P. Hill, future general for the Confederacy, is born.

• The first horse-drawn omnibuses established in London.

• The first roller skates are invented.

• Aluminum is discovered.

• Estimation: London becomes the largest city of the world, taking the lead from Beijing.

• The Panic of 1825 is the first modern stock market crash in London.

• Trade unions become tolerated in England.

I wonder what interesting occurrences this year will be pointed to by others in years to come.

Tutela ex Vulnero,

John

Posted by John Horn at 10:17 PM | Permalink

Happy Birthday G.A. Henty

December 08, 2009

George Alfred Henty was born 177 years ago today. Happy Birthday, Mr. Henty.

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 03:15 PM | Permalink

Ships of 1812

November 09, 2009

As I said in a previous post, I've been studying the War of 1812, spending a lot of time on the naval combats which ensued during the contest. I have a great interest in the different types of ships used during the Age of Sail, specifically in this time period, the Napoleonic Era. In this article I intend to list different types of ships, mostly those used during the War of 1812, and I will compare effectiveness between the different models.

Before I do this you must know that there are great differences of opinions upon these matters, and throughout the ages different terms have meant different things to different nations. Hopefully, however, at least these general classifications will be of help.

Sloop

The smallest vessel used in warfare was normally the sloop, which is often called a sloop-of-war to differentiate it from types not used in battle. The term embraces a number of ship types, because most combat vessels smaller than twenty guns were grouped together under the name of "sloop." Sometimes they had only one mast, but this was not uniformly the case. Their use was primarily for communications, intelligence, and other small work, not being large enough to take their place in a line of battle.

Two types of sloops are the "brig sloop" and the "ship sloop." The brig sloop contained two square-rigged masts, but still only one deck. The term "ship sloop" may be confusing, but it is due to the common practice of reserving the term "ship" to a vessel that has three masts or more. As you probably guessed, the ship sloop has at least three masts, and one deck.

Sloop-of-war, USS Constellation

Brig

Next in line is the brig, (a true brig, not a brig sloop,) containing two square-rigged masts, but still only one deck. The dividing line between sloops and brigs is very thin and hard to determine. Brigs were much more common to be used in actual battle operations, and were known for speed and maneuverability. Nowadays, the prisons aboard ships are called brigs, which may be confusing. It does not mean that a brig in the Age of Sail was a prison ship, although most prison ships were brigs. This is probably the case because the brig contains more room for prisoners than a sloop, without depriving the fleet of a really powerful fighting vessel.

The brig is a version of a brigantine, a slightly different craft, but not dissimilar enough to warrant a separate section in this article. A very famous brigantine is the Mary Celeste, which became a so-called "ghost ship" when it was discovered sailing towards Gibraltar with its entire crew missing, but no marks of bloodshed, mutiny, theft, or anything else. There are a number of very interesting hypothesis about the fate of the crew, but it remains one of the biggest maritime mysteries ever.

The brig, USS Niagra

Frigate

The Frigate is more powerful than a brig, being a two-decker, with at least three masts. The famous USS Constitution was a frigate. It's interesting to note that during the War of 1812, British frigates were ordered not to attack American frigates, unless they had a ratio of at least 2:1, because of our superior weight of metal. Frigates were very popular fighting ships, and used often in the Napoleonic Wars.

The frigate, USS Constitution

Ship-of-the-Line

This term is derived from the actions of these ships, which fought line against line, broadside to broadside. In this type of fighting, the goal was to have the heaviest metal and strongest ship. They would blast at each other until unable to return fire. Ships-of-the-line had multiple decks, two, three, sometimes even four, and many masts. They were the real "queens of the sea."

Ship-of-the-Line, HMS Victory

Throughout the ages there have been many other types of ships, and different classification systems, so I want to emphasize that this information is concerning the time period of the Napoleonic Era.

Tutela ex Vulnero,

John

Posted by John Horn at 08:34 AM | Permalink

USS Constitution vs. HMS Guerriere

November 05, 2009

R. M. Ballantyne loved ships. Because of this, and because of recent personal studies, I decided to write a little bit about the far famed combat of the USS Constitution versus the HMS Guerriere.

Setting

In 1812, the British navy was mistress of the seas. No other power could combat her effectively upon the ocean. The French had been warring for years, but most sea battles ended with British victories. Because of this preponderancy, Napoleon could not get his numerically superior land troops across the channel, onto British soil, although he had been trying for years.

