Is Poetry Dangerous For Human Society Philosophy Essay

Is Poetry Dangerous For Human Society Philosophy Essay At first, one may be surprised at Socrates notion that the peaceful and enchanting nature of poetry can have detrimental effects on society. In Platos Republic, Socrates attacks poetry by asking the essential question of whether or not the pleasure that poetry creates is good for us. Socrates speaks of an old quarrel between philosophy and poetry, which both greatly influence ethics, politics, and society. Socrates criticizes well-known and praised poets, including Homer, and the role of poetry itself in society by claiming that poetry is unjust and unethical. For example, Socrates states, The ones Hesiod and Homer told us, and the other poets too. They surely composed false tales for human beings and used to tell them and still do tell them (Rep. 2.377d). Socrates believes poetry is not an appropriate because it is written without reason but by inspiration alone, teaches incorrect values, is merely an imitation, and encourages excessive emotions from those listening. Socrates begins his argument by discussing proper education of citizens in the just city. Socrates compares the poet to a man in speech making a bad representation of what gods and heroes are like, just as a painter who paints something that doesnt resemble the things whose likeness he wished to paint (Rep. 2.377e). Poets only write from their own inspiration, not from reason or through any deep intellectual understanding. Their work only shows understanding in the material realm and not of the intellectual realm. Socrates claims that these poems not only contain many fabrications of the truth but fabrications that are held up as model behavior. A young child that is in the process of receiving his education should not be exposed to these stories because a young thing cant judge what is hidden sense and what is not; but what he takes into his opinions at that age has a tendency to become hard to eradicate and unchangeable (Rep. 2.378d-e). Socrates continues to say that the stories that children hear first should be virtuous and portray the gods truthfully by describing them as good. In Homers Odyssesy, the gods, such as Zeus and Athena, are depicted as tricky and full of deceit; Socrates claims all of Homers references about the nature of the gods as false because the gods are not capable of evil doings and do not want to alter themselves because each of them is as fair and as good as possible, he remains forever simply in his own shape (Rep. 2.381c). For instance, Athena is depicted as the ultimate trickster throughout the Odyssey because she appears to mortals in different shapes and forms, specifically when interacting with Odysseus and Telemachus. According to Socrates, Athena is not capable of this trickery that Homer bestows to her but is only capable of justice and good deeds. However, the entire basis of the Odyssey is that Homer was divinely inspired shown through the narrator saying, Speak, Muse (Od. 1.1). T his statement implies that the Muse speaks through Homer to construct the stories that make up the Odyssey. Nevertheless, Socrates believes that such poetry should be censored from citizens to protect the just morals in the city. Since citizens find it difficult to distinguish between what is wrong and right, role-models of the just city should be completely moral. Socrates fears that the stories of gods punishing, tricking, and lying to mortals will have a disadvantageous affect on children who may begin to believe that these actions are correct or even good. The aim of censoring tales is to instill the belief in children that just actions are admirable while socially unjust actions are dishonorable. Socrates furthers to expand his argument greatly in Book III. Socrates claims that poetry invokes excessive emotion that is not in accordance with reason and analyzes the ethical and mental effects of poetry. Socrates begins by saying that tales should be shaped in a way that does not depict Hades as a place full of terror but rather to praise it, because what they say is neither true nor beneficial for men who are to be fighters (Rep. 3.386b-c). Socrates is making a reference to the famous meeting in the Odyssey of Odysseus and Achilles in Hades. Achilles says that he would rather be a hired hand back up on earth, slaving away for some poor dirt farmer, than lord it over all these withered dead (Od. 11.510-513). Fearing Hades more than slavery is seriously detrimental to the success of a guardian because the guardian will have trouble maintaining strength and loyalty to his people in battle. The idea of Hades should be expunged in Socrates view because it is false and is not benefic ial for guardians, who have to show immense courage in battle. Also, Socrates warns against powerful emotions with the guardians by saying that they shouldnt be lovers of laughter (Rep. 3.388e). Socrates wants the guardians to strive for complete moderation with their emotions in all aspects of their lives. Poetry that is censored by philosophy can maintain this balance in the guardians and citizens of the just city. Socrates knows that poetry is needed to invoke emotion, but philosophy is needed to keep those emotions in moderation. With the two in harmony, the citizens can live a content life of moderation. Having dealt with the content of poems, Socrates now discusses the style of poetry that poets take. Socrates characterizes poetic narration into narratives that are either simple, produced by imitation, or both together (Rep. 3.392d). When the poet speaks with his own voice without meter, as in dithyrambs, it is simple narrative; when the poet likens himself to another man, as in tragedies or comedies, it is imitative narration (Rep. 3.394c). Socrates believes that each person in the just city can only do their best work in one activity