Search Results

Cook, Susan, Alethia Lethe Tanner , Https://Www.alethiatanner.com/ , 2014 Given the outcome of the most recent American presidential election, the story of Alethia ‘Lethe’ Tanner (c. 1785–1864) feels particularly necessary to recount and reclaim, as it underscores the often-overlooked but vital role Black women have played, and continue to play, at the forefront of the fight for democracy in America. Alethia, an enslaved woman in the early nineteenth century, surmounted enormous obstacles to purchase her freedom and become a community leader in modern-day Washington, DC. She not only secured freedom for herself and eighteen relatives, but also made significant social and financial contributions to local churches and schools that were critical to the newly freed population in Washington. Her efforts were rooted in her entrepreneurial beginnings as a produce cart vendor on what is now Lafayette Square, just outside the White House. A precursor to note is while Alethia is often referred to as “Alethia Browning Tanner” this name is historically inaccurate. Key documents, such as her manumission papers and her final will and testament, consistently show that she signed her name as “Lethe Tanner” — Lethe, likely a shortened form of Alethia, reflects the name she preferred and will be used accordingly in this article. The first appearance of “Browning” in connection to Lethe occurred in 1868, four years after her death, in the report ‘ Special Report of the Commissioner of Education on the Condition and Improvement of Public Schools in the District of Columbia’. The report makes many factual inaccuracies, such as misrepresenting the means Lethe used to purchase her sister’s freedom. Such errors undermine its credibility as a source for remembering Lethe’s life and reflect a recurring pattern of government documents inaccurately depicting the identities of enslaved individuals. Reconstructing Lethe’s life requires us to fill in the gaps left by archival silences, an endeavor historian Annette Gordon-Reed describes as an “imaginative enterprise”. To minimise conjecture, we turn to firsthand accounts, such as those of Susan Cook, Tanner’s four-time great-niece, whose memory has been preserved through generational rediscovery. Interviewing Cook has been indispensable to this article, offering unique insights into the significance of Lethe’s story and the lessons it holds. Given, however, there is a scarcity of these accounts, interpretive frameworks are useful to understand and reconstruct Lethe’s life. Her story is often placed within the self-emancipation historiographical narrative, advanced by scholars like James McPherson and Michael Johnson, which emphasises the agency of enslaved people in securing their freedom through independent resistance, separate from abolitionists and external forces. However, this framework is ill-suited to Lethe’s story and fails to do it justice. The narrow focus on the Civil War era overlooks earlier acts of resistance in the early nineteenth century and remains heavily androcentric, often neglecting the experiences of enslaved Black women. Moreover, and most importantly, its emphasis on exceptional acts of freedom obscures the broader, collective dimensions of resistance that shaped enslaved people’s lives and aspirations. Instead, I adopt Tamika Nunley’s commendable concept of ‘self-making’ as a more fitting lens for interpreting Lethe’s life. Unlike the traditional self-emancipation narrative, which centers on the singular act of achieving legal freedom, self-making explores the ongoing process of constructing a self-determined identity, even within systems that denied enslaved individuals legal or social recognition. This article maintains a clear distinction between freedom and liberty: while freedom often marks the breaking of legal barriers, liberty reflects the broader, ongoing struggle to fashion an identity and live on one’s own terms. Saidiya Hartman’s concept of “afterlives” resonates strongly here, arguing that America’s ideals of “democratic individuality” often failed to extend to formerly enslaved women who continued to face systemic constraints rooted in race and gender even after manumission. Lethe, as a free woman in a slave-holding region with no tangible power or resources to rely on, exemplified this struggle. Her afterlife was defined by sustaining her produce cart business until 1853, purchasing the freedom of her relatives, and establishing a school — all of which reflected her enduring commitment to community and liberation. Originally enslaved on the Chelsea Plantation in Upper Marlboro, Maryland — first by Tobias Belt and later by his daughter, Rachel Belt Pratt — Lethe began her path to freedom as a produce vendor on today’s Lafayette Square. Through her earnings, she was able to purchase her own freedom, a significant moment documented in July 1810 when she provided $275 to Joseph Daugherty. Given the legislation of the time barring a direct transaction, Daugherty paid Pratt on Lethe’s behalf. The purchasing of her own freedom was not a transactional, isolated act of emancipation, it was rather the culmination of a longer history of her “small” — as Cook describes — everyday acts of self-making which served as catalysts for lasting change. This narrative challenges conventional accounts that often exclude figures like Lethe from exploration within the archival record, merely reducing them to generalised and simplified examples of emancipation. Moreover, her freedom was the product of sustained identity formation, resistance, and self-determination within a system built to suppress her very existence. Cedric Robinson’s outline of ‘racial capitalism’ further contextualises her within this system that relied on the persistent subjugation of Black people in the American labour economy. Lethe’s navigation of this system reflects her awareness of how her race and gender shaped her proximity to the law and how self-making involved managing diverse pathways between her imposed social position and reimagining herself outside their confines. Viewed through this lens, Lethe not only resisted the structures of power that sought to define her identity but actively destabilised them; challenging the misconception of passivity, showing that resistance was not confined to overt or isolated acts but included the transformative power of striving for identities that transcended the legal and social constraints of their time. Fifteen years after her initial manumission, Lethe remained persistent, paying approximately $1,400 in multiple installments to secure the freedom of her sister Laurana Cook in 1826, along with her six children – reflective of her selflessness and commitment to family over