History in 28-minutes

View Details

Reginald Victor Jones, known as R.V. Jones, was one of Britain's most brilliant scientific minds during the Second World War. His unparalleled contributions to intelligence, particularly in countering the Luftwaffe's technological advancements, earned him a prominent place in the history of science and warfare.

Terry Bailey explains.

*R.V. Jones (left), DCI James Woolsey, and Jeanne de Clarens.*

Early life and education

R.V. Jones was born on September 29, 1911, in Herne Hill, London, to a family of modest means. From an early age, he exhibited an intense curiosity for how things worked, which led him to pursue studies in physics. Jones attended Alleyn's School in London before securing a scholarship to Wadham College, Oxford. At Oxford, Jones studied physics under some of the most distinguished scientists of the time, including Frederick Lindemann, later known as Lord Cherwell, who became a key advisor to Winston Churchill during the war.

Jones graduated with a first-class degree and remained at Oxford to conduct research in atmospheric physics. His deep interest in scientific instrumentation and precision led him to become an expert in high-frequency measurements. In 1936, he completed his Doctorate focusing on spectroscopic measurements, which laid the groundwork for the skills he would later apply to military intelligence and post contributions.

Joining the British Air Ministry

In 1939, as tensions in Europe escalated into war, Jones was recruited by the British Air Ministry, eventually working in scientific intelligence. He joined a small but elite team of scientists tasked with monitoring and analyzing German technological developments. His role quickly evolved into one of the most crucial during the war, becoming responsible for understanding and countering German advancements in radar, electronic warfare, and guided weapons.

R.V. Jones's most significant work came under the Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, where he reported directly to Churchill's scientific advisor, Frederick Alexander Lindemann, (1st Viscount Cherwell). Jones' task was to stay ahead of German technology, which meant intercepting, analyzing, and neutralizing it before it could be deployed effectively against the Allies.

The Battle of the Beams

One of Jones' earliest and most celebrated contributions was in the Battle of the Beams, a critical episode in the air war between Britain and Germany. Early in the war, the Luftwaffe began using radio navigation systems to guide their bombers over long distances during nighttime raids. These systems, such as the Knickebein, Lorenz, and X-Gerät, relied on a series of radio beams transmitted from the German-occupied continent, which the bombers would follow to reach their targets in Britain.

Jones, recognizing the threat posed by these beams, set to work analyzing how they functioned. Using a combination of intercepted German communications, captured equipment from down enemy aircraft and scientific reasoning, he discovered that the beams were highly directional and precise. The German bombers would fly along these invisible paths and drop their bombs when they intersected at pre-arranged points over British cities.

Jones proposed a series of countermeasures that were both simple and effective. His team developed techniques to jam or distort the beams, leading German pilots astray. Additionally, he arranged for false signals to be transmitted, causing the Luftwaffe to drop their bombs over empty fields instead of their intended targets. This deception was so successful that German crews often believed their bombs had hit home, while British cities remained relatively unscathed.

Operation Biting and countering German radar

The Germans were developing their advanced radar system at the same time as the British. As a scientific intelligence officer attached to the Air Ministry, Jones was able to untangle the clues which led to understanding Germany's radar capabilities, notably the highly effective Würzburg radar.

Jones was instrumental in instigating Operation Biting, the daring raid designed to obtain a working model of the German Würzburg radar. By 1941, the British were aware that the German radar systems were highly effective at detecting Allied aircraft, especially during bombing missions over occupied Europe. However, the precise nature of how the operational capabilities of these radars remained unclear. Jones, based on intelligence reports and radio intercepts, not only confirmed the existence of the radar but was also convinced that obtaining physical components from a German radar installation would provide the necessary insight for the British to develop effective countermeasures.

The opportunity arose when a Würzburg radar was located near Bruneval, on the French coast. Jones was instrumental in convincing the British high command to authorize a raid to capture the radar system. Operation Biting took place in February 1942, with British paratroopers seizing and dismantling key parts of the Würzburg radar. The successful retrieval of these components allowed Jones and his team to analyze the technology, leading to the development of electronic countermeasures that disrupted German radar accuracy. This not only improved the effectiveness of British bombing campaigns but also laid the foundation for further technological advances in electronic warfare.

His broader efforts to understand and neutralize German radar formed a key component of Britain's overall defense strategy, allowing the Allies to maintain the upper hand in the battle for air superiority. His contributions were critical in reducing the threat posed by German air defenses, in addition to paving the way for aspects of Operation Bodyguard.

The Intelligence war and operation bodyguard

Beyond the Battle of the Beams and radar countermeasures, Jones was instrumental in a wide array of intelligence efforts that significantly altered the course of the war. Perhaps one of his most vital contributions was the small part he and his department played in Operation Bodyguard, the extensive deception campaign that misled the German high command about the location of the D-Day landings.

The role R. V. Jones played in this operation though small was extremely significant, by monitoring German radar systems and electronic communication his input was crucial to its success.

Operation Bodyguard fed false information to German intelligence through a combination of radio broadcasts and fake infrastructure—such as the famous "ghost" army under General Patton, in addition to the double cross program that turned German agents to transmit false information.

Jones' knowledge of German technologies helped steer a number of the aspects of the deception that ensured the Germans believed the main invasion force would land at Calais rather than Normandy.

However, his efforts in the intelligence war extended to the development of countermeasures against German V-weapons. As early as 1943, British intelligence began receiving reports of a secret German weapon capable of causing massive destruction from long range. This was the V-1 flying bomb, soon followed by the more advanced V-2 rocket.

Countering the V-Weapons

Jones became part of the team that unraveled the mystery of the V-weapons and devised defenses against weapons. The V-1, often referred to as the "buzz bomb," was essentially a pilotless aircraft powered by a pulse jet engine. It could travel at high speeds and deliver a significant explosive payload over a reasonable distance. After analyzing intelligence reports, aerial reconnaissance, and even fragments of crashed V-1 bombs. Jones concluded that the weapon was likely to be used against London in a terror campaign.

Jones and his team helped devise several countermeasures, including anti-aircraft defenses, night-fighter tactics, and even attempts to jam the gyroscopic guidance system of the V-1 bombs. Although the V-1 caused significant destruction, Jones' contributions in reducing its effectiveness and helping target the launch sites minimized its overall impact.

The V-2 rocket, which came later, posed an even greater threat. Travelling faster than the speed of sound, the V-2 was impossible to intercept once launched. Jones, however, worked tirelessly to pinpoint the locations of the V-2 launch sites and relay this information to the Allied bomber command. His work in this area, while less publicized than his earlier contributions, played a significant role in limiting the V-2's potential for devastation.

Achievements and Recognition

Jones' achievements during the war were numerous, and he became one of the most trusted figures in British military scientific intelligence. His scientific acumen and ability to outthink the enemy's engineers earned him a reputation as a genius in the field of electronic warfare. In 1946, he was appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) for his contributions to the war effort.