alone. Therefore, no one can do a good job imitating many things. For example, Socrates claims that one cannot be both a tragic poet and a comedic poet (Rep. 3.395b). Nevertheless, Socrates ends by insisting that the guardians must not engage in imitations. If they do, the imitations they engage in must be righteous and not detrimental to their development. Since imitations, if they are practiced continually from youth onwards, become established as h abits and nature, in body and sounds and in thought the guardian children should only be allowed to imitate those actions of men who are courageous, moderate, holy, free, and everything of the sort (Rep. 3.395c). Socrates continues in Book X to completely rid poets from the just city. Socrates claims that the poets do not truly know what they are writing about because they have no firsthand experience or knowledge about their writing. What poets write about are far from the truth and maim the thought of those who hear them (Rep. 10.595b). Socrates attacks poets by saying that the poet knows nothing worth mentioning about what he imitates (Rep.10.602b). Socrates holds philosophical nature to be far superior to imitative art. Then, Socrates criticizes poets, especially Homer, for their lack of knowledge upon the topics they write about and therefore lack of any knowledge that can be gained from reading their works. Socrates also does not approve of how poets imitate the soul. Poets describe excessive emotions and ones that are not rational or in moderation. The lamentation of heroes in poetry brings enjoyment to those who watch, but Socrates says when personal sorrow comes to one of us, you are aware that, on the contrary, we pride ourselves if we are able to keep quiet and bear up, taking this to be the part of a man and what we then praised to be that of a woman (Rep. 10.605e). Even if the character is a fictional one, taking enjoyment in anyones suffering can corrupt ones soul. Socrates emphasizes the danger of irrational emotions to ones soul when he states that: And as for sex, and spiritedness, too, and for all the desires, pains, and pleasures in the soul that we say follow all our action, poetic imitation produces similar results in us. For it fosters and waters them when they ought to be dried up, and sets them up as rulers in us when they ought to be ruled so that we may become better and happier instead of worse and more wretched. These desires grow in ones soul to the point where one begins to imitate the actions of those on stage, causing one to become more miserable and unhappy. One also cannot understand the pain that the characters are going through simply by watching them on stage. They must experience it firsthand to truly know the emotions felt by those portrayed by the poets. Despite the dangers poetry imposes, Socrates regrets ridding the city of all poetry. He says that only so much of poetry as is hymns to gods or celebration of good men should be admitted into a city (Rep. 10.607a). However, Socrates cannot use these forms of poetry to convince Glaucon of the importance of philosophy so he uses a reformed version of poetry with the myth of Er. The myth of Er describes the alternative that Socrates wants for Hades. The myth opens by describing a strong man named Er who died in war but came back to life twelve days after his death to tell others about the eternal world (Rep. 10.614b). In the myth, heaven is described as a place where virtue is rewarded and unjust deeds were paid for ten times over for each (Rep. 10.615a). People are rewarded or punished for their life deeds every thousand years, and then are given the opportunity to choose their form in their next life (Rep. 10.615a-620a). Socrates here integrates Homeric heroes into this story without emotion to prove that wisdom and knowledge is the best way to enrich ones soul. The correct choice for ones form in his next life is only discovered by those who were just while alive. Socrates portrays Odysseus, Ajax, and Agamemnon all as philosophers who choose their next life form wisely based on events of their past lives. The philosophers know how to choose their new life, because they understand what was just and unjust in their past lives. Socrates ends by giving Glaucon hope in the afterlife and telling him to always keep to the upper road and practice justice with prudence in every way so that we shall be friends to ourselves and the gods, both while we remain here and when we reap the rewards for it (Rep. 10.621d). This type of poetry is much different than Homeric poetry because it provides a deeper understanding of ones soul. It provides hope and knowledge without excessive emotion or immoral actions. Socrates was completely correct in challenging the nature of poetry because its ideals were not in agreement with the positive upbringing of mankind. The world remains fascinated with pleasures that poetry provides even if it does not better them intellectually. The emotions and drama of poetry is to what humanity appeals. Even though Socrates tries to give poetry a philosophical twist with the myth of Er, this kind of poetry is not as appealing because the emotions and suffering experienced by others is absent. Plainly, humans like to view the despair of others because it makes their troubles seem less daunting. One can obviously see that the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry is still alive to this day. For example, the music of this generation definitely has a superficial meaning, but no deeper philosophical message. Without philosophical messages in modern poetry, the world continues to decline in its search for knowledge and the eternal judgment of the soul. Socrates work still applies today and his wisdom will last through the ages. With the help of Socrates, the world can work towards being one that is full of both knowledge and eternal happiness.

