1100 Jefferson

Spies of the American Revolution: Famous to Infamous (Benjamin Franklin)

Hello again! Katie Willard blogging about the latest lecture in the “Spies of the American Revolution: Famous to Infamous” series presented in collaboration with the International Spy Museum. This week features Benjamin Franklin, adored by everyone—except John Adams. But I’m getting ahead of myself!

This lecture was given by James Srodes, author of Franklin: The Essential Founding Father. Out of his six books, two are about spying, and his upcoming book will also be about spying. This man knows what he’s talking about.

Everyone knows who Benjamin Franklin is, of course, but mostly for his apocryphal lightning experiments and inventing what seems like everything. A spymaster, however, doesn’t mesh with our view of Franklin. In fact, Srodes explained that Allen Dulles—namesake of Dulles Airport and longest-serving director of the CIA—described Benjamin Franklin’s intelligence gathering as “classic.”

Srodes began his story in 1757—nearly 20 years before the Declaration of Independence. At this time, Franklin was already 50 years old. He’d had a respectable life as a master of a printing press and newspaper, printing both the Poor Richard’s Almanac and Philadelphia Gazette. He had many scientific experiments under his belt, all of which won him admiration from scientists overseas. He was the first Postmaster General, overseeing the creation of a comprehensive mail system. And he was a distinguished Freemason. So he decided to retire. Who could blame him?

Yet Franklin was never really destined for retirement, and when the General Assembly needed someone to go to London to raise awareness about the colonies’ plight, they decided the one man for the job was Franklin. He was sent off to London, and he didn’t return until 1775.

In Britain, Franklin essentially became a lobbyist, stressing that the colonies needed Britain and vice versa. He represented Pennsylvania and several other colonies, and he networked tirelessly. However, by 1773, after being treated poorly by the British as they mocked his endeavors, he concluded that the colonies did not need Britain: they needed independence. Soon Franklin began dabbling in espionage, running a network of agents in Britain much like George Washington would do across the Atlantic.

His spying efforts started small: he placed these agents in British ministries, mostly to steal the mail of the Royal Governor. Unfortunately, all of this came to the attention of George Eden, the First Earl of Lord Auckland. Franklin had to have known that his arrest for treason would be inevitable, but his loyalty to the colonies came first. After all, he had already concluded that there would have to be a war against Britain to gain independence. We forget this now, but a lot of the Founding Fathers weren’t exactly jumping up and down to start a war. Pitting a vast empire and the world’s best navy against a ragtag bunch of 13 colonies that couldn’t agree on anything seemed ill-advised at the time.

Franklin sought out France as a patron and an ally. Louis XVI may have been hesitant about beginning another tussle with Britain, but any chance to weaken the neighboring country did intrigue him. With that in mind, Franklin sent agents to the Comte de Vergennes, the French foreign minister, but not to steal Vergennes’ mail. Rather, he wanted his agents to butter the French up to the idea of war against Britain. Despite all these spies running around doing backchannel work, a question loomed over budding French-American relations: who would pay France? The colonies had no central government, after all.

Surprisingly, during the spring of 1775, Franklin made one last-ditch appeal for peaceful relations to King George III. Since Franklin’s heart clearly wasn’t in it, King George was not sympathetic: Franklin was finally forced to flee to America. While it’s unlikely that King George and Lord Auckland wanted to take on the nuisance of trying Franklin, Franklin was very bitter about having to flee the country. His stay in America didn’t last long. After helping the Continental Congress with the bureaucratic technicalities of declaring independence (appointing a commander of the army, finding an author for the Declaration of Independence, etc.), Franklin was approached by French agents of the Comte de Vergennes. They wanted Franklin to go back to France. If the French were going to join the war, they wanted Franklin to convince them to do it, not just any American. Despite his ill health, he couldn’t say no to the French, and he packed all of his English finery on a ship and sailed for Europe—again.

Because the voyage to France was so awful and cold, Franklin chose not to wear his dapper outfits or powdered wigs. He wore simple furs to keep warm. When he emerged from the ship, the French were not only shocked by his attire—they were delighted! Even Marie Antoinette was a fan. They dubbed him “le philosophe sauvage,” which means “the wild philosopher.” Franklin chose to ditch the fancy clothes, and soon, his face was everywhere, from decorative plates to a chamber pot that King Louis had specially made for Marie Antoinette. So Franklin was a minor celebrity in France due to his eccentric personality and his playing up to the French’s stereotype of Americans, but John Jay and John Adams were technically the American representatives. Franklin didn’t want them to meddle in his delicate backchannel negotiations to get France officially involved in the war, so he not-so-subtlety suggested that Jay go to Spain and Adams go to the Netherlands—an act that Adams never forgot, despite the fact that he and the French never got along.

With Jay and Adams gone, Franklin was free to do as he pleased. He started a printing press, hiring two Irish printers who could speak both English and French. He instructed his new employees to print pamphlets explaining why France should support America in a war against Britain. He was printing propaganda.

Franklin still needed to solve the problem of who would pay France for its assistance in a war. His solution was to organize privateers—not pirates—to interrupt, capture, and stop merchants who were supplying the British troops in America. This somewhat underhand maneuver led to two things: British troops now had to steal supplies from the Loyalists, which made the Loyalists quite grumpy, and America could take a share of the profit from these supply ships to make a debt service for French loans.

