|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
For New Ripperologists
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
For New Ripperologists
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 06:31 pm |        | I take it Chris that like myself you live in the
U.S., if you have any ability in getting to Naval
Records. I live in New York City. Where are you
living in?
If it means anything, U.S./Chilean relations
were close to a nadir in the early 1890s. The
two countries nearly went to war in 1891 in what
is referred to as the "Valparaiso" Incident. In
1879 - 1881 there had been a major war in South
America called the War of the Pacific. In it,
Chile, with it's brand new, modern navy, beat
Peru and Bolivia, and seized Bolivia's Pacific
coast land (thus making Bolivia a landlocked nation from then on). Jane's rated Chile's navy
the tenth or eleventh most powerful in the world.
Ironically, despite great accomplishments in the
American Civil War, the United States fleet had
been allowed to rot. In the 1880s a string of
intelligent Naval Secretaries in the Garfield,
Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison administrations
modernized the navy.
In the early 1890s Chile was upset when the U.S.
supported an anti-Chilean President in Peru. When
the American cruiser, U.S.S. Baltimore, visited
Valparaiso, two U.S. sailors were killed by an
anti-American mob. This led to the President
(Benjamin Harrison) going to Congress proposing
a possible declaration of war. Secretary of State
James G. Blaine managed to avoid the war, when
Chile begrudgingly apologized and paid an indemnity. A good brief account of the incident
is in Joyce S. Goldberg's THE BALTIMORE AFFAIR
(Lincoln, Nebraska, London: University of Nebraska
Press, 1986)
I am sorry to bring all this arcane Latin American
history up, but if the story is true, it might have made the Santiago newspapers of 1895. Chile
was deeply offended by the "bullying" of the
United States in getting that apology and indemnity, especially as the War of the Pacific
had demonstrated it was the most powerful state
on the Pacific coast of South America. It had
hoped that Great Britain would back it in the
confrontation with the United States. Britain
could have (the U.S. Secretary of State, Blaine,
was not friendly to Britain, and had appointed a
suspected Fenian, Pierce Egan, as Minister to
Chile). But Britain decided not to join with
Chile, so there was no war. The Chileans would
have had a field day if they learned that another
American sailor (who died in their country) confessed to being Jack the Ripper. It would have
made the front pages in Valpariaso and Santiago,
if it became known.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 08:11 pm | | Hi, Jeff:
I live in Baltimore and work in Washington, D.C., so it is a cinch for me to do research at the National Archives or the Library of Congress, where I have previously done work for a book on the War of 1812 that recently came out.
Thanks for filling me in on later 19th Century naval history. Because, as I say, the War of 1812 is my area of expertise I did not know of these incidents in United States - Chilean history. I am glad you have told me about them (although I should be aware of the history since one part of it was the Baltimore Affair!).
I am sure you are right that a U.S. sailor dying in Chile and confessing to be Jack the Ripper would be big news in Chile because of these background events. However, several things: 1) It is not clear that Anderson was an American; he allegedly served as a hospital assistant in the U.S. Navy but I know from earlier U.S. history it was not necessary to have been U.S.-born to serve in the U.S. Navy; was it by the 1880's or so? 2) The barque that Anderson is said to have served on was a merchant ship not a navy ship, his time in the U.S. Navy having evidently been some years earlier. 3) It is not clear whether James Brame made anyone aware of Anderson's deathbed confession while he was in Chile; it seems possible instead that Brame may have kept the information to himself so he could spill it to an English newspaper. Still, a search of the Chilean newspapers might yield results. I will contact Nick Connell and find out where he stands in terms of research on John Anderson and whether he has researched such leads as possible mentions of Anderson's confession in Chilean papers or if he has looked for the sailor in U.S. Navy records, or in maritime records in Britain or Europe.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 09:37 pm | | Dear Chris,
I am curious. What is the book about the
War of 1812 that you wrote?
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 12:45 am | | Hi Jeff:
The book is called Terror on the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay, published by White Mane Publishing Co. and is available on Amazon.com When I am not "doing" the Ripper, I am doing the War of 1812, as it were. 
Chris |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 08:52 pm | | Dear Chris,
Then your book is about the British raids on
the Maryland and Virginia shores, and the burning
of Washington and attack on Baltimore. Should
be very interesting stuff.
Best wishes on the new book.
Jeff |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 12:51 am | | Talk about a small world...I've just been studying the part played by the Royal Marines in this campaign.