The Birth of Protestantism in Europe

Protestantism refers to the third branch of Christianity after Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is comprised of various denominations or groups each with their own set of traditions. This set of traditions is oftentimes unique to a denomination in terms of beliefs, organization and customs making it separate from other Protestant denomination. This makes Protestantism seem splintered when compared with the very organized structure of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. But one common belief among Protestant denominations is that man can find salvation not through good actions but solely by his faith in Jesus Christ.The first Protestants come out from Europe in the 16th century in what is now called the Reformation. The actual word â€Å"Protestant† was originally coined when five princes of Germany sought reform in the Roman Catholic Church at the Diet of Speyer in 1529. They released a statement pronouncing unity against Roman Catholicism. Later in that centur y, the word was begun to be used to refer to two factions of reformation that broke away from Roman Catholicism: Lutheranism, founded on Martin Luther’s teachings, and Reformed, founded on the philosophies of Huldrvch Zwingli and John Calvin (McKim, 2005).Zwingli and Calvin headed the Protestant movement in Switzerland while John Knox for Scotland. In England, a middle fusion of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism was created in what is now called Anglicanism or the Church of England. From these major groups or denominations, a lot of smaller groups broke away and presently continue to happen as the movement expanded around the world. By tradition, the origins of Protestantism is traced back to October 31, 1517 when Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest that time, posted the â€Å"95 Theses† on the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany.The theses condemn aspects of the Roman Catholic Church that he believed to be not founded on Scripture particularly concerning abso lution, confession and indulgences. Roman Catholics believe on indulgence as the complete or initial reduction of mortal chastisement owed for sins previously forgiven in confession. The growing practice of selling indulgences was regarded with huge skepticism since it symbolized a monetary transaction instead of an authentic repentance of the person. Luther viewed this as a serious desecration of the real purpose of confessing one’s sins and doing penance.He asserted that Catholics were fallaciously taught that forgiveness can be obtained by paying for indulgences. The Castle Church where Luther nailed his 95 Theses possessed one of the continent’s biggest collections of religious relics at that time. It was maintained that time that viewing these sacred relics gives the onlooker some indulgence in purgatory. The collector of the relics, Frederick III of Saxony, allowed the religious to view the relics once a year and visitors offered donations for the church’s preservation and receive indulgences in return.Another Dominican priest, Johan Tetzel, started to sell indulgences to help in a campaign to help fund St. Peter’s Basilica’s renovation in Rome. When these devout Catholics went to confess their sins, they handed over their indulgences and asserted that they did not have to repent because the indulgence document already guaranteed the forgiveness of their sins. This angered Luther and obliged him in exposing the deception by composing the 95 Theses, which was originally intended to be presented in public debate at the University of Wittenberg.That day on October 31, 1517, was the day when Martin Luther spoke to the Roman Catholic authorities with his reform appeals and introduced his theses. He also asked them to order the members of the clergy to bring an end to the wrongful practice of selling indulgence. The church authorities did not take any action and this led Luther to circulate his work in private. His 95 Theses proliferated swiftly and printing began in Leipzig, Nuremberg and Basel. All of a sudden the content of his work reverberated all over Germany and beyond, having acquired a growing recognition in a short span of time.Luther’s work echoed with believers not considering social status, wealth or class. The Roman Catholic Church released a response and identified errors in Luther’s work but the damage was already done. The Wittenberg chapel started to celebrate Lutheran services in 1522 instead of the Holy Mass in Roman Catholicism. Martin Luther quickly became popular mainly because of the common sentiment of Roman Catholic believers that time that they were not satisfied with the dishonesty and materialistic cravings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.Starting in 1525, other principal European cities like Strasbourg, Nuremberg and Augsburg, officially joined the Reformation movement. Soon after, other principal German states like Saxony, Brandenburg and Hesse joi ned the movement. Denmark established its first Protestant church in 1357 and Sweden followed in 1539. Meanwhile, the final attempt to formally reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church fell short at the Colloquy of Regensburg in 1540 (Iserloh, 1968). The founding of Protestantism was then regarded as fully accomplished.