Perhaps Jones' greatest legacy was his influence on the emerging field of electronic warfare. His work laid the foundation for many of the technologies and strategies used in subsequent conflicts, including the Cold War. His relentless focus on precision and understanding the enemy's technological capabilities set the standard for scientific intelligence work for decades to come.

Following the war, Jones returned to academic life. He became the Chair of Natural Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen, where he inspired a new generation of scientists. He also wrote extensively about his wartime experiences, most notably in his autobiography, 'Most Secret War' which remains one of the most important accounts of scientific intelligence during the Second World War.

In addition to his contributions to military science, Jones was involved in a variety of scientific projects throughout his career, including work on spectroscopy, astronomy, and atmospheric physics. His broad scientific interests and ability to apply his knowledge to practical problems ensured that his impact extended far beyond the battlefield.

Legacy

R.V. Jones passed away on December 17, 1997, but his legacy as one of Britain's most important wartime scientists endures. His work in scientific intelligence fundamentally changed the way wars were fought, demonstrating the power of knowledge and technological understanding in shaping military outcomes.

Jones is remembered not just for his wartime achievements but also for his lifelong dedication to science. His ability to blend theoretical knowledge with practical application was key to many of his successes, and he remained a firm advocate for the importance of science in both national defense and civil progress.

As the world continues to advance in the fields of electronics, intelligence, and warfare, the principles that R.V. Jones championed remain as relevant as ever. His life serves as a reminder that, even in the darkest times, the human capacity for innovation and intellect can serve as a powerful weapon against those who seek to harm.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

View Details

It seems accepted that today’s political atmosphere is more divisive, caustic, and contentious than any since the Civil War. But from research for the author’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company (Amazon US | Amazon UK), at least in Tennessee, the late 1880s through 1920 were even more contentious and volatile over the issue of prohibition.

Clay Shwab explains.

*A 1915 advert for Cascade Whisky from the Rock Island Argus.*

Nashville

From the 1890s through the tumultuous years leading to Prohibition, the city of Nashville was very much like the wild west—a bustling, exciting, changing, and dangerous place. Political debates and rallies were frequently held in the downtown streets with hordes in attendance. Legal fun may have been hard to find in pre-Music City Nashville. Gunfire was frequent. In 1908, a senator and editor of the Nashville Tennessean, Edward Carmack, was shot and killed on Union Avenue after he attempted to shoot a one-time friend and editor of the Nashville American, Duncan Cooper. Their dispute related to prohibition.

From 1890 through 1920, Tennessee was a political war zone between the Wets and the Drys, the anti-prohibitionists and the prohibitionists, with entrepreneur and owner of the George Dickel whisky company, V. E. “Manny” Shwab, as the chief strategist and field general for the Wets. Shwab owned the state’s most valuable distillery producing the “famous” Cascade Whisky, “Mellow as Moonlight”–at the time, a far more popular and well-known whiskey than Jack Daniel’s. The wet and dry battle blew Tennessee politics apart to the point that the Republican and Democrat parties split in half and reformed along prohibition position lines. The anti-liquor proponents were known as “Fusionists”.

Cascade Hollow Seizure

Senator Carmack’s shooting provided the Drys the martyr they needed. In 1909, shortly after the shooting, Tennessee passed Bill #11 banning the manufacture of alcohol. Malcolm Patterson, Tennessee governor and Shwab ally, vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto. Five days later, in what was the largest federal seizure of any kind, Shwab’s Cascade Hollow Distillery was shut down. Nine thousand barrels of Cascade whisky were seized along with the distillery’s six buildings and 600 acres. The whiskey alone was values at over $30 million in today’s dollars.

Newspapers were unabashedly biased, giving wildly differing “factual” accounts of events. According to reports, Shwab was either “the debaucherer of more young men than any other man in Tennessee” because of his whiskey company and many saloons, or a “one man Tammany Hall”, or “Nashville’s richest citizen” and a philanthropic, consensus building visionary, dragging Tennessee into the 20th century while elevating Tennessee whiskey to a stellar reputation. Newspapers throughout the country and Canada covered the seizure with headlines such as: “Big Still Taken by U.S.”, Chicago Tribune; “Raid on Whiskey”, Vicksburg, Mississippi; “The Cascade distillery is the most valuable property of the kind in the state”, Nashville Banner; “Chattanoogans Think it Was Prompted by Politics”, Chattanooga. To emphasize the importance of the distillery to the state, the Nashville American stated that from 1905-1908, Manny’s Dickel company that distributed Cascade paid one fourth of the taxes paid by all distilleries in middle and west Tennessee combined, including Jack Daniel’s.

Tennessee Prohibition was not to go into effect until January of the next year, 1910. The alleged violation was tax evasion due to the common practice known as “equalization of wantage”. During the process of aging whiskey in wooden barrels, evaporation occurs. The government required payment of tax on a minimum of 40 gallons per each 50 gallon barrel, even if there were only 35 gallons remaining after evaporation. To avoid paying tax on non-existent whiskey, distillers would take whiskey from barrels holding more than 40 gallons and add it to barrels containing less. The seizure occurred on Thursday, April 1. Through Manny’s connection with the U.S. Attorney General and some powerful Tennessee allies, the distillery was back in Shwab’s hands the following Monday after posting a bond of $275,000 ($8.4 million today).

Bill #11 did not stop the fight. In 1911, thirty four Republican legislators retreated to Decatur Alabama to deny a quorum to vote on legislation—referred to by them as “the liquor election bill”—that would lead to the reversal of Tennessee’s prohibition on distilling. Shwab had assured the bill’s successful passage allegedly by bribing six Republicans. The April 12, 1911 Nashville Banner headline exclaimed “High-Handed Corruption Alleged in Election Bill Fight…Member or Members Have Been Fixed—Money Furnished by Well Known Liquor Dealer.” The allegation was that the Shwabs had furnished over $20,000 ($660,000 today) to “fix” votes. With the legislative process ground to a halt, the April 14, 1911 Memphis Commercial Appeal opined that “the whole public machinery of the state would be clogged so long as the present situation exists.”

And the “present situation” persisted. The May 4th Tennessean deemed Prohibitionist legislators who were supporting the bill, “arrant hypocrite and… mutton-headed ignoramuses” who have “…an inherited affliction which cannot be cured and for which [they] should be pitied, and not censured.” So much for objective journalism. By June 26, the three-month stand-off must have finally subsided as the legislature had a quorum to pass resolution #57 calling for an investigation into the slush-fund allegations as well as new allegations against several legislators. In July, Governor Ben Hooper vetoed the joint resolution. The fight persisted.

Boss Crump and Liquor by the Drink

In October 1913, Governor Hooper called a special and highly contentious legislative session of both houses. The issues were the shipping of liquor into Tennessee from other states and the “Nuisance Bill”. The bill would “declare a saloon, gambling den, bawdy house, or any other business the conduct of which is a violation of the law, a public nuisance.” Similar to modern day anti-abortion bills considered by some states, any five qualified voters could shut a business down in an effort to get around public officials who were seen as ignoring the activity. For example, Shwab was consistently accused of using his influence to avoid raids on his saloons as well as influencing legislation and dictating nominees for office.