her own financial benefit. Drawing on N. Z. Davis’s micro-historiographical framework, which focuses on human agency within systemic contexts to reveal broader social practices and collective mentalities, Lethe’s story demonstrates that freedom was neither a singular nor isolated act. Instead, it was part of a larger, interconnected network of community efforts that made her emancipation — and that of those around her — possible. Hartman’s concept of afterlives is evident in Lethe’s post emancipation life, as her establishment of the Bell School in 1807 fostered an ethos of community-driven resilience and self-determination, particularly for young girls, enabling Black women to articulate their readiness to assume societal roles otherwise denied to them. Lethe’s legacy also included providing her nephew, John F. Cook Sr., with the space to establish both his church and school in her home; institutions which played a crucial role in educating and raising the next generation of key figures, including Charles Hamilton Houston, who would go on to drive the Civil Rights Movement. These vital educational institutions symbolised Lethe’s commitment to creating a self-sufficient community, showcasing the vibrancy and resilience of free Black Washingtonians in the early nineteenth century. By the time of the Civil War, this commitment of personally freeing more than eighteen individuals contributed to the District’s transformation into a majority-free Black population, growing from 2,549 in 1810 to 11,131 by 1860. Yet, the shadow of slavery persisted, as enslaved women faced exploitation from neighbouring counties in response to the declining Chesapeake tobacco economy between 1800 and 1820. For free Black residents during the Antebellum period, the dangers were severe, with violence and laws that made their freedom precarious. Without freedom papers, they could be legally abducted and sold back into slavery in the Deep South. This underscores the deeply entrenched systems of power designed to maintain the status quo — structures that have endured for centuries. For Lethe, self-making was not solely about achieving freedom, both before and during her afterlife, but also redefining her relationship to her context, her space and her community’s future. Indeed, the sociological context of Lafayette Square carries layered spatial significance. Lethe’s reality unfolded in the shadow of the White House and Congress; buildings which imposed the normative and legal powers of the legislative and executive branches of government, where both de jure and de facto influence was felt upon those in proximity. Her daily occupation of this public space directly challenged the exclusion enforced by these surrounding powers, exemplifying sustained resistance to systemic oppression. Rather than relying on isolated acts of defiance, Lethe actively shaped an identity that transcended her immediate circumstances. This reflects a broader mentality of using contested spaces to challenge restrictive definitions of identity and rights, a dynamic that continues to resonate today as Lafayette Square remains a vital site of protest. Lethe’s life, situated at the intersection of personal agency and spatial significance, exemplifies how Black women’s self-making was both an act of resistance and a means of reshaping their environments. As Nunley asserts, Lethe transformed the square into a stage for experimentation and the assertion of freedoms at a time when the nation’s capital was still defining itself. Underscoring, however, the paradoxical nature of the District itself: while the nation’s founders envisioned the city as a beacon of Republican virtues, it instead embodied the contradictions of a country built on the lack of freedom of many. Most importantly, through the claims she made, the life she built, and the identities she forged, Lethe laid the foundation for a free Black Washington, asserting agency and equality in a space that professed liberty while excluding Black women from its vision of freedom. Defiance of these codes underscores the navigational strategies these women must have employed. Historians have uncovered aspects of these women’s experiences through sources like runaway advertisements, vigilance networks, kidnapping cases, and judicial accounts, including criminal records. Reading these sources against the grain reveals how the Black codes of the time shaped the legal parameters of Black women’s claims to liberty, even after manumission in their ‘afterlives’. What is particularly striking about Lethe’s case is her absence from criminal records, suggesting she navigated the law with remarkable skill and resilience, in an atmosphere overtly against her. This absence speaks to the power of perseverance — a legacy embodied in her daily acts of showing up and refusing to be erased. Remembering Lethe in this way defies the long-standing narratives that underestimate the agency of enslaved women. Instead, offering a deeper understanding of the resilience and creativity Black women employed in envisioning, surviving, and giving meaning to liberty in nineteenth-century America. As a first-generation Washingtonian, I was deeply moved to learn about Lethe’s remarkable history. It was surprising — and somewhat disheartening — that her story had remained so unfamiliar to me, and I assume to many others. Lethe’s contributions are pivotal not only to the history of Washington DC, but also speaks to the resilience and ingenuity of marginalised individuals whose voices have been overlooked in traditional archives and grander historical narratives — particularly in women’s history, where their values are often dismissed since they are rarely articulated according to their own terms. Uncovering and honouring Lethe’s life demonstrates the value of ‘anecdotal’ history in amplifying the experiences of those too often excluded from conventional historiography. Personal stories like hers are deeply impactful and vital for understanding the complexity of the past. And by piecing together her legacy, we can better appreciate her profound influence and ensure her story takes its rightful place in the broader tapestry of American history. Cook’s recollections, alongside public commemorations, serve as a bridge between Lethe’s life and her enduring influence. Alessandro Portelli’s insights on oral history are particularly valuable in this instance, as they highlight how memories, even when factually inaccurate, can capture the emotional truths of historical events. Lethe’s legacy is preserved through public commemorations and contemporary accounts from descendants like Cook, reflecting how these spaces become a continuum of her contributions, enshrining her legacy for future generations. Events