Positive functions for society Essay

The family was once described as a social group that shared common residence, consisted of at least two adults of each sex that maintained a socially approved sexual relationship and had one or more children, their own or adopted. This is a nuclear family, described by George Murdoch to be a universal family type. Although it is correct to say that nuclear families reside universally, family types now vary from single-parent families to gay headed families. Despite the variety, they contribute to the society, in ways that can be positive and negative too. Many sociologists differ in their views as to whether the family is positive to the society or not- functionalists believe that the family has positive functions that contribute positively to the society but it has to be said that functionalists tend to ignore negative aspects of the family such as the ‘dark side’, which consists of all that makes the family a negative experience for its members. Nevertheless there are sociologists that focus on only the negative aspects, such as, radical psychiatrists, radical feminists and Marxists. The new right theory has faith that family is a positive function of the society, however new rights only refer to nuclear families, as they believe that any other family type is inferior. Functionalism is a consensus theory which looks at society positively. Functionalists often make an organic analogy, as a human body is maintained by the functions of each part of a body, keeping it alive and healthy, similarly, and society is kept going by its institutions- family being one of the institutions which function to sustain the well-being of society. It is recognised by functionalists that families change themselves over time for the sake of adapting to society, an exemplar would be leading functionalist Emile Durkheim who strongly believed that family was the most important institution of society. Durkheim believed that family positively functioned for both individuals and society. The family, he believed, is the institution that offers its members emotional support, stability and gives them their identity as primary socialisers, and to an extent, teaches them how they should act toward the rest of society. Thus he proves that they perform a positive function to society too, as they provide fundamental social order and stability, which helps to prevent the society from becoming disordered. Talcott Parson’s was a functionalist who analysed the families  from a modern perspective and came to a conclusion that although families have less functions, as they are provided with help from outside agencies, they still perform two important functions which determine the actions within a society. These two functions focus on individuals- the first being the socialisation of children primarily, into the responsible, committed individuals that society can benefit from and the second is the stabilisation of adult personalities, as he stated that it was family who help ease away tensions of the modern world, particularly for male workers. He also believed that these functions were best found in nuclear families, where the clear sexual division in labour enabled wives to partake an expressive role while men held an instrumental role. However, there are functionalists like Fletcher who believe that family has not decreased their functions, he explains how the family do not just perform the apparent obvious functions of primary socialisation, social control and reproduction but they also play a role in providing basic education and support through school life and they still have an economic function because they provide support to their non-working members, whether they are un-fit to work, ill or unemployed and ultimately, family supplies the whole economy with workers. The functionalism theory sheds light on the positive aspects of family life which all contribute to the society positively. Each functionalist has consistently mentioned a vital performance that families partake- the primary socialisation of children. During this stage a child learns about his/her culture and is most likely to be taught the norms and values of their society. Primary socialisation is a vital performance which is done by the family, as a child is expected to have acknowledgement