Thirty-nine year old mayor of Memphis, E.H. “Boss” Crump, went to Nashville to fight and alter the legislation and to secure Manny’s support. Crump would be a major figure in Tennessee politics for the next twenty years, very much following in Shwab’s footsteps. He wanted to manipulate the language of the law so eleven of his wards could sell liquor by the drink. Manny was all for it, as it would allow liquor to be sold in the major cities. Papers referred to the issue as a “battle royal”. According to the Knoxville Journal:

Backing up mayor Crump and his henchmen was V. E. Shwab the wealthiest whiskey man in Tennessee the owner of Cascade, and the Gibraltar of the whiskey interests in Tennessee.…He was seen to talk with various members of the house and senate on the floor of the Maxwell (hotel) lobby this morning…Some little excitement went the round in whispers this morning when it got started that the whiskey interests are threatening the weak-kneed fellows.

Indicative of the atmosphere in Nashville, the Bristol Courier declared “The Tennessee Legislature has been in session and nobody has been killed, not even Boss Crump”. The lobbyists were accused of “threatening dire consequences to those who have accepted courtesies from them.” But the Crump and Shwab forces were unsuccessful. On October 14, 1913, the Tennessean exuberantly announced “John Barleycorn Knocked Out in Second Round”, declaring “Nashville Arid”. Shwab moved operations to Louisville to continue distilling and selling his renowned Cascade internationally until federal prohibition in 1920.

Clay Shwab’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

View Details

His body rests at Cypress Lawn Cemetery near San Francisco where he died in 1860. His head sits at the Warren Anatomical Museum in Boston. Here, Terry Hamburg tells us about a man who suffered a brain injury and the changes it caused – Phineas Gage.

*Phineas Gage in the time after his accident.*

Phineas Gage is perhaps the most famous neurological patient in modern history, called one of the “great medical curiosities of all time” and a “living part of medical folklore.” Malcolm MacMillan of the University of Melbourne records that two-thirds of introductory psychology textbooks cover Gage and his significance: "He was the first case where you could say fairly definitely that injury to the brain produced some kind of change in personality.” At the time, study of the brain is very rudimentary. Phrenologists, who accessed personalities by calculating protrusions on the skull, are still respected. The famous case of Phineas Gage will become a critical step in modern brain science.

September 1848

The young, robust, gregarious lad is employed as munitions foreman for the Rutland & Burlingame Railroad in Vermont. It is the most dangerous job in the crew. A standard blasting procedure involves boring a hole deep into rock, stuffing it with explosive powder and fuse, then using a tamping iron to pack in sand or clay to contain and direct the blast. Proud of his profession, Gage commissions an especially large custom-made tamping rod: three feet seven inches long, 1.4″ in diameter, and weighing over thirteen pounds.

The most dreaded mishap in munitions is a premature explosion.The tamping rod rockets into the left side of Gage’s face in an upward direction just past the lower jaw angle. Traversing the upper jaw and fracturing the cheekbone, it passes behind the left eye, through the left side of the brain, and flies out the top of his skull.

Gage is catapulted, lands hard on his back, convulses for a time, but is able to speak after a few minutes. He walks with little assistance and sits upright in an oxcart for a bumpy one mile ride to his town lodgings. True to the pioneer macho man legend, Gage shrugs off the injury, announcing he is not “much hurt” and expects to be back at work in a few days. His recovery from this horrific event is one of top medical stories of the era. Doctors worldwide exchange ideas and theories on the details and implications of the accident. For the next generation, it becomes the standard against which other injuries to the brain are judged. Some refuse to believe that anyone could survive such an ordeal – it must be a fabrication or a trick.

Despite his own optimism, Gage’s convalescence is long, difficult, and uneven, which requires further attendance by his physician, John M. Harlow, who garners fame as the doctor who treats the man who should not be. By April 1849, the patient is proclaimed to be in good physical health. Gage has, however, lost vision in his left eye and sustains a large forehead scar and a deep depression on top of his head “beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived,” Dr. Harlow noted. “He has no pain in his head but says it has a queer feeling which he is not able to describe.”

After recovery

For a brief time after recovery, Gage exploits his newfound fame as a one-man traveling exhibit at New England venues, including an event organized by P.T. Barnum, where he is the object of both morbid curiosity and praise. This sort of exposure is soon overexposed, and the still robust Gage continues to work at various jobs as a farmer, stable and coach service owner, and a long-distance stagecoach driver, but he suffers from occasional seizures and then epilepsy, dying in 1860 twelve years after his injury. There are many reports that he underwent dramatic and negative personality changes – becoming a dishonest, ill-tempered, brawling lout.Gage’s steady work history and other contemporary assessments suggest such claims are exaggerated.

Phrenologists contended that destruction of the mental “organs” of Veneration and Benevolence caused Gage’s behavioral changes. Harlow may have believed that the organ of Comparison was damaged as well.

Dr. Harlow requests and receives the patient’s skull. He is bequeathed the most famous tamping rod in history, which Gage carried wherever he went, inscribed: This is the bar that was shot through the head of Mr Phineas P. Gage at Cavendish, Vermont, Sept 14, 1848. He fully recovered from the injury & deposited this bar in the Museum of the Medical College of Harvard University.

These artifacts, along with a plaster cast of Phineas Gage’s head created during an 1850 examination, are the most sought-out items at the Warren Anatomical Museum on the Harvard Medical School campus.

Terry Hamburg is director emeritus of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Heritage Foundation. His recently published book Land of the Dead: How The West Changed Death In America explores how the demands of survival and adaptation in the Gold Rush western migration changed a multitude of American customs, including the way we bury and grieve for our ancestors. California and San Francisco serve as case studies. Visit his author page: https://www.terryhamburgbooks.com.

View Details

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, born on Septembe, 26, 1887 in Ripley, Derbyshire, is often remembered for his role in the development of the famous "bouncing bomb" during the Second World War. However, his contributions to science, engineering, and aeronautics extend far beyond this iconic invention. A visionary in the truest sense, Wallis's legacy includes groundbreaking work in airship design, aircraft development, and advanced weaponry, in addition to, shaping the course of 20th-century technology.

Terry Bailey explains.

*Barnes Neville Wallis.*

Early life and education

Wallis's early life provided the foundation for his eventual career in engineering. His father, Charles Wallis, was a doctor, but young Barnes developed an early fascination with mechanical objects, much to his father's frustration. After attending Christ's Hospital school in Sussex, where he displayed a knack for mathematics and science, Wallis pursued an apprenticeship at Thames Engineering Works. However, he subsequently changed his apprenticeship to J. Samuel White's, the shipbuilder based at Cowes on the Isle of Wight originally training as a marine engineer, he took a degree in engineering via the University of London external program.