With these successes in mind, British sailors and captains reveled in their authority and looked down upon other nations' naval efforts, especially disregarding those of America. At the time, the American navy was tiny in size and inexperienced in battle. The only real military experience held by our crews were gained in fighting pirates off the coast of Tripoli.

Although the British were such good sailors, they had one problem: a lack of men. English ships were notoriously undermanned, and the press gangs were continuously in use. They practiced impressment, which means that ships belonging to the British Navy could at any time send gangs of men to shore or to other vessels and sweep up all the men they could find for service aboard ship. (This was, of course, as long as they were British citizens.)

Unfortunately, they carried their authority a little too far and began to use impressment on American sailors. You see, a British ship would meet an American ship on the high sea. They would come alongside each other and then the Brit would request the American to summon all crew to deck. After this, they would go among the crew and pretend to find British citizens serving among the crew. If the crew member was an English citizen, they could lawfully use impressment upon him, and force him to leave his ship, and join their's.

In most cases, the seamen they chose were actually American sailors, not British, but we did not have the power to fight back against this injustice, so they would be impressed anyway. This practice was one of the many causes of the War of 1812.

War

With this as the setting, Congress declared war upon Great Britain on June 18, 1812. Many various underlying conflicts and territorial issues were at play in the reasoning behind the declaration of war, but one primary goal in the formal announcement was to stop the continued illegal impressment of American citizens into British ships. The young republic would once again fight the greatest nation in the world in a much forgotten but important war.

Simply put, British sailors were puffed up about their naval successes and power. They expected easy victories over the fledgling American navy, and a speedy end to the war. This, however, was not to be.

Battle

One of the most famous vessels in American naval history is the USS Constitution. Launched in 1797 from Boston, she was one of three sister frigates commissioned by Congress. She gained renown under Commodore Preble, in the fighting off Tripoli a decade earlier, but her real fame was yet to come.

In the month of August, 1812, the Constitution was on a cruise along the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, looking for enemy vessels. It was on the 19th of that month that she came across a worthy opponent. The HMS Guerriere was originally a French ship which was captured by the British, and turned into an English vessel, now under the command of a Captain Dacres.

As the ships engaged, Dacres began firing broadsides into the Constitution. Due to special construction designs on the hull, the Constitution did not receive damage from these somewhat distant broadsides, the British shot simply bouncing off the reinforced sides. Jubilant at this sign of strength, legend has it that an American sailor called out -"Hurrah, her sides are made of iron," or something similar. Whatever the exact words were, from then on she was known as "Old Ironsides".

The ships closed in, and Captain Hull of the Constitution fired the starboard broadside. Again and again both ships fired, but the superior metal of the Constitution paid off, as the Guerriere's mizzenmast toppled over. In an effective raking maneuver, Hull brought his ship across the British vessel's bow, delivering a devastating broadside with his fresh port guns.

Attempting the movement again, the Constitution's rigging entangled with the Guerriere's bowsprit, pulling both ships together. Boarding parties were summoned, but before hand-to-hand fighting broke out the British foremast fell, causing the Guerriere to lose most of her way and allowing the American frigate to break free. As Hull prepared to rake the enemy with yet another broadside, the Brit fired a cannon to leeward, the direction opposite the Constitution. This signaled surrender, and was occasioned because there were no flags left in the rigging to pull down as a signal.

As an American lieutenant stepped aboard the damaged British vessel, he looked for Captain Dacres. "Captain Hull presents his compliments, Sir, and wishes to know if you have struck your flag?" The story goes that Dacres replied, "Well, I don't know. Our mizzen mast is gone, our fore and main masts are gone - I think on the whole you might say we have struck our flag."

The victory sent shock waves through America and Britain. Morale soared in North America as accounts of the glorious victory appeared in every paper, while across the ocean, British citizens struggled to realize that a despised American vessel had actually beaten a British ship of similar size in a fair fight. Although this was but the beginning of the war, the fight was to go down in history as a spectacular victory, proving to American seamen their capability of defeating their foes.

The USS Constitution is still commissioned as a navy vessel today, and is docked in Boston where a full complement of American sailors give tours of the ship. To find out more about this ship, click here to visit its website.

Tutela ex Vulnero,

John

Posted by John Horn at 08:20 AM | Permalink

Special on This Day Note: John Brown Takes Harpers Ferry

October 16, 2009

Today and tomorrow are rather important days (historically speaking) because this is the 150th anniversary of John Brown's raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, and the 17th and 18th are the anniversary of Brown's capture.