and spaces such as Alethia Tanner Day and Alethia Tanner Park continue to honour her memory, hosting activities centered on the same values of community building she championed back in the early nineteenth century. As Cook describes, “it’s a full-time job” to uncover Lethe’s story — research continuously emerges, reshaping our interpretations of her. Though her story has often been overlooked, its resonance with people is undeniable. “The heroes we seek aren’t always those in power” as Cook says, “knowing these stories of people who toiled without the fanfare or the accolades from the powers that be”, reminds us of the strength and determination of ordinary individuals. These untold stories need to be celebrated. The individual nature of her story is deeply impactful, helping us understand that these were real people with names, and that their lives truly mattered. To fully understand her story, one must consider the turbulent environment in which she lived: Washington DC was in its early stages of development, with the capital city still under construction. The conflicts and challenges of that time resonate with the struggles and complexities of today, making her story all the more relevant. Lethe’s legacy reflects not only her resilience but also the countless untold stories of others like her. Her story endures not only in the historical record but also in the collective memory of those who honour and preserve it, as Cook reflects, “she was a linchpin to the successes that my family was able to have after that”, underscoring how Lethe’s influence shaped the course of the lives of her family and likely many others. There is still much to uncover about Lethe and other “self-makers” of her time. Lethe’s memory, therefore, transcends her individual achievements, highlighting the transformative power of collective agency in formulating new identities and strategies for liberation — defying the racial and gendered boundaries of their time and leaving legacies that influenced subsequent generations. Bibliography   Primary sources   Special Report of the Commissioner of Education on the Condition and Improvement of     Public Schools : In the District of Columbia , HathiTrust  (Department of           Education: Commissioner of Education , June 1868)           < https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951000947607p&seq=9 > Susan, Cook, ‘Lethe Tanner Was Here’, Lethe Tanner Was Here , 2014    < https://www.alethiatanner.com/transcriptions > Tanner, Alethia ’Lethe’, LAST WILL and TESTAMENT: ALETHIA LETHE TANNER ,         1847 < https://www.alethiatanner.com/transcriptions > Tanner, Alethia Lethe, and Senator Richard Mentor Johnson, BILL of SALE: Oscar Fitz,            Allen Cook, William Cook, Alfred Cook, Betsey Cook, John Cook, and Their        Mother Laurana Cook , 1826 < https://www.alethiatanner.com/transcriptions > Thornton, William, and Joseph Daugherty , MANUMISSION: For Lethe Tanner     (Recorder of Deeds, 1810)     Secondary sources   Alessandro Portelli, The Death of Luigi Trastulli, and Other Stories: Form and Meaning          in Oral History  (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1991) Arzate, Héctor Alejandro, ‘The Long History of Black Street Vendors in D.C.’, DCist       (WAMU 88.5 - American University Radio, 2023)           < https://dcist.com/story/23/03/14/dc-alethia-tanner-black-street-vendors/ > Baptist, Edward E., The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of    American Capitalism  (New York: Basic Books, 2016) Crawford-Lackey, Katherine, ‘Public Protest as a Claim to Citizenship: Twentieth-      Century Occupations of Washington, D.C. And Their Role in Public Memory’   (2020)          < https://www.proquest.com/docview/2396699103?sourcetype=Dissertations%20        &%20Theses> Daniels, Omari, ‘Alethia Tanner Day Honors Enslaved Woman Who Bought Her     Freedom’, Washington Post , 24 July 2022    < https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/07/23/alethia-tanner-day-noma-     park/> Gordon-Reed, Annette, The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family  (W. W.    Norton & Company, 2009) Hartman, Saidiya V., Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in  Nineteenth-Century America  (New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) Johnson, Michael P., ‘Denmark Vesey and His Co-Conspirators’, The William and Mary      Quarterly , 58.4 (2001), 915 < https://doi.org/10.2307/2674506 > Jones, Carla J., Hutchins Center for African & African American Research, Harvard  University, Cambridge, MA., and Oxford University Press (USA) African     American Studies Center., ‘Enslaved: Peoples of the Historical Slave Trade’, ed.  by Jennifer Mojica Santana, Enslaved.org < https://enslaved.org/fullStory/16-23-       126837/> McPherson, James M., ‘Who Freed the Slaves?’, Proceedings of the American       Philosophical Society , 139.1 (1995), 1–10 < http://www.jstor.org/stable/986716 > Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard        University Press, 1983) Nunley, Tamika Y, At the Threshold of Liberty (UNC Press Books, 2021) Robinson, Cedric J, Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition  (United   States: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000) The White House Historical Association, ‘Self-Emancipation in Lafayette Park’, WHHA      (En-US) < https://www.whitehousehistory.org/self-emancipation-in-lafayette-park >

The institution of British government has almost always been dominated by men. Until the 20th century, women simply weren’t allowed to hold active positions or vote. Constance Markievicz was the first woman elected to the House of Commons in 1918 but didn’t serve for political reasons, so the first woman to actually take her seat as an MP and serve was Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor in 1919. The Duchess of Devonshire campaigning for Fox 1784. Female influence; or, the Devons-e canvas (BM J,3.35) https://www.britishmuseum.org/ picryl.com   150 years before this, the government of early modern Britain was exclusively run by men. However, just because women didn’t hold official titles or positions, didn’t mean that their influence on politics was negligible; quite the opposite in fact. Women were vital contributors to the goings-on of political society and were often integral in parliamentary elections and issues. Described by Elaine Chalus as “social politics” , 18th century women’s influential involvement was an important cog in the mechanics of men’s political careers.   