Contributions to Airship design

Wallis's early career saw him make significant contributions to the development of airships. In 1913, he joined Vickers, a company heavily involved in aeronautics, where he began working on lighter-than-air vehicles. He played a pivotal role in the design of the R100, a large British airship intended for long-range passenger travel.

The R100 project was part of a competition with the government-sponsored R101, which ultimately ended in disaster with the crash of R101, a craft of a different design to the R100. While the R101's failure effectively ended the British airship program, the R100 itself was a technical success, in large part due to Wallis's innovative structural design, which utilized a geodesic framework. This design became a hallmark of Wallis's work.

The geodesic framework was notable for its strength and lightweight properties. This design not only enhanced the airship's durability but also reduced its overall weight, making it more fuel-efficient. The R100's successful transatlantic flight to Canada in 1930 was a testament to the efficacy of Wallis's design, even though the airship program was ultimately scrapped after the R101 disaster.

Transition to aircraft design

After the decline of airship development, Wallis turned his attention to aircraft design. His expertise in geodesic structures led him to work on the Vickers Wellington bomber, which was used extensively by the Royal Air Force, (RAF) during the Second World War. The Wellington's geodesic structure made it incredibly resilient to damage. Unlike conventional aircraft, the Wellington could sustain considerable battle damage yet continue flying due to its ability to retain structural integrity even after losing large sections of the skin or framework.

This durability made it a valuable asset during the war, particularly during the early bombing campaigns. Wallis's work on the Wellington showcased his ability to apply innovative design principles to aircraft, extending the operational capabilities and survivability of warplanes. The Wellington aircraft became one of the most produced British bombers of the war, with more than 11,000 units built, attesting to the practical success of Wallis's engineering philosophy.

The Bouncing Bomb and the Dam Busters Raid

Wallis is perhaps most famous and remembered for his invention of the bouncing bomb, which was used in the Dam Busters Raid (Operation Chastise) in 1943. This operation targeted key dams in Germany's industrial Ruhr region, aiming to disrupt water supplies and manufacturing processes critical to the Nazi war effort. The bouncing bomb, officially known as "Upkeep," was an ingenious device that skimmed across the surface of the water before striking the dam and sinking to the optimal depth, then detonated when a hydrostatic pistol fired. In addition to, upkeep two smaller versions were also developed, High-ball and Base-ball.

The design of the bomb required not only advanced physics and mathematics but also extensive practical testing. Wallis conducted numerous experiments with scaled-down prototypes to perfect the bomb's trajectory and spin, ensuring it could bypass underwater defenses and inflict maximum damage, before conducting half and full-scale tests of the bomb. The Dam Busters Raid, though not as strategically decisive as hoped, was a major tactical and propaganda victory that demonstrated the effectiveness of precision engineering in warfare. It also solidified Wallis's reputation as one of Britain's foremost wartime inventors, and designers.

Beyond the Bouncing Bomb: The Tallboy and Grand Slam

While the bouncing bomb is Wallis's most well-known design, his development of the "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" bombs was arguably more impactful. These were so-called "earthquake bombs," designed to penetrate deeply into the ground or fortifications before exploding, causing immense structural damage. The Tallboy, weighing 12,000 pounds, was used effectively against hardened targets such as U-boat pens, railway bridges, and even the German battleship Tirpitz, which was sunk by RAF bombers in 1944.

The Grand Slam, a 22,000-pound bomb, was the largest non-nuclear bomb deployed during the war. Its sheer destructive power was unparalleled, and it played a crucial role in the final stages of the conflict, helping to obliterate reinforced German bunkers and infrastructure. Wallis's work on these bombs demonstrated his understanding of the evolving nature of warfare, where the destruction of heavily fortified targets became a priority.

Post-War Contributions: Advancements in supersonic flight

After the war, Wallis continued to push the boundaries of engineering, particularly in the field of supersonic flight. He began working on designs for supersonic aircraft, foreseeing the need for faster travel in both military and civilian aviation. His proposed aircraft designs included the "Swallow" which was a supersonic development of Wild Goose, designed in the mid-1950s and was a tailless aircraft controlled entirely by wing movement with no separate control surfaces.

The design intended to use laminar flow and could have been developed for either military or civil applications, both Wild Goose and Swallow were flight-tested as large (30 ft span) flying scale models. However, despite promising wind tunnel and model work, these designs were not adopted. Government funding for Wild Goose and Swallow was cancelled due to defense cuts.

Although Wallis's supersonic aircraft designs were never fully realized during his lifetime, they laid the groundwork for later advancements in high-speed flight. The variable-sweep wing technology he envisioned was later incorporated into aircraft such as the F-111 Aardvark and concepts of supersonic flight in the iconic Concorde, the world's first supersonic passenger airliner. Wallis's vision of supersonic travel outlined his enduring ability to anticipate technological trends.

Marine engineering and submersible craft

Wallis's inventive spirit was not confined to aeronautics. In the post-war years, he became involved in marine engineering, focusing on the development of submersible craft and weaponry. One of his notable projects was the development of an experimental rocket-propelled torpedo codenamed HEYDAY. It was powered by compressed air and hydrogen peroxide that had an unusual streamlined shape designed to maintain laminar flow over much of its length.

Additionally, Wallis also explored the development of deep-sea submersibles. His work on underwater craft highlighted his interest in new forms of exploration and transportation, aligning with the burgeoning post-war interest in oceanography and underwater research. As part of this exploration of underwater craft, he proposed large cargo and passenger-carrying submarines, that would reduce transportation costs drastically, however, nothing came of these designs which probably would have transformed ocean-going transportation.

Due to Wallis's experience in geodesic engineering, he was engaged to consult on the Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia. Some of the ideas he suggested are the same as or closely related to the final design, including the idea of supporting the dish at its center, the geodetic structure of the dish and the master equatorial control system.

Later life and recognition

Throughout his life, Wallis maintained a strong commitment to education and mentorship. He was an advocate for the advancement of engineering as a discipline and frequently gave lectures to students and professionals alike. Wallis became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1945, was knighted in 1968, and received an Honorary Doctorate from Heriot-Watt University in 1969 in recognition of his outstanding engineering achievements. Additionally, he was awarded the Royal Society's prestigious Rumford Medal in 1971 for his work in aerodynamics.

Even in his later years, Wallis remained active in engineering, particularly in exploring the future potential of space travel. His forward-thinking ideas on rocket propulsion and spacecraft design, though largely theoretical at the time, hinted at the emerging field of space exploration, which would become a global endeavor in the following decades.

Wallis passed away on October, 30, 1979, leaving behind a legacy of innovation that continues to inspire engineers and inventors worldwide. His impact on both military and civilian technologies is a testament to his brilliance and determination to push the boundaries of what he knew was possible but others often did not.

Legacy

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, was a true polymath whose influence extended across multiple disciplines. While he is best known for his wartime contributions, particularly the bouncing bomb, his legacy goes far beyond a single invention.