Steve S. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 08:49 am | | Hi, Jeff and Stephen:
Jeff, thanks for the best wishes in regard to my book. I am currently writing a piece for Paul Begg and Ripperologist on a War of 1812 privateer called the Saucy Jack operating out of Charleston, South Carolina. Yes, indeed, my book is about the raids round the Chesapeake conducted by British Admiral "Co-burn," as the British pronounced his name (the anti-profanity function won't let me give the correct spelling but suffice to say the Yanks pronounced his name as it's spelled ), and the Washington-Baltimore campaign of 1814 during which the admiral's friend Irish-born General Ross was killed outside of Baltimore.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul DUNLOP
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:16 pm | | You chaps certainly know your stuff.
I'm glad that my simple observation/question regarding 'carroty' resulted in a mass of information and perhaps further investigations.
I have one further point to enquire about.
Throughout all of the books I have read that refer to the files at Scotland yard on the case, the same situation seems to arise.
Where are all the missing bits of info.
The files are incomplete.
I think we've ruled out a 'government conspiracy',
so who has the corners of the jigsaw?
If certain persons connected to the case have taken things as memoirs, is it not time for some agency to offer a national amnesty to allow people to return items or offer them up for investigation.
The missing papers, on their own may mean nothing, but put them together and the case may become closer to detection.
What happened to the exhibits?
I refer to the original pocket book entries of the bobbies involved or even the apron found discarded.
I don't expect an answer to this, but I think it is an interesting proposition.
Paul D. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 07:48 pm | | Dear Paul,
The dreadful probability is that once the people who appropriated the missing files died, their heirs and assigns might not know what they were, and they may simply have been thrown out among other 'old business papers'. Consider, for example, the Swanson marginalia, sitting silently in their book because his daughter wasn't interested in reading pappa's old boss's memoirs, and it wasn't until she died and her nephews opened it that they realized they had something of great interest. No suppose they had taken the view, 'stuffy old book of Victorian memoirs'. They might have thrown it away; given it to a jumble sale...
I doubt whether anyone's sitting on anything knowledgeably now, with the possible exception of the 'Dear Boss' postcard. So I don't think an amnesty would help.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 09:54 pm | | Martin - I remember years ago reading in the old
edition of the Dictionary of National Biography
the biography of the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews. In the bibliography section they mentioned that there were tremendous numbers of
private papers that had not been organized into
any memoirs (Matthews died about 1917). I never
heard of anybody doing a biography on that man,
whose career as Home Secretary not only involved
Warren and the Whitechapel Killings, but Miss
Cass, Bloody Sunday and Trafalgar Square, Lipski,
Mrs. Maybrick, Mrs. Pearcey, and the controvertial
trial of the Davies brothers for the murder of
their father. Possibly these papers still exist.
Chris - I fully understand your problem with Admiral Co - burn, who is immortalized in America's psyche for his statement, "Shall this
harbor of Yankee Democracy be burned?", which he
reportedly said before torching the White House.
[Americans do not generally realize that this
was a tit-for-tat action: a few months earlier,
an American army set fire to the government
buildings in York, Canada - now Toronto.] I
don't know if you knew this, but the English
radical political writer, Claude Co - burn, was
a relative of the Admiral (as well as the 19th
Century English Jurist, Sir Alexander Co - burn).
So, there was a boat called the "Saucy Jack".
Interesting that one!
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 11:50 pm | | Hi Jeff:
Thanks for filling me in on the Co-burns related to the notorious Admiral Sir George Co-burn who burned the White House and the Capitol and then (allegedly) spent the night in a Washington D.C. bawdy house (the local politicians having skipped town), or at least his Yankee enemies so tell. Actually, Sir George could not have been so bad a chap since after Waterloo he was given the honor of transporting the deposed Emperor Napoleon to exile on St. Helena on board HMS Northumberland in August 1815 and later became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1841-6. He was thus lucky enough to be a fellow on the rise (as junior lord) in 1828 when his first biographer James Ralfe wrote a flattering biography of him. Modern biographers have been equally flattering. I have "dared" to find a few warts on the man. :-)
Yes, indeed, "Saucy Jack" was a popular name for vessels in the Age of Sail. There was also a Canadian privateer sailing out of Liverpool, Nova Scotia, during the War of 1812 called the Saucy Jack. However, the American one, out of Charleston, South Carolina, was the more famous of these privateers.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 08:36 am | | And of course, Claude Cockburn's daughter Sarah was the brilliantly funny detective novelist who wrote under the name 'Sarah Caudwell' and died recently.
It would be great if somebody could unearth the Matthews papers. I'd never heard of them
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 09:39 am | | Hi, Martin:
Thanks for letting us know about Sarah Caudwell and that you know nothing of the disposition of Henry Matthews' papers -- it would indeed be a great coup if they could be located. I am still trying to figure out why we can now type "Cockburn" and I could not earlier! Unless the Boy Wonder has changed it so it is now allowed, since we are obviously not trying to be profane. If so, thanks Spry!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 09:39 pm | | Chris - the only thing I found objectionable about
Co - burn was that he (like so many naval people)
was concerned about prize money.