Mary Mee was born between 1752 and 1754 to Benjamin and Elizabeth Mee. She was brought up in a modest household, as her father was a successful banker, but they were not part of the nobility; a situation that would quickly change in her adulthood. Mary had a thorough education growing up, bringing her love of learning as well as an acknowledgement of its importance to her household and children. Mary married Henry Temple, Second Viscount Palmerston on 7 January 1783. Her husband was an exuberant politician; a Member of Parliament for 40 years, he was a passionate Whig and subsequently a follower of Charles James Fox, Britain’s first Foreign Secretary and avid Whig statesman.   Mary placed great importance on education regardless of gender and was adamant all of her children receive a quality education in a variety of subjects. Mary shared an enlightened, liberal mindset and interests with her husband. This made its way into their household through political discussions, education, an awareness of the need to reform, and the cultured and erudite friends they kept. This was no doubt a strong, intellectual foundation for their four children including their eldest Henry John Temple, known as Harry.   Born in 1784, Harry would, in time, succeed his father and become the third Viscount Palmerston, and eventually Prime Minister of Britain in 1855. The key factor these two early modern political celebrities had in common was Mary. Henry Sr was already in the midst of British politics when he wed Mary Mee but with Mary by his side they continued to grow as an elite family with enviable political and social clout, as well as raise one of the most well-known Whig Prime Ministers of the 19th century. During his university studies Harry’s father passed away and he inherited all of the Palmerston land and titles becoming the third viscount Palmerston. Due to this rise in status, Harry no longer had to actually sit his examinations to pass but nevertheless, requested that he still did. This illustrates the importance he put on education and learning, just like his mother.   A large aspect of elite women’s lives was social, especially if their family was politically inclined. They would hold dinners and outings, attend gatherings, plays, weekends to country houses, balls; many with the hope of taking part in some political discussion or outreach, whether subtle or not. Women were the behind-the-scenes players when it came to politics. They would network, converse, and find the latest news, eventually relaying all of it back to their husbands. Mary was no exception, as her daily diary from 1791 shows a multitude of events attended and people met. On Thursday 10th February Mary writes “visited all ye morning”  on the 18th she “dined at Lord Malmsbury only Ly M Sir Gilbert . .”  and on the 20th  “went first to Lord Guildfords, then to ye first Sunday concert at Lord [Chestlys]” .   This is just a small selection of the types of entries in Mary’s pocket-book and they depict a very busy social calendar with members of elite society. She entertained many politically inclined friends, was familiar with the political events occurring at the time and took part in a multitude of occasions that were liberally motivated (as their household was). This would have provided the opportunity for her to interact with similarly minded friends and acquaintances, and likely discuss some form of political gossip or news. She frequently references dozens of Lords and Ladies of the nobility, either meeting them somewhere or hosting them in her home, exhibiting her social prowess and popularity.   Importantly, it wasn’t only ladies she entertained but men too. Many of these men and women were wrapped up in the politics of the day and Mary had constant access to their bended ears. She rarely mentions Lord Palmerston, begging the question if he was present for these engagements or not. If not, then it would have been up to her alone to socialise and, if needed, carefully politicise the conversation to either supply or gather information. This environment would have provided Harry with a strong foundation, understanding and comfortability with the political world.   The author David Steele for his ODNB  article on Temple, Henry John, third Viscount Palmerston  writes of Mary: “…Viscountess Palmerston, is a rather colourless figure beside her much older husband – equally well-meaning, but never quite at ease among the aristocracy.”  Based on her diaries and journals one could disagree about her colourlessness. Her manuscripts are filled with her many daily meetings, societal exploits, and local and international news, illustrating no lack of involvement among the aristocracy. Although one may have found her thoughtful disposition occasionally lacking the liveliness of her exuberant husband, it does not mean she was a bland, withdrawn, aristocratic housewife. In opposing instances, Mary has also been described as a lively, charming and elegant society hostess, who was witty and affectionate.   The Palmerstons were known for their enlightened life which included lots of travel, education, a love of the arts and social events. This worldly upbringing helped to shape the future PM, especially when it came to his foreign duties and policies. During his busy career, Harry spent a lot of time working for the Foreign Office and was widely acknowledged and celebrated for his role as foreign secretary, an important position during the peak of the British Empire. He was known for being opinionated, bold, open to new ideas and cautious. He possessed a strong nationalist attitude, prioritising Britain and its needs above all else and he worked with various countries and continents all around the world including Russia, Brazil and Africa. His work received both notoriety and nervousness; He was revered by a large portion of the British population, likely due to his nationalist tendencies, but left many members of government lukewarm about his actions and beliefs.   Mary and Henry took their four children on a four-year European tour in 1792. This tour alone would have enriched the minds of every member of the Temple family as they visited a multitude of countries and cities around Europe, absorbing and enjoying their landscapes, societies and cultures including significant events occurring at the time like the French Revolution. With such a diverse and fortunate childhood, it is no wonder Harry was so drawn to and successful with foreign politics. During his career he navigated Britain through years of tumultuous international conflicts. One such instance was the Opium Wars with China during the mid 19th century. As Prime Minister, Harry was partially responsible for the Treaty of Nanjing which ended the Opium Wars in 1842 and benefitted Britain wholly in respect to trade and put the territory of Hong Kong under British rule.   