From the geodesic structures of airships and bombers to supersonic aircraft concepts and deep-sea exploration vehicles, in addition to, his innovative ideas on ocean and space exploration and travel. Wallis's career spanned an astonishing range of technological advancements. His ability to marry theoretical physics with practical engineering solutions made him a giant of 20th-century science and technology.

Wallis's story is not just one of wartime ingenuity but of a lifetime spent striving to solve complex problems with creativity and persistence. His contributions continue to resonate today, reminding us that the spirit of innovation is timeless.

View Details

Britain possesses over sixty hill figures of varying size and design that are carved into her hillsides. They invite both admiration and curiosity. Most are laid out on hillsides that have underlying chalk foundations. These figures are so huge that that they can be viewed from miles around and are especially visually effective on bright summer days. Most of these figures are made up of white horses, but amongst the others there are two giants (one in a naked depiction), a multitude of crosses, various military commemorations, a stag, a lion, a panda, a kiwi, and a kangaroo.

Steve Prout explains.

*The Uffington White Horse. Source: World Wind, available* *here**.*

The description of this activity has been termed “leucippotomy” for the carving of horses and “gigantotomy” for giants (there are currently four of this kind in Britain). Whether these adopted terms are intended to be applied seriously is debatable since they do not appear in the dictionary. The name usually attached to such figures are geoglyphs. This peculiarity has been a phenomenon that has continued from the 1700s into modern times, one of the latest being a horse that was created in 1999 in Devizes, Wiltshire but there have been subsequent ones. Wiltshire is home to most of Britain’s hill figures but there are others in Scotland, Wales, and the North of England - but their presence is few and far between, for example only two figures are to be found in Scotland.

Only a handful are considered to have authentically ancient uncertain origins and of the others few pose any mystery and only minor ones if any. Those that were created in the twentieth century are the easiest to explain and can be traced to a specific event. Perhaps these reasons for the more modern examples offer the answer to some of the earlier and unexplained figures. Some created in the 1800s continues to present minor puzzles simply because their creation was unrecorded due to simply being forgotten, confused, or dismissed as frivolous acts - examples of this are the first Westbury Horse and the Rockley Down or the Broad Town Horses.

Wartime Commemorations

The early twentieth century saw a variety of new figures appear on numerous hillsides in Britain to join the plethora of white horses. Many of these hill figures were inspired by the events from the First World War. At the end of the war people needed an outlet to grieve, remember and honor the sacrifices they suffered. It was something that needed to match the gravity and sheer size of the tragedy and sacrifice. Every village in England had lost friends, relatives and loved ones and few families were unaffected from the war. Shoreham, a town in Kent, was one of the villages that between May and September 1920, entrenched a thirty-meter chalk Christian style cross into a nearby hillside for this purpose. As it lays solitary in quiet pastures its presence resonates in that quiet serene countryside hill. Its creator was a Samuel Cheeseman, whose motivation emanated from the tragic loss of his two sons in the First World War. The memorial is also dedicated to a further forty-eight inhabitants of the village who also perished alongside them.

A similar style cross was carved at a village in Lenham for the same reasons. Lenham is in that same county of Kent, twenty-three miles away from its earlier counterpart at Shoreham. It is similar in design and is double the size of the Shoreham Cross. It was created a year later by a certain Mr G H Groom who was the local Headmaster.

In Wiltshire, a variety of military inspired figures appeared across the landscape that was previously dominated by a multitude of white horses until the early twentieth century. The post war period was a frustrating time for soldiers that were awaiting demobilization. The sheer size of the task to administer the demobilization process was a slow and frustrating process for the men waiting and for those who were challenged with making this monumental task happen. Most of these men were not regular soldiers, only conscripted for the duration of the war and they quite understandably wanted to return home quickly now the fighting was over. It led to the problem of finding ways to keep these soldiers occupied.

The soldiers from New Zealand based at Bulford, Wiltshire set about carving a giant Kiwi into the hillside above their camp. They clearly took their inspiration from the Regimental Badges of Fovant Down that were created two years previously. The kiwi was designed in 1918 by a Captain H Clarke who was an engineer. It is quite incongruous compared to some of the other figures present in Wiltshire as the Kiwi is not native to Britain. It is interesting to note that as time passes on, its significance and the one-time presence of its New Zealand creators will be forgotten - and the very existence of a kiwi will puzzle some heads. It covers over four hundred feet or one and a half acres of land. For the present the Bulford Kiwi still serves as a lasting reminder to the presence of the soldiers of New Zealand that fought on the side of Great Britain.

The First World War also inspired the creation of the Regimental badges of Fovant Down, the best and most obvious example. Before the crosses of Shoreham, Lenham and the Bulford Kiwi, various regiments from the Dominions and the British Army gathered in 1916 for the purpose of carving fourteen individual badges onto the hills at Fovant Down, Wiltshire. Again, the main reason was to occupy the soldiers from the horrors that were being reported from the various fronts, alleviate the feeling of homesickness, and provide a release from the relentless grind of military training. Today those badges that remain still serve to remind us of those sacrifices made by those men, but sadly a number have now long overgrown or have been lost beyond any hope of restoration due to a lack of maintenance. The badges included an outline map of Australia, a badge representing the Royal Army Medical Core, City of London Rifles, a rising sun for the Australian Commonwealth Forces, a Kangaroo, the Devon Regiment, Royal Fusiliers, and The Royal Warwickshire Regiment. Others were added after World War Two.

Royal connections

Britain’s incoming Kings and Queens also appear to have inspired the creation of other hill figures. The Hackpen White Horse in Wiltshire and the First White Horse in Littlington, Sussex were carved in 1838 to celebrate the ascent of Queen Victoria to the throne. Other monarchs were also celebrated in similar fashion. The White Horse in Osmington, just outside the coastal resort of Weymouth, is one the largest white horse hill figures in Britain. It is unique in the fact that it is the only figure to feature a rider who represents King George III. From 1789 King George held Weymouth under Royal Patronage and even visited the town on numerous occasions. In 1815 a group of army engineers are believed to have carved this figure into the hillside to occupy their time whilst they waited and prepared for an invasion by Napoleonic forces from the continent. This never materialized and the figure remains today. A different hillside representation to a monarch is the Wye Crown, in the county of Kent. This was carved in 1902 by a local Agricultural College to celebrate the coronation of King Edward VII.

Antique follies and examples of strange indulgences

There were other reasons for such a myriad of hill figures. The southern part of Britain, in particular Wiltshire, are abundant in White Horse hill figures. Only one horse in Uffington is of genuine antiquity and its origins remain unknown. The rest originate from the 1700s and 1800s. Most of these hill figures pose no mystery as to their origins and for those that do, mostly the mysteries are very minor ones. Some hill figures were not inspired by history - some are recorded as being the product of whimsical and frivolous acts on the part their wealthy and indulged landowners. Examples of this are the First and Second Horse at Westbury, one of the most famous and well known of all hill figures of England.