of the norms and values in order to adjust with the society they live in. Although the functionalist theory does not look at the negative aspects of the family there are others that do. It can only be assumed that the functionalist view was patriarchal- the belief that men are dominate. This assumption is only representative of Parson as he introduced the warm bath theory, whereby he suggested that it was men that had a hard day at work and their wives (women) stayed at home and made them feel better when the husbands came home. Radical feminists are those who focus on this discrimination and have firm belief that the world is wrongly dominated by  men. They believe that patriarchal ideology gives women a perception that motherhood is their natural role whereas it actually keeps women subservient to men. They express how women have at least a dual role but most have a ‘triple burden’ which consists of the roles of a paid worker, a mother and a housewife. The Marxist theory characterises the society as being one that exploits and subordinates the working class. They argue that the family only benefits capitalists as they produce the working class, teach their children to accept capitalist values when primarily socialising them, which are to hard work, accepting and respecting authority, and it is the family that makes their members feel that capitalism is the norm. Radical psychiatrists on the other hand, argue that the family as a whole is a deception. Clinical evidence proves that families suffer exploitation, oppression and a negative experience. The modern family is so ‘independent’ that it leads to emotional stress between the members. They disagree with functionalists and say that families actually spend too much time trying to please others by doing what they are expected to do, which prevents them from having autonomy. Thus if someone did something wrong it would lead to shame, guilt and repression. This leads to the’ dark side’ to a family which includes abuse to children and domestic violence to both men and women. Child abuse consists of, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. A CPS report showed that five to six children died each day in 2001 due to child abuse or neglect. Approximately 84% of the children were abused by their parents and mothers alone were responsible for 47% of the neglect and 32% of the abuse. Domestic violence is also increasing the UK’s crime rate and accounts for a quarter of the murders in the UK. Domestic violence is all the violence that occurs between partners. Not only does it account for physical violence but sexual and emotional abuse too. Although it is considered a crime against women because they are twice as likely to be threatened and injured, men are also violated against- a study conducted at the Leicester Infirmary in 1992 concluded that equal numbers of men and women were being assaulted at home and that men received more serious injuries, losing consciousness more often than women. It may be so that the family as individuals may be affected more if they suffer these negative experiences however, it may also affect the society because one’s participation to society will become effortless regardless of the way they contribute, for examples if they are a student,  they will not work hard, if they are a worker, they will be less. Nevertheless there are 400 refuges around the UK and any help lines to support those that are suffering. There are different views of the family that that highlight how they function in society and towards individuals. Functionalism is the main theory that promotes the positive aspects of a family and reflects the positive contributions a family makes towards society by performing essential functions such as reproduction, primary socialisation and social control. There are also many theories that focus on the negative aspects of the family- the things that make family a bad function of society. However, it has to be said that all the theory’s are correct if read from the perspective that they are written in. Thus, although the family does have a ‘dark side’ and may not comply with all theorists, such as radical psychiatrists and radical feminists, they still manage to uphold the main functions, that is to reproduce, socialise with individuals and support their family members.