One of Mary’s journals clearly illustrates an interest she had in other countries and cultures. She used her journal almost like a commonplace book and copied out a selection of paragraphs from Bryan Edwards’ natural history book, The History, Civil and Commercial of the British Colonies in the West Indies, Vol I  from 1793. She clearly read the entire book as the selections she made are widely dispersed throughout, and she is undoubtedly very interested in the topics of natural history, geography and world history. These interests likely bled into her children’s education and possibly even to her husband’s enlightened learning. Harry’s choices throughout his political career point towards a passion for travel and global politics. In his early career as an MP, he was offered the prestigious position of Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1809 but refused, and instead took a job as the Secretary at War which was more focused on international dealings.   Another prominent influence in Mary’s life was her correspondent and friend Benjamin Thompson, Reichsgraf von Rumford. Rumford was a scientist, reformer, inventor and nobleman whom Mary and her family met in Milan in 1793 during their European tour. Meeting Rumford provided more opportunities for learning and exploration, especially for Mary. They became fast friends and began a correspondence that lasted 11 years until Mary’s death. They discussed all aspects of their lives, with Rumford sharing his array of ideas with Mary. These included: reforms for the poor, a new and more efficient fireplace for the home, and most notably his contributions to the founding of the Royal Institution in 1799, to which Mary was a devoted patron. This institution, still active today, desired to bring new science and technologies to the public.   Rumford had his new fireplaces installed into all three of the Palmerston’s homes and introduced Mary to some of his societal reforms regarding the poorer population as well as his famous soup recipe, which both no doubt inspired and possibly guided Mary’s philanthropic work. Rumford also gifted one of his diaries to Mary which depicted his travels and activities throughout Europe. This would have provided incredible insight into European events, politics and history, widening Mary’s already learned mind, along with anyone she shared it with. Mary, Henry and their children, would have benefitted greatly from having close ties to a friend like Rumford as well as friends and societies so integrated into the liberal and enlightened ideas of the day like the Royal Institution. Importantly, Mary is specifically noted to have shared many of the new, exciting ideas from the Royal Institution with her son Harry.   Unlike Mary’s journal, her pocket book did not have paragraphs copied from natural history books. It does, however, provide more insight into Mary and her family’s daily life and the ways she influenced them, through education, interests about the world, and otherwise.   The Palmerstons were likely aware of what was happening around London and England, being one of the elite families of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This does not mean that it was expected for Mary to take a close enough interest that she would copy various news stories and events down in her daily pocket book. However, unsurprisingly, she did. She makes frequent reference to the war happening between Russia and Turkey, discusses a member of the elite who was recently arrested, and the arrival in England of an East India Company ship called the Indiaman which subsequently brought with it items she had ordered from abroad. This awareness of local and international events would add to a person’s knowledge base and equip them with the tools of fluent and impressive conversation when attending the social events of the season. This would have been a valuable skill Harry picked up from his parents.               Finally, one of the most important characteristics any parent can impart to their child is kindness. As a politician, kindness is not always a sought-after trait but injecting it into your actions can have an influential effect on the people you are serving. Harry has been described as having courage and humanity throughout his career and it is arguable that he learned these qualities from his mother, who was dedicated to her philanthropic work. Mary opened up more than one school, including a “school of industry”  just for girls, recognising the need for female education. She also opened up a “soup house”  (like a soup kitchen) and later, a sort of low-cost inn that provided meals for the poorer population. In her journal, she lists a recipe that uses potatoes to make more economical bread for those who couldn’t afford wheat. This might have been a recipe she kept for her soup houses to share with the poor she encountered.    Mary’s philanthropic endeavours came at a crucial time when there were severe food shortages throughout the country. Mary was very competent when it came to keeping account books and running businesses, which shows the proficiency that early modern women possessed, but above all else, was kind. A clear expression of Harry’s humanity came in 1818 when a frustrated man named Lieutenant Davies shot him in an attempt on his life. Despite this malicious-looking act, it was determined that Davies was mentally unwell and subsequently, Harry paid for the man’s legal defence. If Harry exhibited half of the generosity, humility and kindness that Mary demonstrated, there’s no doubt it would have helped him in social situations and his political career. It is possible it gave him more of an appreciation of all social classes and an understanding of what needed to be done to create healthier societies and a prosperous country. This doesn’t mean however, that Harry always made his political decisions with kindness in mind. He was known to be blunt and not afraid to risk conflict if it was in Britain’s best interest, as the Opium Wars with China illustrate. When it came to his home country though, he was passionate and had many goals to help the population including improving worker’s rights and pay.   Mary’s prioritisation and enjoyment of learning, travels, the enlightened friends she kept, her social clout , her ability to entertain and converse both politically and otherwise, and   her awareness, compassion and action towards the world she was living in, provided her with a greater understanding, appreciation and depth of character. These traits would benefit anyone in a position of power, especially where their decisions affected an entire nation.   