The first Westbury figure is believed, according to investigations in the 1700s, to have been an antique folly. This very bizarre behavior was contagious amongst certain wealthy landowners in the 1700s. These landowners made claim to possess or discover various objects of antiquity on their land. In some cases, a cairn, burial mound or hill figure would suddenly be “discovered” as was the case at Westbury. Many of these claims would at the time go unchallenged since local tenants would not want to upset their wealthy and influential landlords. It may have been for the simple fact that the more rational thinkers of the population saw it for what it was and that it was a frivolous act that occupied much valuable land. An investigation in 1742 with local people put the creation of the first horse around 1700 or as the investigation quoted “wrought within memory of persons still living or recently dead”. The fact was that this “antique horse” 1778 was willingly destroyed in 1778 on the orders of the landowner and was quickly remodeled by a certain Mr Gee. Perhaps this proves that maybe they knew more of the horse’s origin and that its claims to be of an older age were untrue.

The case of the nearby Cherill Horse (alternatively known as the Oldbury Horse due to its proximity to the nearby castle of the same name) in Wiltshire is another example of this strange behavior. It can be seen with the naked eye from the top of the hill above the Westbury Horse. It was designed by a Dr Alsop two years after the restoration of its relation in Westbury. This restoration allegedly gave him his inspiration, most probably combined with puerile jealousy “of that landowner has one got one, then I want one too.” To sum up the witnesses at the time Alsop was referred to by local townsfolk as “the mad doctor,” due to the unnatural preoccupation of carving a giant white horse on a Wiltshire slope whilst shouting instructions and directions to his workers from a megaphone!

Many more in Wiltshire were to follow, most of which are accompanied by various conflicting accounts. Perhaps the act of turf cutting was becoming tiresome as others were appearing at Pewsey, Alton Barnes and Broad Town, and few people may not have the sense of urgency or importance to produce a correct account of these events. Many perhaps naturally thought that these figures were unlikely to remain permanent features as land after all was a valuable resource. In the latter case they were mistaken because many of these varying models prevail today.

Another example of whimsicality in a completely different location, is the Kilburn Horse of Yorkshire, one of only a few hill figures present in the North of England. It was carved under the whim of a travelling businessperson called Thomas Taylor. He was inspired, after being present and witnessing the festivities during the scouring and maintenance of the Uffington Horse, to carve a White Horse in his own home county and in 1857 he did just this. The horse can still be seen today in Yorkshire in the Hambleton Hills, Thirsk.

There are two modern examples of surprising appearances on our hillsides. One happened in the 1980s and that is the case of the Luzley Horse near Manchester. It is now lost after being allowed to be overgrown by vegetation, but its origins can be easily researched, and its story found in local paper archives. It was carved by a retired railway worker William Rawsthorne. He hid his work as he gradually worked on his figure over a period then surprised the local inhabitants by unveiling it one night to surprise them as a new day greeted them. It received a mixed reaction and it is now lost.

Another example is the case of the Laverstock Panda that has all but disappeared. It appeared in the early hours of January 1969 as part of a student prank known as “rag week” by the undergraduates of North Wales College at Bangor. All kinds of explanations were offered such as this Panda served as a homing device for Soviet Satellites and that it was a celebration of East-West co-operation over the London Panda called Chi-Chi (by the London and Moscow Zoo) who brought the two Pandas together for mating purposes. This is normal in studying the history of hill figures - in the absence of any solid facts the most outlandish explanations appear over time or almost immediately to fill the void, while often dismissing the more prosaic and usually correct explanations.

Conclusion

There is very little mystery about Britain’s hill figures that trouble historians’ or archaeologists’ heads. There are some that do lack any solid explanation; however, does that really create a mystery? Morris Marples, who was the leading authority on the subject, aptly summed up the overarching motive for their origins, their continued existence and creation. While he was discussing the Uffington Horse he stated that “man has always like to commemorate his achievements by the erection of some distinct monument and this is assuredly a very effective monument as later imitators realized.” This is certainly true of many of the hill side artworks we know about, especially those made in the twentieth century.

Aside from the focus of the English monarchy and the Great War there exist further examples with further motives such as the Dover Castle Aeroplane of 1909 that celebrated Louis Bleriot’s first crossing of the English Channel and the second White Horse in Devises, Wiltshire carved in 1999 that marked the coming of the millennium. Marples was right in that man does enjoy celebrating and always seeks to leave a lasting imprint showing his efforts, sacrifices, and achievements in expressive and grandiose ways - so there is no reason to assume that our ancestors were any different. We just do not have the benefit of history being recorded.

Hill figures are no different in purpose from say a cenotaph, a plaque, a stone cross, monument, or even a specific building being named in honor of a person or event. Therefore, for those few that pose us minor mysteries we can at best only be satisfied with a close approximation of the truth. We should as Marples said accept the “simplest answer as it is usually the correct one.”

The art of hill cutting continues today but less frequently and with a more muted response. Like our ancestors we also have day to day things that pre-occupy us while these activities are undertaken. In Leicester, a procession of galloping white horses is cut into a main roundabout, and in a school in Devises a smaller copy of the town’s famous horse has been cut into the school playing fields. Whatever the motive there is no argument that these figures make the landscape of Britain more intriguing and a pleasure to view. Furthermore, by diligently maintaining them we will continue to remember their significance in our history.

Sources

Discovering Hill Figures – Kate Bergamar – 1997 – Shire Publications

White Horses and other Hill Figures – Morris Marples – 1981 – Alan Sutton Publishing

Lost Gods of Albion - Paul Newman - 1998 – Sutton Publishing Ltd

The Hill figure Homepage.co.uk – Dr Mark Howes

View Details

Candidate Donald Trump thrust immigration issues at the Southern border into the forefront of American politics in the early weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. But even then, the issue was not new.

Joseph Bauer, author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), explains.

*A teacher, Mary R. Hyde, and students at the Carlisle Indian Training School. Source:* *here* *and* *here**.*

At least two years before 2016, large numbers of Central American families, nearly all from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador began to arrive in walking caravans at the Texas Border. Well before Donald Trump emerged, the U.S. immigration system at the border was overtaxed. Ronald Reagan knew it; George W. Bush (fluent in Spanish) knew it; Barack Obama knew it. All tried to address it, explaining that congressionally authorized resources were simply inadequate to manage the realities permitted by U.S. immigration law, especially the legal right foreign nationals to seek asylum or refugee status under a federal statute essentially unchanged since 1965.

Efforts for change and improvement all died at the altar of partisan self-interest. Legislators from across the country—not only those with constituents on the border—concluded that any solution would be more problematic to individual political fortunes than continuing the status quo and arguing the positions most favored by the particular local and regional voters they needed to be elected.