Although Franklin was brimming with good ideas, he still experienced his fair share of trouble. He had disagreements with the British ambassador to France, Viscount Stormont, which casually led to Stormont making plans to assassinate Franklin. Needless to say, nothing happened, but Franklin was also the subject of the spying, as his secretary Edward Bancroft was feeding information to the British. Franklin had a lot to work against, but if lightning didn’t faze him, neither did a traitorous secretary or murderous ambassador.

At this point during the lecture, Srodes began telling us about the research process for Franklin: The Essential Founding Father. His “Ah-ha!” moment occurred when he was at the British National Archives. He came across a seven-page letter written by Edward Bancroft to William Eden. Bancroft used a very basic code: substituting words for numbers. This code was quite easy for Srodes to break, as someone had penciled the key in the margin. According to the letter, 72 was not willing to negotiate on 101. “72” referred to Franklin, and “101” referred to a concept, not a name: independence.

So Franklin wasn’t going to back down on American independence—no surprise there. The real surprise was located on the last page of the letter. On the back, someone had written a message and signed “G Rex” in pencil. The “G Rex” really interested Srodes, so he took the letter to the archivist and asked, “Is this King George III’s signature?” The archivist pointed out that it was indeed his signature and threw in a Latin lesson, explaining that “rex” means “king.”

For Srodes, this was the magic information. This letter, signed by King George III (in terrible code, but that’s beside the point), meant that Franklin’s backchannel communications actually did work, and they were reaching the highest levels. King George’s message amounted to describing Franklin’s information as chickenfeed—that’s spy talk for useless information. Its presence more than its substance was important. All of this beating around the bush was necessary, as Franklin couldn’t feed false information to the king’s face. There was definitely much back-and-forth as to whether America would actually go to war with Britain: Franklin was trying to keep all of his options open. It’s very confusing, but all of this circling around and around was a political game—and thankfully, Franklin was a master of it, so I guess it’s fine if I have trouble following it.

James Srodes answered questions from the audience after his lecture, and there were plenty of to go around! All were interesting, but I really enjoyed Srodes’ response to the question of how Franklin was at the end of his life. Franklin lived to be 83, which was no small feat during an age that lacked penicillin. Even in his aged state, George Washington asked him to weigh in on the Constitution. All Franklin communicated—as he was too frail to speak or stand, and James Madison had to do it for him—was that he was unhappy with the Constitution, but he fully expected future generations to make the same mistakes that the Founding Fathers had made, so there was no point in not approving it. That’s really something worth remembering amidst all the squabbling today; it’s not that different from the 13 colonies arguing back and forth.

After the talk, just as before, James Srodes signed books, and I had a chance to thank him for his lecture—and get a picture with him!

Next week, I’ll be back at the Spy Museum for a lecture about James Lafayette, the Marquis de Lafayette’s awesome spy. If you want to get tickets, click here.

The Change-Makers and Social Justice

This Thursday, September 29th, Smithsonian Associates is hosting the first in a series of programs spotlighting people who’ve dared to change the world. What can you expect from this first event? The best comparison that I can draw is a French salon: a social gathering, typically hosted by fancy women, where intellectuals gathered to have sparkling discussions about art, philosophy, science, and literature. When I studied abroad in Paris, “salon” was a must-know term for my art history final, and despite my general unwillingness to travel back in time (no antibiotics or the right to vote, after all), I wish that I could’ve attended one of these famed salons, especially one hosted by Madame de Pompadour, chief mistress of King Louis XV and patron of the arts. Who doesn’t want to ask Voltaire about Facebook?

“Change-Makers and Social Justice” is basically a modern-day salon. There will be three speakers—Tom DeSanto, Kaj Larsen, and Roxana Saberi—and a moderator, Jon Levy. Levy will be assuming the Pompadour role, guiding the discussion and introducing new topics of conversation. The main point, as suggested by the event’s title, will be social justice, a topic familiar to all the speakers, despite their very different niches. Tom DeSanto produced and co-wrote X-Men, and he went on to produce X2: X-Men United and the Transformers series. Kaj Larsen is a former Navy SEAL, and he currently works as an investigative journalist for VICE News and recently co-hosted a go90 series called The Runner. Roxana Saberi is a journalist, who was arrested and held in Iran for months, and she has written a book about her experience, titled Between Two Worlds: My Life and Captivity in Iran. At first, it was hard for me to see the connection between all these individuals, despite the many references to social justice. But after reading their biographies and browsing through various tweets, Instagram posts, and YouTube interviews, the thing that really brings these three together is passion. They all have tremendous passion for what they do and how it might impact others. And they don’t use their platforms lightly. 

Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in producer Tom Desanto’s film X-Men (Photo: Attila Dory)

Then I thought about some of the most famous philosophes from Madame de Pompadour’s time: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Denis Diderot, and Voltaire. These were the kind of men who would populate such salons. So I drew some more connections.

I picture Tom DeSanto as the Jean-Jacques Rousseau of the group. He is famous for his autobiographical Confessions, which was a precursor of the modern biography. Tom DeSanto is no stranger to story-telling, as his work in Hollywood shows. Rousseau also wrote Discourse on Inequality, a subject that Tom DeSanto is familiar with writing about, as X-Men deals with issues of discrimination between humans and mutants.

Kaj Larsen strikes me as the Denis Diderot type. First of all, Diderot was an art critic, and Kaj Larsen has some excellent artistic Instagram posts. (If that seems like a thin connection, I would argue that Diderot would probably be a huge Instagram user.) Also, Diderot was quite the Renaissance man: philosopher, art critic, playwright, and main contributor of a revolutionary encyclopedia. Similarly, there isn’t an issue Kaj Larsen doesn’t seem interested in. He writes about issues from animal testing on Chimpanzee Island to the CIA’s role in the War on Terror, but one of his biggest projects is his documentary film The War Against Boko Haram. Larsen did on-the-ground reporting in Nigeria, which involved both fighting and filming, to raise awareness about the Chibok schoolgirls who were kidnapped by Boko Haram in 2014. Diderot would probably appreciate what Kaj Larsen could possibly contribute to his next encyclopedia.