There is no doubt that Harry, third viscount Palmerston and Prime Minister of Britain’s upbringing, rise to political power and popularity, were influenced greatly by Mary’s admirable intelligence, keen curiosity, educational encouragement, social awareness and prowess. Bibliography Brain, Jessica, ‘Lord Palmerston’, Historic UK , 2024 [accessed 19 November 2024] < https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Lord Palmerston/#:~:text =He%20was %20a%20remarkable%20figure,and%20respect%20amongst%20the% 20voters.>   Chalus, Elaine, ‘Elite Women, Social Politics, and the Political World of Late Eighteenth- Century England’, The Historical Journal , 43, no. 3 (2000) pp. 669-697   Chlaus, Elaine and M.O. Grenby, ‘Elections in 18th-Century England: Polling, Politics and Participation’, Parliamentary History , Vol. 43, pt. 1 (2024), pp. 5–19   Connell, Brian, Portrait of a Whig Peer  (London: Andre Deutsch, 1957)   James, Frank A. J. L, “When Ben Met Mary: The Letters of Benjamin Thompson, Reichsgraf von Rumford, to Mary Temple, Viscountess Palmerston, 1793–1804.”  Ambix  (2023), 70 (3) pp. 207–328 < https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00026980.2023.2234717 >   Krspecialcollections, “Travels in Europe”, University of Southampton Special Collections , 4 September 2019 [accessed 8 July 2024] < https://specialcollectionsuniversityofso uthampton.wordpress.com/tag/mary-mee/ >   Palmerston Papers. Vol. I. Commonplace book of Mary, Lady Palmerston; after Nov. 1789. ff.ii+20. 155 x 105mm. Contemporary limp brown calf binding , BL, Add MS 59851   Palmerston Papers. Vol. II. Pocket-book journal of Lady Palmerston; 1 Jan.-31 May 1791. ff. 72. 180 x 115mm , BL, Add MS 59852   Sjmaspero, ““On myself I have spent but little, I have perhaps unwisely yielded too much to distress & to relieve others I have involved myself”: the philanthropic works of Mary Mee”, University of Southampton Special Collections , 20 March 2020 [accessed 7 July 2024] < https://specialcollectionsuniversityofsouthampton.wordpress.com/202 0/03/12/on-myself-i-have-spent-but-little-i-have-perhaps-unwisely-yielded-too-much-to-distress-to-relieve-others-i-have-involved-myself-the-philanthropic-works-of-mary-mee/>   Sjmaspero, “The stories they tell: Lady’s Palmerston’s rewards of industry”, University of Southampton Special Collections , 17 September 2020 [accessed 7 July 2024] < https://specialcollectionsuniversityofsouthampton.wordpress.com/tag/mary-mee/ >   Smith, E. A, "Temple, Henry, second Viscount Palmerston (1739–1802), politician and traveller"  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,  23 Sep. 2004 [accessed 2 Aug. 2024] < https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-27111 >   Steele, David, "Temple, Henry John, third Viscount Palmerston (1784–1865), prime minister"  Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,  23 Sep. 2004 [accessed 2 Aug. 2024] < https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-27112 >

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others”. - Mildred Loving Mildred Loving, 1963 From innovation and upheaval to dire enforcements, the 20th century was the first century humanity would witness atrocities executed through diverse media. The world was plagued by dreadful diseases, famine, senseless wars, racism, and sexism, all within a one-hundred-year period. The United States of America—considered at the time a world leader—exhibited a duality of characteristics, nuanced by their effects in the name of progress. For context, slavery officially ended in 1865 in America, yet racial segregation became a deeply entrenched practice that reinforced racism and prejudice within the fabric of society, ultimately institutionalized through the Jim Crow laws. These laws perpetuated division, violence, and fear among Americans. However, as history has shown us time and time again, with hatred and pain also comes hope and love. One ordinary woman of color, Mildred Loving—whose very name spoke of affection—became the beating heart of a legal battle for love that would pose a historic challenge and reshape the discourse on interracial marriage forever. Mildred Loving changed U.S. law when the 1967 Supreme Court ruling legalized interracial marriage following her union to her white husband, Richard Loving. In this article, we delve into the life of this extraordinary woman, whose fight not only changed American law but also profoundly transformed American culture.  The birth of racism in North America  The “New World,” a term filled with optimism, ironically foreshadowed the contradictions and conflicts that would underpin American society. Between the 16th and 18th centuries, the brutal decline of Native American communities became drastically apparent, making indigenous peoples and their cultures increasingly rare. With this significant reduction, the New World—primarily through British colonists—introduced the first Africans to the Americas, establishing institutionalized slavery. The gruesome ramifications of slavery would endure for centuries. "The New World" was designed to favor white people and their descendants, while people of color were condemned to rely on a collective instinct for survival. Whether one identifies as Native American or African American, both heritages hold profoundly beautiful and rich traditions, which were, however, cast aside by the relentless power imbalance of the American legal system. Being both African American and Native American, Mildred Loving suffered from the palpable racism that was and is ingrained in American DNA. The 20th century was marked by extreme legal setbacks, with discriminatory laws and policies perpetuating racial inequalities and significantly limiting opportunities. This included anti-miscegenation laws (the prohibition of interracial marriage and, in some cases, the criminalization of interracial relationships)—that is, until Mildred and Richard Loving fought back against the deep-rooted American justice system.  The Loving’s Case  Compared to most, if not all, communities in the South, Central Point, Virginia (the home of Richard and Mildred Loving), was abundant in racial diversity.[1] Despite living in a state where interracial marriage was illegal and segregation was prevalent, this small community was made up of many multiracial residents, including white, Black, and Native American people. This may be because Central Point, Virginia, dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries, has an exceptional history of free Black landowners, which facilitated the establishment of a mixed-race community.