A History of Camels in the US Army

A plan by the U.S. Army to import camels in the 1850s and use them to travel through vast stretches of the Southwest seems like some comical legend that never could have happened. Yet it did. Camels were imported from the Middle East by a U.S. Navy ship and used in expeditions in Texas and California. And for a time the project was thought to hold enormous promise. The project to acquire camels was masterminded by Jefferson Davis, a powerful political figure in 1850s Washington who would later become the president of the Confederate States of America. Davis, serving as secretary of war in the cabinet of President Franklin Pierce, was not a stranger to scientific experiments, as he also served on the board of the Smithsonian Institution. And the use of camels in America appealed to Davis because the War Department had a  serious problem to solve. Following the end of the Mexican War, the United States acquired vast tracts of unexplored land in the Southwest. And there simply was no practical way to travel in the region. In present day Arizona and New Mexico there were virtually no roads. And going off any existing trails meant venturing into country with forbidding terrain ranging from deserts to mountains. Water and pasturage options for horses, mules, or oxen were non-existent or, at best, hard to locate. The camel, with its reputation for being able to survive in rough conditions, seemed to make scientific sense. And at least one officer in the U.S. Army had advocated for the use of camels during military campaigns against the Seminole tribe in Florida in the 1830s. Perhaps what made camels seem like a serious military option were reports from the Crimean War. Some of the armies engaged used camels as pack animals, and they were reputed to be stronger and more reliable than horses or mules. As leaders of the American military often tried to learn from European counterparts, French and Russian armies deploying camels in a war zone must have given the idea an air of practicality. Moving the Camel Project Through Congress An officer in the U.S. Armys quartermaster corps, George H. Crosman, first proposed the use of camels in the 1830s. He thought the animals would be useful in supplying troops fighting in the rough conditions of Florida. Crosmans proposal went nowhere in the Army bureaucracy, though it apparently was talked about enough that others found it intriguing. Jefferson Davis, a West Point graduate who spent a decade serving in frontier Army outposts, became interested in the use of camels. And when he joined the administration of Franklin Pierce he was able to advance the idea. Secretary of War Davis submitted a lengthy report which took up more than an entire page of the New York Times of December 9, 1853. Buried in his various requests for Congressional funding are several paragraphs in which he made the case for appropriations for study the military use of camels. The passage indicates that Davis had been learning about camels, and was familiar with two types, the one-humped dromedary (often called the Arabian camel) and the two-humped central Asian camel (often called the Bactrian camel): On the older continents, in regions reaching from the torrid to the frozen zones, embracing arid plains and precipitous mountains covered with snow, camels are used with the best results. They are the means of transportation and communication in the immense commercial intercourse with Central Asia. From the mountains of Circassia to the plains of India, they have been used for various military purposes, to transmit dispatches, to transport supplies, to draw ordnance, and as a substitute for dragoon horses.Napoleon, when in Egypt, used with marked success the dromedary, a fleet variety of the same animal, in subduing the Arabs, whose habits and country were very similar to those of the mounted Indians of our Western plain. I learn, from what is believed to be reliable authority, that France is about again to adopt the dromedary in Algeria, for a similar service to that in which they were so successfully used in Egypt.For like military purposes, for express and for reconnaissances, it is believed the dromedary would supply a want now seriously felt in our service; and for transportation with troops rapidly moving across the country, the camel, it is believed, would remove an obstacle which now serves greatly to diminish the value and efficiency of out troops on the western frontier.For these considerations it is respectfully submitted that the necessary provision be made for the introduction of a sufficient number of both varieties of this animal to test its value and adaptation to our country and our service. It took more than a year for the request to become a reality, but on March 3, 1855, Davis got his wish. A military appropriations bill included $30,000 to fund the purchase of camels and a program to test their usefulness in Americas southwestern territories. With any skepticism tossed aside, the camel project was suddenly given considerable priority within the military. A rising young naval officer, Lieutenant David Porter, was assigned to command the ship sent to bring back the camels from the Middle East. Porter would go on to play a critical role in the Union Navy in the  Civil War, and as Admiral Porter he would become a revered figure in late 19th century America. The U.S. Army officer assigned to learn about camels and acquire them, Major Henry C. Wayne, was a West Point graduate who had been decorated for valor in the Mexican War. He later served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. The Naval Voyage to Acquire Camels Jefferson Davis moved quickly. He issued orders to Major Wayne, directing him to proceed to London and Paris and seek out experts on camels. Davis also secured the use of a U.S. Navy transport ship, USS Supply, which would sail to the Mediterranean