Kaj Larsen

Lastly, I had to give Roxana Saberi the Voltaire title. This comparison is very appropriate, as Voltaire was a strong proponent of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the separation of church and state. Despite being banned from reporting in Iran, Roxana Saberi continues to speak out about her imprisonment, especially about the two women with whom she was held captive, Fariba Kamalabadi and Mahvash Sabet. In fact, she is writing a second book on Iran. She and Voltaire cannot stay silent about issues that they feel passionately about!

Roxana Saberi

And when he’s not moderating discussions among producers, journalists, authors, and other “givers” (Levy’s name for people who add value to the world without expecting anything in return), Jon Levy is a human behavior scientist who specializes in studying influence—what leads people to make decisions—and adventure—what inspires people to lead exciting lives. 

Jon Levy

Each of them—these modern philosophes—has very important and interesting things to say on their own, and I can only imagine what kind of scintillating conversation will begin once all of them are in a room together. I absolutely love the deep discussions I can have with my friends, but we have a pretty limited range of experience. Bringing such different people together—and letting audience members watch and listen—is an innovative way to expand deep discussions beyond your own circles. I look forward to attending and perhaps raising my hand if I can think of something particularly witty to say. My dream of attending a salon will finally come true!

"Change-Makers and Social Justice" will take place Thursday, September 29 at 6:45 p.m. at the Smithsonian's S. Dillon Ripley Center. Tickets are available here.

Spies of the American Revolution: Famous to Infamous (George Washington)

Hello! Intern Katie Willard here to blog about our new collaborative lecture series with the International Spy Museum, “Spies of the American Revolution: Famous to Infamous.” Every Wednesday from 10:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., a speaker is invited to discuss a particular historical figure’s connection to spying during the Revolution. The first lecture featured George Washington, the Spymaster.

The event’s moderator, Mark Stout, explained that “espionage is as old as the republic and as American as apple pie.” This statement can be a bit hard to believe, since a lot of our ideas about spying involve fast cars and evermore elaborate secret watches, but in reality, spying is a great activity for the detail-oriented. Observation is one’s best secret weapon.

The featured speaker was Alexander Rose, author of Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring. This book may be more familiar to some in the form of its TV adaptation, TURN, an AMC series approaching its fourth and final season. After Stout’s introduction, Rose explained that while secret intelligence receives two percent of the United States’ annual budget, Washington was working with a zero percent, zero-dollar budget back in the 1770’s. Spying was the work of fancy, well-funded residents of metropolitan capitals like Vienna, Paris, and London—not a ragtag coalition of colonies that squabbled constantly with one another. So Washington was part of a culture that lacked the infrastructure for spying, let alone gigantic spy rings.

Yet Washington had his brush with spying during the French and Indian War. Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie sent Washington on a reconnaissance mission at Fort Le Boeuf. Dinwiddie asked for specific details about the French army, a tactic that Washington would adopt for the Revolutionary War. So Washington could tell a lie, and he did it quite often in order to win the war!

However, reconnaissance was a gentlemanly way of spying. Civilian spies were generally viewed as outright liars, and so there was not much glory in the trade. In fact, many religious groups had moved to the American colonies to avoid being spied upon by their intrusive governments. So at first, Washington dodged the controversy of using civilian spies by instead using his own soldiers as spies. Unfortunately, these soldiers were unable to do long-term missions, and they lacked the training and support that they needed to make useful observations. During this time, one of Washington’s biggest failures in espionage occurred: the capture and execution of Nathan Hale. (As a side note, I am from Connecticut, and I’m sure all Connecticuters know that Nathan Hale is all we ever talk about in elementary school.)

After Washington’s successes in Trenton and in Princeton, he could finally reevaluate how to run his spy ring. By 1776 Washington warmed to the idea of the civilian spy, and he began using them on temporary missions. Eventually, Washington had a permanent network of spies known as the Culper Ring—the center of Alexander Rose’s book.

The Culper Ring was very active in this first part of the war, although its influence was mostly limited to the northern colonies, where attritional, “kabuki-style” (Rose’s words, not mine) warfare reigned. In the North, it was easy to make educated guesses about where the enemy would be, since the enemy’s movements were limited based on supply lines and such. The Culper Ring was able to accumulate this kind of information, and their go-between with the Army was Benjamin Tallmadge, who would go on to become a member of the House of Representatives.

Rose ended the lecture with one last number: 40,000. That, as one intuitive listener guessed, was the budget for the first Secret Service—and $40,000 was 12% of the nation’s budget at that time. George Washington established a spy ring during the war, and he ensured that espionage would be continued for decades afterward.

When it came to the question & answer portion of the program, Rose received a lot of questions about TURN: Did he think it was historically accurate? Did he ever have to fight with the director or producers to ensure his historical integrity? Were any parts just made up?

Well, Rose pointed out that "accuracy” is a very flimsy term. Are we referring to if the date of a major battle is right, or are we asking if that button on that soldier’s uniform is from the time period? For many people, some facts take precedent over other facts, but we have to refer to which ones. He said that he only argued for a line of dialogue to be cut once, and the line, which was “You’re welcome,” was quite insignificant, so I’m guessing not the giant battle between artistic license and historical accuracy that we’d like to imagine. He admitted that yes, some parts were made-up. For characters like Anna Strong (a great spy name, by the way), for whom we have little historical information, the show had to make up some things, especially to fill in scenes or provide character arcs.