[2] It would therefore not have been as peculiar for Mildred and Richard, being childhood friends, to eventually become romantically involved, fall in love, and want to get married and create a family of their own. On June 2, 1958, the Lovings quietly married in Washington, D.C. (a region that did not explicitly ban interracial marriages, unlike most Southern states that enforced such laws). After an intimate ceremony, the Lovings returned to their home in Virginia to continue living their ordinary lives together; they did not foresee the ordeal it would take for them to achieve that ordinary life. A little over a month after their wedding, at two in the morning, a blast of darkness entered their home, abruptly igniting their serene lives. The Lovings were arrested by the Caroline County Sheriff's Office and spent the night separately in cold, gloomy, confined jail cells. Convicted under Virginia law, which "forbids any white person and colored person from leaving the state for marrying each other and returning," Richard spent one night in jail, while Mildred, facing racial discrimination as a woman of color, was held for several days over the weekend. Once released, Mildred and Richard faced a formidable ultimatum from the judge, sentencing them to one year in prison—which the judge ultimately revoked—but instead banishing them both from their home state of Virginia. They promptly moved to Washington, D.C., where they raised their three children for just shy of a decade. However, the city's lifestyle starkly contrasted with the rural life they were so accustomed to, and the growing sense of isolation from their loved ones and familiar surroundings became overwhelming. The feeling of being out of place only intensified when their son, Donald, was struck by a car, narrowly surviving. It was at this moment that Mildred Loving and her husband decided to do what they deemed best to protect their family, returning to Virginia and facing the implications that their marriage signified.  The Lovings were not politically active, nor did they have any political aspirations; their fight was simply to love and live together freely, without restraints. They also did not have much money, certainly not enough to hire a lawyer. Yet, these limitations did not deter Mildred's determination to pursue her goal. Mildred's primary objective, alongside her husband, was to live peacefully. However, as circumstances evolved, her focus expanded to include a determination to challenge the legal system itself. Mrs. Loving boldly wrote to the United States Attorney General at the time, Robert F. Kennedy, pleading their case. I say "boldly" because both Richard and Mildred were introverted and reserved by nature. Unexpectedly, Kennedy replied to Mildred, saying there wasn't much he could do, but he referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where she wrote another letter. Bernard S. Cohen was chosen by the ACLU to represent the Lovings because of his expertise in civil rights law and his dedication to social justice. In conjunction with his co-counsel, Philip Hirschkop, Cohen played a crucial role in challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's racial segregation laws. Their years-long efforts eventually led to the Supreme Court's historic 1967 decision that invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed."[3] This affirmed the Lovings' right to marry and marked a significant victory for civil rights in the United States. Cohen had stated in an interview before the case ruling by the Supreme Court that marriage is a fundamental right for men, but in our case, it is also the right of women.[4] Millions of couples have been impacted by the 1967 ruling; just three years later, it was reported that approximately 310,000 interracial marriages were recorded in the U.S. By 2015, this number had increased to over 1 million interracial couples, all stemming from Mildred and Richard’s legal confrontation.[5]  Redefining Activism: Human and Racial Equality  The complex case of the Lovings, which conclusively changed U.S. law forever, cannot be fully explained or interpreted in all its nuances, especially not within the scope of a single article. However, what I aim to highlight here is the quiet but determined spirit of Mildred Loving, whose steadfastness ultimately reshaped U.S. history. Despite the extensive coverage and significant legacy of American civil rights history, Mildred Loving remains underrepresented, especially in discussions of human rights activism. Her legacy is often overshadowed by more prominent figures, but her impact as a catalyst for racial justice cannot be overstated. Mildred’s resolute actions played an instrumental role in challenging the status quo and ensuring legal recognition for interracial couples.  Activism is commonly understood as taking action to support or oppose a controversial issue, and while Mildred Loving may not have been a central figure in the Civil Rights Movement, her role significantly challenges conventional definitions of activism. Mildred and her husband, Richard, made a powerful stand against laws that banned interracial marriages in many states. Their actions directly exposed the deep-seated racial injustices that were still prevalent in America. Mildred’s challenge to the law was not just about her personal freedom; it was a statement against the entrenched racial discrimination that affected countless others. As a woman of color married to a white man in the 1960s, her very existence defied the racial boundaries of the time. Through her courageous stand, Mildred became an unintentional advocate for love and equality, pushing back against prejudices that sought to keep people apart. Her unwavering commitment to the fundamental right to love without discrimination became a beacon for others striving for justice and fairness. Mildred’s decision to confront the law and speak to numerous diverse media, refusing to choose between legal constraints and her right to love, was not an act of submission but of bold leadership. In fighting against the establishment, they became the underdogs who triumphed, creating a movement that reshaped American history and gave new meaning to the fight for racial equality. Mildred and Richard were the first to legally marry as an interracial couple; for this statement to be made, the pair set in motion what civil rights leaders such as MLK Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and Rosa Parks, to name a few, sought and preached—the fight for equality and justice. Their fight, and Mildred’s advocacy for her and everyone’s right as a human being, shows her commitment to human rights above all else.  Although neither Mildred nor Richard Loving was formally involved in the Civil Rights Movement, their actions highlighted the pressing need for racial justice in America. Mildred should be seen as a human rights activist, as her legal and public efforts to secure the right to interracial marriage advanced the broader cause of equality, shifting both public attitudes and legal standards. In challenging social norms and discriminatory laws, Mildred Loving became an advocate for love that transcended race, gender, and societal expectations. “My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that the government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.”