Jeff |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 07:32 am | | They had to be, didn't they, Jeff? I mean, wasn't that their only way of raising their income above a not-very-generous government salary? And the navy was essentially officered by middle-class chaps, unlike the army which drew the landed aristocracy, whose private-income based way of life means that it is still out of the question for a talented working class lad to consider taking a commission in the Hussars, whose dress uniforms cost far more than army pay would meet.
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 07:37 am | | They had to be, didn't they, Jeff? I mean, wasn't that their only way of raising their income above a not-very-generous government salary? And the navy was essentially officered by middle-class chaps, unlike the army which drew the landed aristocracy, whose private-income based way of life means that it is still out of the question for a talented working class lad to consider taking a commission in the Hussars, whose dress uniforms cost far more than army pay would meet.
Martin |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:47 pm | | Actually, Martin, you are right, as prize money
was like setting up an IRA for the average man
today (as an addition to one's pensions and
social security in old age). But it also meant
that the naval personnel were sometimes looking
at military activities for non-military motives.
If you had to choose between maintaining a
blockade, or committing a series of raids on
the locals, the latter would inevitably be more
exciting a prospect (think of the possible loot).
Nobody was immune from this. American naval
personnel could be as concerned about it as their
British counterparts. In fact, if one remembers
the original Constitution, one of the funny
"antiquated" provisions allows the government to
issues "letters of marque" for privateering in
case of war. Some were used in the War of 1812,
but even as late as the 1830s, when England and
the United States were facing deteriorating
relations over collecting war debts, the Secretary
of the Navy under Andrew Jackson was considering
activating the concepts of legal privateers!
Co - burn was no better or worse than his contemporaries on these matters. But he was known
to have insisted on boards of inquiries on divvying up the spoils properly. At least I recall reading of such behavior in Walter Lord's
study of the last year of the War of 1812, THE
DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT. But, I daresay, Admiral Sir
George Rodney (victor at the battle of the Saints
in 1782, the only bright spot left Britain in the
American Revolution)also was conspicuous in seeking out spoils too.
I might add, is this interest in booty as bad
as say deserting one's wife, and carrying on
with the questionable young wife of a leading
diplomat and art collector? Most people, looking
at Nelson's achievements where they counted, would
have probably said, "Who cares!"
Jeff |
Author: stephen stanley
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 01:02 am | | Dear Jeff,Other bright spots include Camden,Guildford Court House,Princeton,Monmouth,Eutaw Springs,& (to my way of thinking),Germantown & Bunker Hill.
Steve S |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 09:12 am | | Hi, Jeff:
In fact, as I relate in my book, Cockburn and his then boss Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren got a rap on the knuckles from the Admiralty for conducting raids round the Chesapeake (lucrative, as you say, for the prize money) instead of keeping to the directives to blockade the Chesapeake to stop the pesky American privateers from getting out onto the high seas, and to disrupt commerce in the Bay.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 11:04 pm | | Stanley - Princeton was an American victory.
Monmouth was a draw. Bunker Hill, Guildford
Court House, and Eutaw Springs were pyrrhic
English victories (the latter two part of a series
of battles given to Cornwallis's men, that led
to his eventual retreat out of the Carolinas,
into Virginia, at the hands of Nathaniel Greene -
and Cornwallis's eventual defeat at Yorktown).
I am willing to admit that Germantown is a
definite English victory, as is Camden. So was
Brandywine and the Battle of Brooklyn.
By saying that Rodney's Battle of the Saints was
the only bright spot, I meant that after Cornwallis' defeat in 1781, Rodney's victory
ensured English control of the seas, and that the
valuable Caribbean colonies would not be threatened by France. I might add, after thinking
it over, there were other bright spots for England. They raised the Spanish siege of
Gilbraltar. They also succeeded in fighting
the brilliant French admiral, Suffren, into a
stalemate in the Indian Ocean.
Anyway, except for the 13 colonies and the lands
to the Mississippi due west of the 13 colonies,
England managed to preserve the rest of her
Empire.
Jeff |
Author: stephen stanley
Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 12:26 am | | Points fully taken,Jeff,...memory played me false on Princeton...I'm more at home in the 1750's than 70's...It's strange that with a slight preponderance of field victories we still got our asses well and truly whopped!!!..I think we just lost heart after Yorktown.