After the lecture, I ran to buy a copy of Rose’s book and waited in line to get it signed! I had him sign it for my roommate, who loves the TURN series.

I can’t wait for this week’s lecture, which will feature that wily womanizer and master of everything, Benjamin Franklin. You can purchase tickets for the program here.

Introducing Our Fall 2016 Blogger

Hello! My name is Katherine Willard, although almost everyone calls me Katie (the sole exception being my mother). I will be one of the social media interns for the Smithsonian Associates this fall. I’ve been a DC resident for four years, and one of my favorite pastimes is visiting any of the Smithsonian museums. I will visit almost any museum (I did a Sewer Tour in Paris), but I particularly love the Smithsonian museums because they are free!

When I moved to DC in 2012 to attend The George Washington University, one of the first things I did was go to the National Portrait Gallery with my roommate. After a thrilling and terrifying ride on the metro, we wandered around Chinatown before going to the Portrait Gallery. Though I had practically clung to my roommate on the journey there, I felt free to explore the Portrait Gallery because I love getting lost in museums. I sprinted up the stairs to visit the Hall of Twentieth Century Americans. I walked from room to room until I found my prize: the portrait of F. Scott Fitzgerald, who happens to be my favorite author of all time.

Needless to say, seeing Fitzgerald’s portrait was one of the highlights of my first semester.

Fitzy and me, April 2016

Now, after seven more semesters (and two more Fitzgerald pictures), I am a recent graduate of The George Washington University’s Columbian College. I studied applied mathematics and creative writing—and yes, I know that is a strange combination. My interests are rather varied, although my current obsession involves a class that I took last semester, The Price of Freedom: Normandy, 1944. I spent the greater part of last semester researching a soldier who died in the Battle for Normandy, and now D-Day is always in the back of my mind. This means, of course, that I will be jumping to cover any WWII-related Smithsonian Associates events!

I’m excited to put my writing skills to use in this blog and with social media posts. I apologize if I ramble on this blog—at least the social media will teach me to be pithier. I’ve attended Smithsonian Associates events since my freshman year, and I can’t wait to share them with you as more than just an enthusiastic audience member. I’m very grateful to have been given this opportunity, and I’m looking forward to the semester. (Is it still “semester” when you’re out of school? I wonder…)

Fredericksburg in the Civil War

Hi! Marketing Volunteer Pam Sanderlin here, blogging on another fascinating tour, Fredericksburg in the Civil War. The focus of this tour was the December, 1861 battle between General Ambrose E. Burnside’s 120,000-man Army of the Potomac and Robert E. Lee’s 70,000-man Confederate Army, the largest group of soldiers to participate in a Civil War battle. Our superb leaders were Ed Bearss, who gave life to the events through his stories and vignettes, and Gregg Clemmer, who provided additional facts and many poignant and emotional quotes from the period along the way.

We began the day at Chatham, a grand Georgian-style house overlooking the Rappahannock River with a wonderful view of the town of Fredericksburg. Built just prior to the Revolutionary War, the house is one of the few with documented visits by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.

During the Civil War, Chatham was initially used as a headquarters for Northern officers and later as a hospital. Clara Barton and Walt Whitman were among the famous people who assisted there. Whitman was shocked by the carnage - he noticed outside the house, at the foot of “witness trees” that still stand, “a heap of amputated feet, legs, arms, hands, etc… Several dead bodies lie near, each covered with its brown woolen blanket.” We viewed an excellent film that summarized the house’s amazing history before touring the grounds.

Our next stop was on the Fredericksburg side of the Rappahannock at one of the spots where Burnside’s army built a pontoon bridge. We learned that Burnside had reluctantly taken command of the Army of the Potomac, believing he was not qualified, a belief that was later justified in my opinion.

Burnside’s plan was to take Fredericksburg on the way to capturing Richmond. His plan had promise as he reached Fredericksburg long before Robert E. Lee’s army. But Burnside delayed and delayed, affording Lee more than ample time to re-unite his army and place them in strong positions. First the pontoon boats took over a week to arrive – then for no known reason Burnside delayed another 2 fateful weeks to begin the crossing. By that time, Lee had positioned snipers in buildings lining the waterfront and they easily shot soldiers trying to assemble the bridges. Surprised, in an attempt to suppress the snipers, Burnside bombarded Fredericksburg with a barrage of cannon fire, destroying much of the town. Once the canon fire stopped, the snipers reappeared having hidden in basements.

Ultimately Burnside’s troops cleared away the sharpshooters, the bridges were completed and Union forces took the city. Once again Burnside delayed moving forward by a full day – perhaps to rest the troops. Sadly these troops pillaged the town: “Every unoccupied house was plundered and every piece of furniture destroyed”.

From the pontoon site we went to the Battlefield Visitors Center where we watched another excellent context film which explained the next steps in Burnside’s plan and how miserably he failed.

Burnside had planned to use his “Left Grand Division” to crush Lee’s right flank, while the rest of his army held the Confederate left flank in what was supposed to be a diversionary tactic at Marye’s Heights. The topography of Marye’s Heights afforded the Confederate infantry a perfect vantage point in trenches formed by a stone wall bordering a sunken road. They had a wide open view of the open fields where wave after wave (up to 18 throughout the day) of Union soldiers advanced – not one soldier made it to the wall. 8,000 of Burnside’s troops were lost as compared to 1,000 fallen Confederates.