under the command of Lt. Porter. The two officers would rendezvous and then sail to various Middle Eastern locations in search of camels to purchase. On May 19, 1855, Major Wayne departed New York for England aboard a passenger ship. The USS Supply, which had been specially outfitted with stalls for camels and a supply of hay, left the Brooklyn Navy Yard the following week. In England, Major Wayne was greeted by the American consul, future president James Buchanan. Wayne visited the London zoo and learned what he could about the care of camels. Moving on to Paris, he met with French military officers who had knowledge of using camels for military purposes. On July 4, 1855, Wayne wrote a lengthy letter to Secretary of War Davis detailing what he had learned during his crash course in camels. By the end of July Wayne and Porter had met up. On July 30, aboard USS Supply, they sailed for Tunisia, where an American diplomat arranged a meeting with the countrys leader, the Bey, Mohammad Pasha. The Tunisian leader, when hearing that Wayne had bought a camel, presented him with a gift of two more camels. On August 10, 1855, Wayne wrote to Jefferson Davis from about the Supply, anchored in the Gulf of Tunis, reporting that three camels were safely aboard the ship. For the following seven months the two officers sailed from port to port in the Mediterranean, endeavoring to obtain camels. Every few weeks they would send highly detailed letters back to Jefferson Davis in Washington, detailing their latest adventures. Making stops in Egypt, present day Syria, and the Crimea, Wayne and Porter became fairly proficient camel traders. At times they were sold camels which exhibited signs of ill-health. In Egypt a government official tried to give them camels which the Americans recognized as poor specimens. Two camels they wanted to dispose of were sold to a butcher in Cairo. By the beginning of 1856 the hold of USS Supply was filling up with camels. Lieutenant Porter had designed a special small boat which contained a box, dubbed the camel car, which was used to ferry camels from land to the ship. The camel car would be hoisted aboard, and lowered down to the deck used to house the camels. By February 1856 the ship, carrying 31 camels and two calves, set sail for America. Also aboard and headed to Texas were three Arabs and two Turks, who had been hired to help tend to the camels. The trip across the Atlantic was plagued by bad weather, but the camels were finally landed in Texas in early May 1856. As only a portion of the Congressional expenditure had been spent, Secretary of War Davis directed Lieutenant Porter to return to the Mediterranean aboard USS Supply and bring back another load of camels. Major Wayne would remain in Texas, testing the initial group. Camels in Texas During the summer of 1856 Major Wayne marched the camels from the port of Indianola to San Antonio. From there they proceeded to an army outpost, Camp Verde, about 60 miles southwest of San Antonio. Major Wayne began using the camels for routine jobs, such as shuttling supplies from San Antonio to the fort. He discovered the camels could carry much more weight than pack mules, and with the proper instruction soldiers had little problem handling them. When Lieutenant Porter returned from his second voyage, bringing an additional 44 animals, the total herd was about 70 camels of various types. (Some calves had been born and were thriving, though some adult camels had died.) The experiments with camels at Camp Verde were considered a success by Jefferson Davis, who prepared a comprehensive report on the project, which was published as a book in 1857. But when Franklin Pierce left office and James Buchanan became president in March 1857, Davis left the War Department. The new secretary of war, John B. Floyd, was convinced the project was practical, and sought Congressional appropriations to purchase an additional 1,000 camels. But his idea received no support on Capitol Hill. The U.S. Army never imported camels beyond the two shiploads brought back by Lieutenant Porter. Legacy of the Camel Corps The late 1850s was not a good time for a military experiment. The Congress was becoming increasingly fixated on the nations impending split over slavery. The great patron of the camel experiment, Jefferson Davis, returned to the U.S. Senate, representing Mississippi. As the nation moved closer to Civil War, its likely the last thing on his mind was the importation of camels. In Texas, the Camel Corps remained, but the once promising project encountered problems. Some of the camels were sent to remote outposts, to be used as pack animals, but some soldiers disliked using them. And there were problems stabling the camels near horses, who became agitated by their presence. In late 1857 an Army Lieutenant named Edward Beale was assigned to make a wagon road from a fort in New Mexico to California. Beale used about 20 camels, along with other pack animals, and reported that the camels performed very well. For the next few years Lieutenant Beale used camels during exploratory expeditions in the Southwest. And as the Civil War began his contingent of camels was stationed in California. Though the Civil War was known for some innovative experiments, such as the Balloon Corps, Lincolns use of the telegraph, and inventions such as ironclads, no one revived the idea of using camels in the military. The camels in Texas mostly fell into Confederate hands, and seemed to serve no military purpose during the Civil War. It is believed most of them were sold to traders and wound up in the hands of circuses in Mexico. In 1864 the federal herd of camels in California was sold to a businessman who then sold them to zoos and traveling shows. Some camels were apparently released into the wild in the Southwest, and for years cavalry troops would occasionally report seeing small groups of wild camels.