Steve S. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 12:47 am | | You know, Stanley, while I am not knocking the
final strategy of Washington and Rochambeau at
Yorktown, I have always felt that Cornwallis
(who had a pretty successful career in India
after the Revolution)actually had half a chance
of beating Washington and the Americans, had his
strategy in the Carolinas been implemented by
full support of his commander in chief in New
York City. Unfortunately for his Lordship (and
fortunately for the Americans) that commander in
chief was Sir Henry Clinton - not a notable
example of a brilliant and daring military figure.
Jeff |
Author: stephen stanley
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 02:23 pm | | I Think you're right...I remember reading a Biography of Corwallis many years ago and I'm still amazed at the small forces he had compared to those sitting on their butts in the North.
P.S. please call me Steve....Stanley is surname |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 09:53 pm | | Sorry Steve, I'll remember that. You said your
interests were more in the 1750s than 1770s.
You are more involved with the period of the
Seven Years War and the French and Indian War.
Are you a teacher or writer?
Jeff |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 04:34 pm | | Nope, for my sins, I'm a Re-enactor 'doing' Royal Navy for Seven years war/F&I and Jacobites for the 1745 rebellion ( and doing English Civil War as well!!).....just have to remember to pick up the right kit for the right war....
Steve S. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 07:50 pm | | Hi Stephen:
Yes, I thought when Jeff asked the question that you were probably a reenactor, nudge nudge, wink wink. Not a putdown--on the contrary, it's great that you are. You probably know a number of the same guys that I do, possibly? Mike Bosworth and Ships' Company, and Will Priest (U.S. naval reenactors), or Tom Russell and Ed Seufert who I believe are both British Rev War guys who have crossed over to doing War of 1812 Royal Marines? Oh but I guess they are all Stateside and you are in the UK, right? I admire what you reenactors do. One of my lady acquaintances, who does a Regency lady impression is trying to get me in a War of 1812 British Army officer's uniform.... maybe one day when I have the bankroll the kit would cost!!!! It is nice to see younger, enthusiastic people arriving on the scene to spread the word that the study of history is important. Keep up the good work.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 19 March 2001 - 10:21 pm | | Steve, now you have roused my curiosity. As for
the '45 (a subject I like to dwell upon as English
history's most potent, "What if?") does your
group do more than Culloden (do they do Falkirk
and Prestonpans)? And when you do the naval
side of the Seven Years War, that would suggest
Quiberon Bay, but also Minorca, and the tragedy
of Admiral Byng. What do you do for historical
sea recreations?
Jeff |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 04:34 pm | | Hi, Jeff,
Yep, we've done Prestonpans (on the site).Each year we also have an event in Derby at the furthest point south the Jacobites reached. In August this year we're doing Stirling Castle and Fort George(with our Redcoat brethren), and hope,next year,to re-fight Clifton Moor (last Skirmish in England). Most of our Naval stuff represents landing parties engaging French,Indians or Smugglers....It started as a way of letting Jacobites get into non-1745 stuff without the massive cost of a Redcoat outfit(about £1200...Is that $800?), But ther's a possibility of getting some 'sea time' in conjunction with Napoleonic Naval groups. If you want a look at us go to www.lacewars.co.uk....I'm the handsome back view charging a Grenadier.
Steve |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Sorry,Chris,meant to include you in the above, yes, I'm right in the middle of England...But most 18th cent. suppliers are in the U.S....and import taxes are horrendous!!!!
Steve |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 20 March 2001 - 10:44 pm | | Dear Steve,
I'll try to look up the photo of you charging the
grenadier. I don't have a pound sign, so 1200
pounds is not $800 but $1800, as the pound is
worth somewhere around $1.50 or more in value.
That is an expensive costume.
Imagine, those Scottish fellows reached Derby!
I still wonder if they should have marched on
London or not. Military historians say they
were way over-extended, but there was such a
state of apathy towards the Hanovarian dynesty
in England one wonders if the final trick in the
game could have been played.
Did you know, getting back to Virginia and the
Revolution, about twenty years ago a "What if?"
historic novel was written called PRINCE CHARLIE'S
BLUFF, about how Charles Stuart makes common cause
with the Virginia rebels like Washington and
Patrick Henry, and assumes command of the Amrican
Revolution (so the House of Stuart ends up ruling
the colonies). I don't recall who wrote the
novel, but copies are still available in second
hand book stores.
Jeff |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 04:35 pm | | Synchronicity!!!! believe it or not I read the book years ago and thought about it for the first time since tonight!! (I'd just been reading another alternative history) spooky or what!!!...the only detail I remember is the Brits losing at Quebec.
Steve |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 21 March 2001 - 06:28 pm | | Don't forget Steve, great minds think alike.
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