We walked along the sunken road and imagined what that day must have been like. Today there are trees and the encroaching town whereas in 1861, it was all open fields.

My favorite story of the day was about the “Angel of Marye’s Heights”. On the day after the fighting, moved by cries of wounded Northerners, Sgt. Richard Rowland Kirkland of South Carolina amassed as many canteens as he could carry, climbed over the stone wall, and after an initial barrage of fire from both sides, provided water and comfort to the Union Soldiers. A monument to his bravery is nearby.

Our next stop was a delicious lunch at Brock’s Riverside Grill. We enjoyed a buffet with great selections followed by cheesecake for dessert.

Refreshed, we went back to the Visitor’s Center and walked through the National Cemetery. Tragic reminders of the carnage that took place there are the small stones that represent numerous bodies of unknown soldiers buried underneath – there is a registration number and then number of bodies – 3, 4, and 5 were common numbers… The overwhelming majority of graves house unknowns.

A startling site in the cemetery is the wall at its highest point that still bears the wound of a cannon ball. Burnside’s cannon fire had a very long reach.

Our last stops of the day were focused on the defeat of Burnside’s “Left Grand Division”.

Members of Major General George Meade’s division found a hole in Stonewall Jackson’s lines and broke through, while simultaneously Major General John Gibbon’s division drove back a brigade of Rebels defending a railroad grade. The 2 attacks broke the Confederate line and would have rendered their entire position untenable if Union reinforcements were committed to the attack. But none came. The Federals were forced to fall back and the Confederates recaptured the area in a bloody field nicknamed the Slaughter Pen.

A pyramid of stones now marks the spot of Meade’s breakthrough near the railroad tracks. Visible from passing trains, it is unapproachable on land but can be seen out in the field.

Someone in our group asked why it was that the other divisions of Burnside’s army did not come to the aid of Meade and Gibbon. The answer was that orders were unclear and communications were often non-existent. A sad fact is that Burnside remained on the opposite side of the Rappahannock the entire time and therefore could provide no direction.

What an amazing and tragic time in American history. My interest is piqued to experience more Civil War tours!

View upcoming Smithsonian Associates tours here.

Cultural Diplomacy: The State Department’s Art in Embassies Program

For our Cultural Diplomacy evening event in July, we invited Virginia Shore, Chief Curator of Art in Embassies (AIE), to speak about AIE’s history, mission, and vision. “The AIE program defines my career,” she shared during her opening remarks. Since AIE’s creation 25 years ago, Shore has been grateful to apply her unique background in political science and art history, which is the exact combination of intellectual fields that motivates the program.


Shore presenting at the Smithsonian's S. Dillon Ripley Center.

AIE is a public-private partnership that cultivates cultural exchange through art exhibitions, permanent collections, site-specific commissions and two-way artist exchanges in over 200 U.S. Embassies and Consulates worldwide. Since 1953, the program has accumulated a fascinating history, which Shore shared with us in detail.

In 1953, Nelson Rockefeller gave a grant to the MOMA to launch a visual arts program that would establish exhibitions worldwide. By 1960, the MOMA had exhibits in over 40 countries. Three years later, President John F. Kennedy adopted the program under the Department of State with the name we know today – Art in Embassies.  Originally, the program was not funded, but Kennedy still expressed his support for art. Here is an excerpt Shore shared from his December 1962 speech, "The Arts in America:”

“Both Roosevelt and Lincoln understood that the life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction, in the life of a nation, is very close to the center of a nation's purpose - and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilization.”

Throughout the 1960s, the program established various exhibitions worldwide to showcase American artists' work. In the 2000s, AIE expanded to include artists from the host countries, in addition to American artists, in order to truly facilitate cultural exchange. AIE curates each exhibit with the host country’s culture in mind, while collaborating with the host country’s artists to ensure that their country is portrayed the way they want it to be. To illustrate this growth, Shore presented various past and present AIE efforts, highlighting iconic works and wise words from the artists themselves.

For instance, Catherine Opie, whose work is currently displayed at the Madrid exhibition, said that “art is a type of bridge that allows communication and conversation to take place where other bridges are difficult to build.”

AIE demonstrates that art provides a language that transcends political, cultural, and geographical borders. It’s a sign of reciprocal respect that furthers intellectual and cultural relationships.

Shore concluded, “Most importantly, art is humanizing. It humanizes these spaces.” 

What do you think about Art in Embassies, or about art as a point of universality that transcends various boundaries?

To learn more about AIE and view photos, see their website at art.state.gov.

Also, stay updated about our future events by visiting our website.  


-Haley Moen, Summer 2016 Studio Arts Intern 

The Post-Mortem Adventures of James Smithson

By Sabrina Hirsch

Despite never having visited America, James Smithson (1765-1829) bequeathed his entire fortune to the United States to begin the Smithsonian Institution, “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.”

So how, then, did the bones of an Englishman who had never once been to the United States end up in the nation’s capital? By a very strange turn of events…

When Smithson died in 1829, he was buried in a British cemetery in Genoa, Italy, where he would remain for 75 years. It took the United States Congress until 1836, seven years after Smithson’s death, to accept the legacy which totaled $500,000 dollars, equivalent to 1/66th of the US budget at the time. It was another eight years of debate in Congress before President James K. Polk signed an Act of Congress which officially established the Smithsonian Institution.