Stoked by political rhetoric from both sides, the public worried about large numbers of new citizens entering the country. Legitimate worries included concern about the strain on public health, school resources, and transportation infrastructure in local communities. Unfounded worries included concerns about crime. Numerous studies have documented that immigrants, including those entering legally by asylum and even those “undocumented” persons who are in the U.S. without legal status, commit crimes at materially lower rates than American-born citizens.[1] The other objection, that newcomers cause Americans to lose or find jobs, has also been refuted. Employers hiring large numbers of workers almost unanimously want as many immigrants allowed in as is possible to fill jobs for which they cannot find applicants otherwise. And increases in the number of immigrants, by adding to the economy and success of businesses, actually increases the wages and employment opportunities of American-born citizens.[2]

2017 and 2018

But in 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration moved, without Congressional authority, to stop the Central American caravans with a new measure: the broadscale involuntary separation of parents from their children at the Texas border, primarily at El Paso. The intent of the new policy was deterrence: to discourage asylum seeking families from making their journeys. If they began to be separated, finding themselves in different countries, it was thought, the seekers would stop seeking.

The program was initially undisclosed by the administration (on the ground that it was merely a “pilot program”) and drew little public or media attention. It worked as follows.

A family presented itself to the Border Control agents at the crossing (the recommended pathway for entrance) or on American soil near the border, having managed to reach it by other means (not recommended, but still a legal way to seek asylum under U.S. law). Following brief interviews, nearly all parents were either detained temporarily in a government facility without their children or summarily deported and sent to the Mexican border, again without their children. The children, regardless of age, were immediately deemed “unaccompanied minors,” since their parents were no longer present with them, and turned over to the custody of the Homeland Security Refugee Service for temporary housing, often in a church-affiliated respite center, and then ultimately placed in either American foster homes or the home of a qualifying relative somewhere in the U.S., if such a person could be identified. If a relative could be found at all, the process was often lengthy.

Data on the actual number of children taken from their parents during the Trump Administration are imprecise. But studies by relief organizations such as the American Council of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Service, and the Washington Office on Latin America have documented that at least 2,000 children were removed from parents between February 2017 and the date the policy became public and official in May 2018; another 2,500 were separated in the 50 days thereafter. Some estimates are as high as nearly 6,000 children and 3,000 families. The Trump administration ostensibly stopped the practice on June 20, 2018, in response to public furor and condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum.[3] Anti-immigrant positions might earn votes for some politicians, but taking children from their parents earned votes for nobody. What it did was provoke the abhorrence of the vast majority of (but not all) Americans.

Historical context

But was the widescale forced separation of parents and children in 2018 actually new in historical American immigration policy and practice? Could such a policy have been a reality earlier in the American experiment? The truth—many would say sad truth—is that it was. Two prior examples are obvious and known to most Americans.

The first was the long period of legal slavery in the U.S., when millions of African and Caribbean black men and women were forcibly transported to the United States with the approval of the federal and state governments and held here in involuntary servitude. Those slaves who were able to bring their children with them, or who gave birth to them once here, were routinely sold to new owners, never to see their children or grandchildren again. There is no denying that slavery in the U.S. was tragically replete with the separation of families.

The second instance was the common practice for decades in the 19th century of removing Native American children from their natural parents and tribes and placing them either in “Indian” boarding schools or the strange Christian homes of white Americans. (A moving portrait of the practice—and its harmful effects—is depicted in Conrad Richter’s classic novel, The Light in the Forest.) These involuntary relocations were massive. Federal and state governments separated as many as 35% of all American indigenous children from their families, according to a 1978 report by the US House of Representatives.[4]

Most of us learned of the above practices in our American educations, if incompletely. But many may be surprised to learn that family separation in the U.S. occurred at the hands of some state and city governments even into the early 20th century, condoned or overlooked by the federal government. Prior to 1920, when specific immigration rules were enacted by Congress, state and city governments, motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment, removed an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 children of Irish and Polish immigrants and placed them in Protestant or Anglo-American households, away from their local areas.[5]

We can hope that such interference with the family unit, based on religious hatred, would be unthinkable today. But it is part of our past.

2015 report

In 2015, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration published a report entitled

Family Immigration Detention, Why the Past Cannot be Prologue. The report addressed the difficult and sad question of the morality of detaining whole families at the border under the Obama administration. It preceded the family separation policy that the Trump administration implemented 3 years later, which most Americans believe was even sadder and more immoral.

The authors of the ABA report must be disappointed. The “past” that it examined—the detention of whole families—did not improve. Instead, it worsened, with a government policy that, at least temporarily, divided the nuclear family unit itself.

In this instance, we did not advance from the lessons of our past. But in history, there is always hope. Maybe we will learn them at last.

Joseph Bauer is the author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), a novel that explores a white widower’s quest to fulfill a promise to his dying wife: to reunite Central American parents with their children separated from them at the Texas Border in 2018. Mr. Bauer’s previously published novels are The Accidental Patriot (2020), The Patriot’s Angels (2022), and Too True to be Good (2023). His latest finished manuscript of historical fiction about the lead-up to and conduct of WWII is titled, Arsenal of Secrecy, The FDR Years, A Novel.

[1] See e.g., Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate, University of Wisconsin research study funded by the National Institute of Justice (September 2024). This and many other studies conclude that undocumented “illegal” immigrants commit about or less than half as many crimes as Americans for the same number of persons. This is true across all kinds of crimes, including murders, other violent crimes, and drug trafficking. Admitted asylum seekers and refugees also commit far few crimes than American-born counterparts.

[2] Immigration’s Effect on US Wages and Employment, Caiumi, Alessandro and Peri, Giovanni, National Bureau of Economic Research (August 2024).

[3] Many sources, including an audit by U.S. have reported that family separations at the Texas border continued in significant numbers well after the Trump Administration announced a halt to them in June 2018. See e.g., Long, Colleen; Alonso-Zaldiver, Ricardo. “Watchdog: Thousands More Children May Have Been Separated”. U.S. News & World Report, January 18, 2019.

[4]Sinha, Anita. An American History of Separating Families, American Constitution Society, November 2, 2020.

[5]Americans today almost unanimously believe that our Constitution, by its First Amendment, assures inviolate an individual and collective right to freedom of religion and worship. But that Amendment, until applied to State and local governments much, much later, did not prevent any state from religious discrimination in its own laws. Catholics were so generally despised in Massachusetts in the early days of our nation that Catholic priests were forbidden by state law from living there and subject to imprisonment and even execution if they did.

View Details

Thousands of political science books and magazines discuss the idea of democratic transformation. For example: how can a country once under authoritarian rule, transform from that to individual and democratic rule? And what do we truly know about dictatorships? Can a democratic country transform into a dictatorial country, despite the pre-existence of a constitution and elections?

Probably the most well-known example of this is Germany: which had a parliament; a multi-party system; laws protecting elections; and laws protecting individual freedoms. At the time, the illiteracy rate was almost zero percent,yet it transformed from a democracy into an expansionist dictatorship in 1933, after Hitler's rise to power.

Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter explain.