John "Ossawattomie" Brown

Brown was already widely know as the leader of the terrorists in what was then called "bloody Kansas". He had came to Kansas with six of his sons in 1855. They targeted a number of families in the region and in the middle of the night, Brown and his gang took swords and slashed several fathers and sons to death. Several other fights took place in which one of Brown's sons died.

Brown than returned east to try and gather more help -- and ammunition. Towards this end, he decided to capture the arms stored at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (what is now West Virginia.)

Robert E. Lee

J.E.B. Stuart, U.S. Army lieutenant, was also there, acting as Lee's aide. He was given the duty of presenting the terms of surrender to Brown. Brown's response was to say that if they weren't going to accept his terms, he "prefer[ed] to die here!" (His terms were that he and all his men were to be allowed to come out, weapons and all, and that they were to have "a specified start on the pursuit".

In the Fort

The battle then began. Lieutenant Israel Green cried to his men to take up a ladder which was lying on the ground, and to use it as a battering ram against the doors of the fort. By the second shock, the right hand door splintered open. Green and Stuart led the charge into the building. Brown was captured and the fort was taken. The next day Brown talked on and on -- mainly lies about his role as a peaceful man and the "purity" of his motives.

J.E.B. Stuart

It is very important for us to take note of events such as these and to remember that even if we believe we are fighting for a just cause, the ends never justify the means. It is also interesting to note that, even though the sound of war was approaching, America as a nation still understood that what Brown had done was wrong. After a week long trial, on November 2, 1859, John Brown was found guilty on three counts and was sentenced to death by hanging.

On December 2nd, Brown was escorted to the gallows. Everyone was there. This was a gathering to be remembered for a very long time. Because he had refused a minister, Brown was only accompanied by a sheriff and his men. He died still unrepentant for his murders.

This was the last time that so many leaders of these United States would stand together on an issue of such significance and controversy, before our national split. Many of the men on both the Southern and Northern side of the aisle stood behind Brown's execution. But there were those who thought Brown should have been given a place of immortality. Ralph Waldo Emerson (a unitarian) stated that John Brown would "make the gallows glorious like the Cross." It was all too soon after this that America would be completely split.

This is a sad note to end on, but this was the event that set the stage for the next 50 years. We must look to the past to prepare for the future. We must not copy the mistakes of past generations, but, rather, following their good examples.

VoD,
Joshua Titus

P.S. To read more on the subject check out the following books and links:
- The Secret Six by Otto Scott [Link]
- JEB Stuart by John Thomason [Link]
- John Brown: The Legend Revisited by Merrill Peterson [Link]
- Article by Bill Potter

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 02:22 PM | Permalink

Quote of The Day

July 31, 2009

Walt Disney

"There is more treasure in books than in all the pirates loot on Treasure Island, and best of all you can enjoy these riches every day of your life!" - Walt Disney

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 10:55 AM | Permalink

"Killiekrankie, O!"

July 27, 2009

Here's an interesting "on this day" note; this is the 320th anniversary of the battle of Killiecrankie. On July 27, 1689, during one of the numerous Jacobite" rebellions", the Battle of Killiecrankie took place at the town of Killiecrankie, in Scotland. This battle is a rather interesting example of the old adage that "a victory can also be loss."

"Clavers"

Clavers decided to start the battle off in spite of his inferior numbers. Mackay responded by extending his line (which meant thinning it.) Dundee extended his line to match in length but increased the gaps between his highlanders. The battle of Killecrankie really only lasted 10 minutes. But, that's not too surprising when you consider the fact that the Highlanders didn't like to dilly or dally on the field of battle. Their favorite tactics: a wild highland charge and than close quarter fighting.

The first and last sign that the battle was over was the highland charge of the Jacobites, which took the government forces, under MacKay, by surprise. Mackay and his men were completely overwhelmed in only 10 minutes. Only a quarter of the government force made it back to Stirling 36 hours after the battle.

Over the generations the Scots have remembered all their greatest (and lowest) moments in song. I first heard about the battle of Killiekrankie listening to Mr. Charlie Zahm sing the great Scottish Ballads. One of my favorites is the song "Braes O' Killiekrankie." This is a very fun ballad which tells of the battle from the perspective of one of Mackay's soldiers.