In 1901 the British Consul in Italy informed the United States that the cemetery in Genoa, including Smithson’s tomb (which the Smithsonian Institution had been working to maintain and preserve since the mid-1800s), was to be relocated in 1905 to make room for the expansion of a stone quarry at the foot of the hill the cemetery sat upon. When the news of the cemetery’s relocation reached the Board of Regents, there were varying opinions on the .

Smithsonian Regent Alexander Graham Bell (yes, that Alexander Graham Bell, the one who invented the telephone) was adamant that Smithson’s remains be brought to the United States to be reinterred at the Smithsonian, but the other Regents resisted. After two years of campaigning for Smithson’s exhumation, the Board of Regents finally agreed.

On Christmas Day of 1903 Alexander Graham Bell and his wife Mabel arrived in Genoa, and on December 31, under the careful supervision of Bell, Smithson’s remains were disinterred. On January 7, 1904 Smithson’s and ready to join the Bells on their return to the United States. Inside the coffin, Mrs. Bell, who was present at the exhumation and the sealing of the , included a wreath made from the leaves of a Cypress tree from Smithson’s original gravesite. The Bells, along with Smithson’s coffin, boarded the German steamship Princess Irene at the port of Genoa for their return trip to the United States.

US Consul to Genoa, William Henry Bishop, holding Smithson's skull during exhumation. SI neg. # 71-57-2

After a fourteen day passage, the Princess Irene arrived in the United States and was escorted by the USS Dolphin to the pier at Hoboken, New Jersey on January 20. Smithson’s coffin was transferred to the USS Dolphin, which took it to Washington Navy Yard, arriving on January 25. Upon their arrival the United States Marine band, who had been sent by President Theodore Roosevelt, performed. A brief dockside ceremony commenced before Bell, Secretary Langley, other officials, and Smithson’s coffin were taken to the Smithsonian Building (now known as the Smithsonian Castle), escorted by a squadron of the United States Calvary.

When they arrived at the Smithsonian Building Bell symbolically handed over Smithson’s remains, saying “And now… my mission is ended and I deliver into your hands … the remains of this great benefactor of the United States.”

After a short ceremony in the Great Hall, where Smithson’s coffin was draped with both the American and British flags, the coffin was taken to the old Regents’ Room, located in the South Tower. Some of Smithson’s personal effects had been on exhibit in the Regents’ Room since 1880.

Getting Smithson’s remains to the United States was merely one of a myriad of challenges involved in finding a final resting place for Smithson’s remains.

The Smithsonian Board of Regents originally recommended that Congress fund the memorial and, as a result, while in the planning stages, some very elaborate plans for Smithson’s memorial were created. Congress seemed rather unwilling to fund the memorial, however, making most of the proposed designs obsolete. In the end it was one of two designs sent to the Smithsonian by Gutzon Borglum that was selected. Borglum’s design used the original grave marker and plaque from Smithson’s Italian gravesite.

There was a small problem with Borglum’s design, however. Although Smithson’s remains were transported to the United States, the grave marker was still in the Italian cemetery. The grave marker was packed in and shipped to the United States on December 8, 1904 on the Princess Irene – the same ship which originally brought Smithson to the US.

After renovations were done to create a mortuary chapel in the room to the left of the north Entrance of the Smithsonian Building, Smithson was moved from the Regents’ Room and entombed on March 6, 1905. Many people think that Smithson’s remains are held inside of the grave marker, but they are not. Smithson’s coffin is actually held in a sealed vault underneath the grave marker.

in 1974, Smithson was once again exhumed, this time to be studied by Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History. In the 48 hours that Smithson’s skeleton was unsealed from the coffin, Dr. Angel discovered a number of things that give us a greater understanding of Smithson’s life – Smithson was 5 feet 6 inches tall, he had an extra vertebrae, he smoked a pipe, he died of natural causes, and, based upon the development of his shoulders, he was likely an avid fencer. Not groundbreaking details exactly, but it’s still quite a lot considering that Smithson had been dead for 145 years at the time!

Although James Smithson’s remains have not left his tomb since 1974, his ghost is reported to be a frequent visitor to the Castle…

"Knowledge Begins in Wonder:" The Smithsonian's Children's Room

By Sabrina Hirsch

The Smithsonian Children's Room

Prior to the creation of the Children’s Room, the exhibits at the Smithsonian were largely inaccessible to children. Secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley, who was the creator and driving force behind the Children’s Room, tried to see the Smithsonian from the view of its “young clients.”

Reflecting on his own youth, when birdwatching in his hometown sparked his interest in science

In order to view the Smithsonian from that point of view, Langley reflected on his own youth, remembering how birdwatching in his hometown first sparked his interest in science. From the point of view of one of these “young clients” Langley said:

“Speaking, therefore, in their behalf, and as one of them, I should say that we never have a fair chance in museums. We can not see the things on the top shelves which only grown-up people are tall enough to look into, and most of the things we can see and would like to know about have Latin words on them which we cannot understand: some things we do not care for at all, and other things which look entertaining have nothing on them to tell us what they are about.”

Once he had taken a walk in the shoes of a child, Langley appointed himself Honorary Curator of the Children’s Room he sought to create – “a new gallery … where children’s imagination was at the forefront: a small, ‘cozy, pleasant room, with plenty of light and pretty things.’” Much like he had become interested with the natural world birdwatching as a child, Langley wanted the Children’s Room to spark that same feeling in children who visited. As a result, Langley had the phrase “Knowledge Begins in Wonder” painted on the entrance to the Children’s Room so that everyone who entered would remember the founding principle.