[6]  Love’s Triumph Over Prejudice  The 20th century ushered in a new era of profound change, marked by the defiance of traditional social constructs. In the U.S., women gained the right to vote in 1920, the first and second waves of feminism and the birth control movement were initiated, and both World Wars saw women rise into unconventional work roles. Moreover, women of color had to fight for decades longer than white women for voting rights, culminating in the 1960s when women of color took a leading role in the Civil Rights Movement7. Mildred's legacy—her fight to keep her marriage intact, particularly as a woman of color married to a white man in the 1960s—does not diminish her ethnicity, identity, or gender as a powerful, outspoken woman. Rather, it deepens the complexity of her struggle and her resilience, both personally and within society. Every time she spoke up, she quietly but powerfully proclaimed her belief in love without shame, in equality regardless of status, and championed individual human rights. Through all of this, she practiced self-preservation, advocating for equality and creating a better history for people of color in the United States, despite being in an interracial home. “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people—black or white, young or old, gay or straight—seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”[8]  The Historic Loving Legacy  Mildred Loving had never sought or intended to expand the definition of what it means to be an activist, demonstrating clearly that one needn't have any political persuasions in order to fight for something. She stood against the Supreme Court not just for herself and her husband, but to advocate for the basic right to marry, no matter the race or gender. As she stated, "It's no longer just about me and Richard; it's about all the people who are treated unfairly just because of who they love."[9] She advocated during and decades after her court case and after the unfortunate, sudden passing of Richard in 1975. Mildred Loving's influence has extended to important Supreme Court cases that shaped LGBTQ+ rights and same-sex marriages in the 21st century, including Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court directly cited Loving v. Virginia in two landmark decisions, Lawrence and Obergefell, to help decriminalize same-sex sexual activity and affirm the right to marry for same-sex couples. [10]   Mildred and Richard Loving after the Supreme Court Ruling, 1967 The Lovings are remembered every year on Loving Day, June 12th, the date the Supreme Court gave its historic ruling. It is a day to celebrate racial equality and raise awareness of the Lovings' impact. Mildred's legacy exceeds the law: she was a wife, mother, and human rights activist whose quiet, long-lasting strength continues to inspire. Her story is a powerful reminder of the lasting need for equality and justice, and of the incredible power and influence one revolutionary woman can have, no matter how introverted, in shaping the world.  1 Phyl Newbeck, Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving , 1st ed. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005), chap. 2, 17. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/22628 .  2 "Virginia's Free African Americans, 1780-1865," The Virginia Historian ,  https://thevirginiahistorian.com/virginias-free-african-americans-1780-1865/ .  3 Chief Justice Earl Warren (Majority), Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 (1965),  https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 .  4 HBO Documentary Films, The Loving Story , directed by Nancy Buirski (HBO, 2011). 5 Pew Research Center, "Trends and Patterns in Intermarriage," Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends , May 18, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/ .  6 "Listening Again to Loving," Children's Defense Fund , 2007,  https://www.childrensdefense.org/listening-again-to-loving/ .  7 Leslie M. Alexander, "The Challenge of Race: Rethinking the Position of Black Women in the Field of Women's History," Journal of Women's History 16, no. 4 (2004): pg.53  8 "Listening Again to Loving," Children's Defense Fund,  https://www.childrensdefense.org/listening-again-to-loving/ .  9 Loving, Mildred. "Mildred Loving’s Speech Prepared for the 40th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia ." QSaltLake , June 12, 2014.  10 HISTORY "How Loving v. Virginia Led to Legalized Interracial Marriage," Feb 27, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-qlS_J4Mho   Bibliography  Primary Sources:  Cohen, Bernard S. The Loving Story .   Directed by Nancy Buirski. HBO Documentary Films,   2011. 33 min.   Loving, Mildred. "Mildred Loving’s Speech Prepared for the 40th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia ." QSaltLake , June 12, 2014.  Loving, Mildred. "Public Statement Submitted Just Before the Massachusetts Legislature’s   Historic Vote Reaffirming Marriage Equality, and Read Aloud at a 40th Anniversary Celebration   of the Loving v. Virginia Decision." 2007.   https://www.childrensdefense.org/listening-again-to-loving/   Warren, Earl, Chief Justice. Loving v. Virginia , 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Oyez. Accessed December 9,   2024. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 .   Secondary Sources:  Alexander, Leslie M. "The Challenge of Race: Rethinking the Position of Black Women in the   Field of Women's History." Journal of Women's History 16, no. 4 (2004): 50-60.   https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2004.0074 .   HBO Documentary Films, The Loving Story , directed by Nancy Buirski (HBO, 2011).   N ewbeck, Phyl. Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the   Case of Richard and Mildred Loving. 1st Edition ed., Carbondale: Southern Illinois University   Press, 2005. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/22628 .   Pascoe, Peggy. “Race, Gender, and Intercultural Relations: The Case of Interracial Marriage.”   F rontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 12, no. 1 (1991): 5–18.   https://doi.org/10.2307/3346572 .   Pew Research Center. "Trends and Patterns in Intermarriage." May 18, 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/ .  Zimmermann, Richard G. "Virginia’s Free African Americans, 1780-1865." The Virginia  H istorian .   https://thevirginiahistorian.com/virginias-free-african-americans-1780-1865/ .