JT

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 07:33 PM | Permalink

Events of the day. . . historically

March 03, 2009

Just thought I would post a couple of interesting ways that today is tied to history.

On This Day:

Born:

A.G. Bell

Facts:

Modern-day American adventurer (I love that title!) Steve Fossett became the first person to do a complete nonstop circumnavigation of the globe, solo, AND without refueling. He landed in Kansas after more than 67 hours in flight today in 2005. Sadly, his plane crashed in 2007 on another adventure, and his death was confirmed in the fall of 2008.

On this day in 1934, an American bank-robber, John Dillinger made a "most daring escape" from the prison at Crown Point, Indiana. With only a razor and a piece of wood, Dillinger carved a fake pistol, painted it black with some bootblack, and forced his way past the prison guards to escape, while singing, "I'm heading for the last roundup." A naughty chap.

AgB, VoD, Joshua Titus

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 10:39 PM | Permalink

Some Thoughts on the Motto "Victory or Death!" On the Anniversary of the Travis Letter.

February 24, 2009

On this day, one hundred seventy three years, one of the great figures in Texas history penned the words "Victory or Death."

For William Barrett Travis, the defense of the Alamo may have been a desperate cause, but he believed it was his duty to the people of Texas, for whom he was fighting.

Travis lost. Everyone died.

One hundred seventy three years later, some might ask, " Was Travis right?" Was he right to make "Victory or Death!" his motto and lead 189 men to their deaths? Was this declaration the mark of heroic bravery or fool-hearty recklessness? Is it ever time to give up?

Some of you who have emailed me may have noticed that, in addition to the motto Alba Gu Bra, I sometimes use "Victory or Death!" ("Buaidh No Bas" in Gaelic.) This battle cry was not only used by Travis, but has also been sounded for generations in war and peace, going back hundreds of years in almost every country.

The essence of the motto "Victory or Death!" is a simple proposition: It is important for men to be willing to lay down their lives for a godly cause. Or, very simply, "I will fight to the death for what is right and nothing this side of death will stop me!"

When properly applied in the right context, "Victory or Death!" is a message of manhood, self-sacrifice, and courage that should inspire all Christian men because it is a biblical message. There really are battles worth fighting for.

After noting a comment I posted that "G.A. Henty boys are not wimps or saps," a reader of Ballantynethebrave.com emailed me, questioning whether it is really so bad to be wimpy.

He asked how anyone could biblically justify the "intense physical violence and bloodshed" which some Henty boys experience on the battlefield. Stating that courage is not shown in "conquest or dominion,", he closed by saying,

I am left to wonder: what is God's biblical idea of manhood and courage? Is it defending your name, your family, your religion, or your country? Or is it something deeper than that, a man who knows the Truth, believes the Truth, proclaims the Truth, and is willing to give all that he holds dear in the defense and maintaining of it?

Reflecting on these questions, I thought, what sort of man would question defending your name, family, religion, and country? Is it not clear in the Bible that we are to to live with a sword in one hand and a trowel in another as Nehemiah did, and say with him, "Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses!" [Neh. 4:14]

To be a man who "knows the Truth, believes the Truth, proclaims the Truth, and is willing to give all that he holds dear in the defense" of the 'Truth', I must defend my family, religion, and country in obedience to the Scripture, which is the only "Truth!" I might even go so far as to say that in certain situations, I must defend my name and honor to uphold that very same "Truth."

Another verse this gentleman included in his email was the famous, "Put up again thy sword into [its] place: for they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. 26:52) quote. What he didn't include was an equally important verse, also spoken by Jesus while on the earth, "... he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36) I think it should be clear here that Jesus is not condemning owning weapons or even being ready to fight. Rather, in the Mathew 26:52 verse, he is pointing out that it was time for the fulfillment of his duty (on the Cross), not time to start chopping folks' ears off.

Going back to the idea of "Victory or Death," if you are going to fight for something (I mean literal battle), it better be worth dying over. Biblically, it seems that, if you are not fighting for victory, you are fighting for defeat, and that means the loss of whatever it is that you are fighting for. If you are fighting for your family, home, religion, or even honor, you can't afford to lose. That's part of the reason why it is so important to only have biblical warfare. Don't start a war if you aren't going to really try and win it. (And don't chop off anyone ears unless it is time for battle.) Choose your battles carefully.

So, what about Travis?

Here in Texas, when you hear someone refer to the motto "Victory or Death!" it's a pretty safe thing to guess that they are referring to the words of W.B.Travis at the famous Battle of the Alamo.