The room was designed by the acclaimed designer Grace Lincoln Temple, whose design credits included the Smithsonian Castle rotunda, the White House, and the U.S. Government Building for the 1904 World’s Fair. If you’re interested in learning more about what went into the design of the Children’s Room, be sure to check out the blog post from the Smithsonian Archives!

The Children’s Room was located in the South Tower of the Smithsonian Castle, where it received ample sunlight to help create the warm environment Langley envisioned. Reminiscent of the birdwatching of Langley’s youth, the ceiling of the room was painted with birds, and along the walls actual birds, “little singers … from the many far and near corners of the world” were kept in cages for kids to view. There were also a number of fish tanks in the room, including an elaborate kaleidoscope with fish inside that was designed by Langley himself.

The room also contained a number of specimens in cases that were designed to be at a child’s eye-level so that they could be easily seen by the children who visited. Fewer specimens were displayed in the Children’s Room than in other exhibits at the Smithsonian so that children would not feel overwhelmed. In keeping with the idea of making the Children’s Room a space that was accessible to and enjoyable for children, Langley banned all Latin names from the room, choosing instead to use the common names of the species’. There was one exception, however – the humming bird, whose complicated Latin name was left to show the value of common names.

The Children’s Room was enjoyed by people of all ages from 1901 to 1939 and the Room received much acclaim in the press. Writing in the 1901 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Albert Bigelow Paine summed up the experience of a child visiting the Children’s Room:

“And the child goes home at last, glad, and with knowledge, and the love of knowledge in his heart. He is happy, and, because his wonder has been aroused, he has learned. Unless he is a very small child, he has been able to read the large, clear type of the simply worded labels, on which, with one exception, there are no more Latin names. The exception is made in favor of a very small humming bird, who bears bravely his technical title Rhamphomicron microrhynchum, left by the honorary curator as the best explanation of why he has not retained the others. Of all the rest the common names only are given; and where no common name exists, a literal translation of the Latin name is made. All the labels the child has been able to read, and he is not wearied, and he has not been puzzled or confused.

“Perhaps the child who has passed an hour or two in this room full of interest and pleasure does not know or care to whom his happiness and his thanks are due. It does not matter. If he only cares for the thing itself, cares enough to come again, and perhaps bring his parents, that they too may look and learn with young eyes (and if he is the child most of us have known best, he will do this), the Secretary and Honorary Curator will be amply repaid.”

Saying “I Do” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

By: Dakota Collina

Everybody loves a good wedding, and with extra pageantry, patriotism and extravagance, a White House wedding holds the ultimate prestige.  Fascinated by the details behind these events and the White House, Ms. Coleen Christian Burke, a DC-based designer and historian, has dedicated her studies to the research of the social history of America’s First Families.

At her July 9^th lecture with the Smithsonian Associates, Ms. Burke welcomed the crowd as “her people,” evident, she explained, from their attendance to such a program. Ms. Burke then recognized the important distinction between loving this subject for the romanticized view alone, which many do, and continuing one step further to recognize the cultural importance and impact of holding such events throughout our history as a nation.

Ms. Burke asked the audience to keep the following questions in mind throughout her presentation:

What does such pomp & circumstance, as that surrounding a White House wedding, mean for us as a nation?

Are they appropriate in dark times of violence, war and national turmoil? Or are they necessary in such times to provide hope and pleasant distraction?

What does a romanticized view of those involved and the event as a whole say about an individual?

In today’s world of social media and heightened security, could there ever be another White House wedding? Would any child of the President ever choose such public light on their big day again?

Since the first White House wedding of Lucy Payne Washington in 1812, seventeen White House weddings have been officially named. Though little evidence or artifacts have survived from the earliest events, historical researchers have uncovered images showing small insights into fashion and design.

One such image, seen below, displays the floral wedding bell, likely made of roses, hung above Ms. Nellie Grant and Algernon Sartoris in the East Room of the White House in 1874.

Nellie Grant, daughter President and Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant, marries Algernon Sartoris in the East Room on May 21, 1874.

Over the years, children of presidents, friends of First Families and White House staff have had the honor of White House weddings. All of which varied in size and fashion of their day, but for the modern event romantic, Ms. Burke utilized the majority of her talk to analyze the experiences of three main brides; Luci Baines Johnson, Lynda Byrd Johnson, and Tricia Nixon.

In reference to these three ceremonies and receptions, Ms. Burke discussed insider cake recipes, photographs, and exclusive footage of the wedding day preparation and bridal processions. Fun facts included, Ms. Luci Johnson’s wedding guest count of 700 for a reception in the East Room, which seats approximately 350 guests. Her sister Lynda had a Christmas themed wedding, which sparked Ms. Burke’s interest in White House weddings. And Tricia Nixon’s wedding dress, which stands as the most Googled dress to this day by brides looking for inspiration.

Ms. Tricia Nixon walks down the aisle of the Rose Garden accompanied by her father, President Richard Nixon on June 12, 1971.

Having been a White House holiday designer in 2009 and a lifestyle historian, Ms. Coleen Christian Burke holds the key to any questions you may have concerning the nation’s biggest weddings. She exudes passion for the subject and cares for the information and details as if for her own wedding. The Smithsonian Associates’ audience on Saturday, July 9^th was overjoyed by the provided materials and even enjoyed a wedding cake and iced-tea reception following the lecture.

For those looking for more on her research and design, you can find Ms. Burke on both a Twitter and Instagram (bycoleen). She is also a published author with Christmas with the First Ladies: The White House Decorating Tradition from Jacqueline Kennedy to Michelle Obama and will be back with the Smithsonian Associates come December for a special White House holiday decorating event!

How Love Won: The Landmark Supreme Court Marriage Equality Decision

Today, June 24, 2016, marks the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which established marriage equality nationwide.

As part of the tour for their new book Love Wins: The Lovers and Lawyers Who Fought the Landmark Case for Marriage Equality, Jim Obergefell, the named plaintiff in the case, and Debbie Cenziper, a Pulitzer-Prize winning Washington Post journalist, joined us on June 15, along with NPR’s American Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg to discuss the case. I was lucky enough to be able to attend the event and in honor of the anniversary of the case I’m here to tell you all about it!

Debbie Cenziper, Jim Obergefell, and Nina Totenberg having a laugh during their conversation.

Before we begin, here’s a bit of background on the case, as it was listed in the event description: “Jim Obergefell and John Arthur, who was dying from ALS, married in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. But their home state, Ohio, refused to recognize their union, or even list Obergefell’s name on Arthur’s death certificate. The legal fight that followed became the most important gay rights case in history.”

And in case you’re unfamiliar with the case, two questions were argued:

(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

The decision was that “the Fourteenth Amendment requires both marriage licensing and recognition for same-sex couples.” The case was decided 5-4 in favor of Obergefell, with Justice Kennedy, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan as the majority and Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito as the minority.¹

This event took place just a few short days after the massacre of 49 people at Pulse Nightclub, a popular gay club in Orlando, which is where Totenberg began the conversation. Obergefell and Cenziper’s book was released on June 14, and in the wake of the tragedy in Orlando, Obergefell said that although it has been difficult, “I have found solace, I have found comfort in talking about this book.”

Obergefell and Arthur were together for twenty years, and according to Obergefell they had occasionally thought about getting married, but they wanted it to “carry legal weight;” they wanted it to mean something to the government, not just their friends and family. Two things changed their minds, however. The first came in March of 2013 when Arthur entered home hospice care and the second in June of the same year when the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling “that the federal government had to provide married gay couples all the benefits offered to all other couples that year.”

Their home state of Ohio did not have marriage equality at the time, and so they began looking into other options. Because of its proximity, as well as family in the state, Obergefell and Arthur considered New York, but ultimately decided against it. With Arthur’s ill health it would not be possible for both Obergefell and Arthur to apply for the marriage license in person, which New York requires. After plenty of research the couple decided on Maryland, which only requires one person to be physically present to apply for a marriage license.

Debbie Cenziper, Jim Obergefell, and Nina Totenberg

Finding a state which allowed only one person to be there to physically apply was only part of the challenge, though. Arthur’s health was still declining, and in order to get to Maryland they needed to charter a medical jet, which was a significant expense. Obergefell reached out to friends on Facebook to see if anyone he knew had any connections that could help them get the flight they needed, but unfortunately no one did. Their family and friends, however, had a wonderful alternative: they were able to raise enough money to completely cover the cost of the jet so that Obergefell and Arthur could get married.

Obergefell, Arthur, Arthur’s Aunt Paulette who would be officiating the ceremony, two pilots, and a nurse flew to Maryland on July 11, 2013. According to Obergefell they landed, they were married, and “within 35 or 40 minutes of landing [they] were back in the air” to return to Ohio. Within days of being married, their legal fight, which culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges, began. Although being involved in a lawsuit such as this was “never in [Obergefell’s] wildest dreams,” the case will most certainly go down in history as an utterly groundbreaking event.

The numerous legal battles fought after Obergefell and Arthur were married are detailed in Love Wins: The Lovers and Lawyers Who Fought the Landmark Case for Marriage Equality by Jim Obergefell and Debbie Cenziper. After discussing the case and the book, Totenberg opened the discussion to questions. A number of great questions were asked, but the most moving questions by far were from couples who have been able to get married since the decision came down in Obergefell v. Hodges. The question and answer session was ended with a short discussion on what challenges the LGBT community continues to face. With the recent slew of “bathroom bills” among many other pieces of legislation, Obergefell believes that the biggest priority is the rights and safety of transgender individuals and that “education and telling stories” is very important in moving forward with LGBT rights.

After the discussion there was a small reception in the lobby. Unfortunately Nina Totenberg had another event to attend, so she couldn’t stay and chat, but both Debbie Cenziper and Jim Obergefell were able to speak with those who attended the event.

People buying copies of "Love Wins" and mingling after the program.

Fellow Smithsonian Associates intern Dakota Collina, who also attended the event, and I were both very happy to stay until the last of the non-staff attendees had left in order to chat with Obergefell and get a picture. Being able to shake hands with a man who will no doubt go down in American history was marvelous; it has definitely been one of the highlights of my time here so far!

We all were thrilled with how the event went. Jim Obergefell, Debbie Cenziper, and Nina Totenberg are all wonderful and engaging speakers. There was laughter and some tears, but the atmosphere in the room all evening was truly a warm and heartfelt one. Being able to hear this story from the man who experienced it was an absolutely incredible experience, and I can’t wait to finally read Love Wins!

When I purchased my copy of the book I was asked what I wanted as an inscription, other than Obergefell’s signature. I thought for a moment because I really wasn’t sure, but then it came to me. During the discussion a young woman mentioned that she and her wife had recently been married and they used a quote from the decision in their wedding program. She asked Obergefell if he had a favorite quote from the decision and his favorite quote, just four words, was what I decided to have inscribed.

“It is so ordered.”

---

1: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556