Let's review the facts:

Col. Travis

Travis could have tried to surrender the Alamo. He could have tried to flee with his men. But he didn't. Instead Travis stood and held his ground, knowing that short of a near-impossible victory, he and everyone of his men would lose their lives.

Travis drew a line in the sand and offered every man in the Alamo an "honorable" way out of this death trap. Out of 190 men, only one crossed that line.

Each of those men died. But they sent a message to the world that Texans would not surrender their homes, their families, or their freedom. They also held the Alamo long enough to set things in motion for the men who would ultimately defeat the Santa Anna. If it weren't for the Alamo defenders who refused to flee or surrender, there might not be a Texas today.

I am grateful for Travis' cry of "Victory or Death!" As a Texan, I am especially thankful for those men who gave their lives for what they believed was worth dying for: freedom. They believed their cause was just, and they were right.

Of course, modern man is uncomfortable with statements like "Victory or Death." It is too dogmatic, too uncompromising, too unrealistic. But the problem is not with the statement. The problem is with modern man.

There is a time when Christian men must be willing to say, "I will fight, to the death, for what is right and nothing this side of death will stop me!" Whether it was Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or give me Death" speech, Colonel Travis' letter from the Alamo, or even the echo of William Wallace's battle cries, you can feel the sentiment coming through that they will fight to the death for victory and never give up.

I believe that it is our duty to take this message, and particularly Travis's closing line, and "never surrender or retreat" when we are on the Lord's side. Even in times of great angst and trouble, when our country is in distress, it is our duty not to give up, but to fight to defend our families, religion, and country. And ultimately the honor of the "Truth." To live well, we must realize that some things are worth dying for.

The film Braveheart popularized another important motto: "Every man dies. Not every man truly lives." Behind this sentiment is the belief that only those who are willing to lay down their lives in a meaningful cause have something worth living for.

Travis would have agreed.

So, was Travis right to declare "Victory or Death" in the face of almost certain immediate disaster?

I believe he was. The simple fact is this: His death purchased Texas' independence. My state, my community, my family, and I continue to benefit from his sacrifice.

Travis was right. So was Patrick Henry. And Nehemiah. And the Scots. And George Washington fighting for our national freedom. And so are all the martyrs and defenders of Godly causes through all time who lose their life in service for the Lord, living out "Victory or Death!"

"Buaidh No Bas." -JT

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 09:42 AM | Permalink

The British Museum: Looking Straight at History

January 15, 2009

Here is an interesting "fact of the day":
250 years ago today the British Museum in London was opened to the public. Established by an act of Parliament in 1753, the British Museum -- which counts among its world-renowned antiquities and archaeological holdings the Elgin Marbles and the Rosetta Stone (And even a crystal skull!) -- was finally opened this day in 1759.

The British Museum

In June of last year I had the privilege to visit the British Museum while traveling in the U.K. I think that the British Museum is definitely in the top 3 or 4 places that we visited while over there. The libraries, collections of artifacts, mass information, and amazing architecture will always come to mind whenever I enter a museum.

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 06:45 PM | Permalink

History of the Postage Stamp

December 09, 2008

Dear Sir, Seeing that Ballantyne wrote a book called "Post Haste", which I unfortunately have not had the opportunity of reading, I thought you might be interested in a little information on the world's first postage stamp.

On May 6, 1840, Great Britain issued the first Penny Blacks, which were one penny stamps of a black color. On the stamp is a portrait of Queen Victoria, and since then it has been tradition for Great Britain not to print the name of their country on the stamp, but to put a small picture of the Queen on the top right of the stamp. There were several million Penny Blacks printed, and though they are worth quite a bit, they are not considered rare. Unused Penny Blacks are worth $4,500, used, $270. For a period of time after they were issued, people would adorn vases, fans and other items with them. The Penny Black had gum on the back, and was not perforated. Perforations were developed sometime later, presumably to avoid having to cut sheets of stamps. Stamps prior to the Penny Black were not the postage stamps we know nowadays, but were similiar to rubber stamps, because they were merely ink stamped onto the letter. The Penny Black was followed by the Two Penny Blue and the Penny Red.

I hope you have found this of interest. -K.S.

Thank you very much for your interesting history of the postage stamp. I definitely found this of interest.

AGB, Joshua Titus

Posted by Joshua Phillips at 10:31 PM | Permalink