*Banknotes awaiting distribution during the 1923 German hyperinflation. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R1215-506 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available* *here**.*

Early life of Adolf Hitler

A complex history creates the foundation of a man who was able to order the deaths, either directly or indirectly, of over 60 million people. Hitler was a frustrated painter and a vegetarian. His forces occupied 11 countries, some of which he occupied partially, and others completely. Among these countries were Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Whether we like it or not, the man who failed his initial entrance examinations and who was passed over for positions of leadership, still captured the psyche of nations. Hitler changed the course of history.

The leader of Nazi Germany was born in Austria in 1889. He had reason to hate and fear his father, who was violent towards his mother and used to beat them both severely. In 1907 he attempted to join the Academy of Arts in Vienna, but was rejected twice after he failed the entrance exam. After the death of his mother, Klara Pölzl, at the end of the same year, he moved to live in Vienna, one of the most prominent capitals in Europe. At the time, Vienna’s mayor was a known anti-Semite called Karl Lueger. As a young man who had experienced much violence and rejection, his settlement in Vienna contributed to shaping his ideas, both because of the prominence of and Leuger’s feelings towards the Jews.

World War I broke out in 1914, so at age 28 Hitler volunteered to join thearmy, where he received the Medal of Courage twice during the war. Despite that, he was not promoted. According to his commanders at the time, Hitler did not have the leadership skills necessary. In 1918, the November Revolution took place in Germany, which led to the transformation of Germany from a federal constitutional monarchy to a democratic parliamentary republic.

End of the war

With the end of the war, Germany surrendered and Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated the throne, and was ordered to be exiled in the Netherlands. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, where Germany was obliged to pay large reparations to the winning side. This was also a new chance, and a new opportunity for Germany. Freed from an authoritarian monarchy, it was now possible for there to be a political opening. German philosophical studies flourished, and new political parties began to spread - and spread their ideas.

The new authorities began to penetrate these new groups and parties. They hoped to use this openness to know more about their ideas and orientations. Hitler, who was still in the army, was one of the informants. In 1919, as an undercover informant he went to a bar where some parties were meeting for discussions, to spy on one of the right-wing parties: the Nazi Workers' Party.

Unlike others in Germany at the time, Hitler did not see this as an opportunity for the nation to grow and form new ideas. The sudden decision to surrender, instead felt like a keen betrayal and only fed the anger inside the young man. After Hitler heard their discussions, he was very impressed by their ideas about the parties' betrayal of the German Army, and their scapegoating of Jews in Germany’s defeat. Rather than informing others of the anger, Hitler instead joined them. In a short time, he became one of the most prominent leaders in that party eventually known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Nazi Party

Their goals, plainly, were against Judaism, communism and capitalism. Their arrogance was equally as lofty as they believed that as part of the Aryan race, they were themselves descendants of the inhabitants of the legendary continent of Atlantis. To them, who else should rule the world and return Germany to her proud place with all her former glory, power, and prestige? The Nazi Party carried out propaganda and issued its own newspaper to spread its ideas and beliefs. They attracted the attention of additional officers who were against the surrender decision and the government’s plans to reduce the size of the army.

An early ally of Hitler’s was an officer in the German Imperial Army, Ernst Röhm. Initially a friend and ally of Hitler, Röhm was also the co-founder and leader of the “Storm Troopers,” the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Rather than dispose of the weapons he had taken possession of, Röhm instead armed the militias and party members with them. With a country unstable from a war, and weapons in the hands of angry men who blamed outsiders for their shame and defeat, the party was well positioned to strike for power.

In 1921, Hitler was elected leader of the Nazi Party, and in 1923 the golden opportunity appeared. Because Germany did not have the money to pay its reparations to the Allies, the government decided to print money. The amount of money printed increased without the value increasing in proportion, and the German mark lost its value and collapsed. Prices increased, and a wave of great inflation hit Germany and became known as German hyperinflation.

Continuing instability

In response to the failure to pay reparations imposed by the victorious powers after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr region of Germany. Hitler felt that this was an opportunity to seize power without elections, and staged a coup d’etat. This failed. Hitler was arrested and was sentenced to five years in prison. The Bavarian Supreme Court pardoned him, however, and Hitler only remained in prison for nine months before he was released.

In 1928, Hitler decided to participate in the elections, losing by 2.5%, as the Germans once again rejected the Nazi proposal. But when the American stock market collapsed in 1929, it had a major impact on the whole world. As unemployment in Germany reached up to an estimated 6 million, the atmosphere became ripe for radical proposals -fertile ground for right-winger Nazis and left-wing Communists.

The Nazi Party took advantage of the opportunity to appear as saviors of the German people, for example, by providing aid to the unemployed, which made them the most popular party in Germany. In 1932, the Nazi Party, led by Hitler, became the largest German party, winning 37% of the votes. In 1933, the President of Germany appointed Hitler as chancellor, and Hitler came to power.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

View Details

Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859) is widely regarded as one of the greatest engineers in history. His pioneering work on bridges, railways, and tunnels, in addition to, ships dramatically shaped the industrial landscape of Victorian Britain and left a lasting legacy on modern engineering and transportation that eventually reshaped the world. Brunel's genius for problem-solving and his relentless pursuit of innovation made him a towering figure of the 19th century, whose contributions to society endure to this day.

Terry Bailey explains.

The ship the *SS* *Great Eastern* in 1858.

Early Life and Education

Brunel was born on the 9th of April, 1806, in Portsmouth, England, to a French father, Marc Isambard Brunel, and an English mother, Sophia Kingdom. Marc Brunel was an accomplished engineer in his own right, working on various mechanical and civil engineering projects in Britain. From an early age, Isambard was exposed to the world of engineering, with his father encouraging his intellectual curiosity and fostering his talents.

Brunel was educated at prestigious institutions in England and France, where he developed a strong foundation in mathematics, mechanics, and engineering principles. His formal education began at the Henri-Quatre School in Paris and continued at Lycée Saint-Louis before he returned to England. He then apprenticed under his father, gaining practical experience and learning firsthand from an expert engineer. This mentorship would lay the groundwork for his illustrious career, and the pair would collaborate on several major projects.

The Thames Tunnel: A Landmark Feat of Engineering

One of the earliest and most significant projects that shaped Brunel's career was the Thames Tunnel, which he worked on alongside his father. Started in 1825, this tunnel was the first to be successfully constructed under a navigable river, connecting Rotherhithe and Wapping in London. It was an ambitious project fraught with challenges, including financial troubles, technical difficulties, and hazardous working conditions.

Brunel took on a leadership role as the chief assistant engineer, displaying his characteristic resourcefulness. He helped develop innovative techniques, such as the use of a tunnelling shield—a safety structure that allowed workers to dig safely through the riverbed without the tunnel collapsing. The tunnel itself was considered a marvel of engineering at the time, overcoming immense pressures and the threat of constant flooding.

Though the Thames Tunnel was beset by numerous setbacks and took nearly two decades to complete, its successful opening in 1843 was used only for pedestrian traffic until the 1860s, when it was converted to railway use.

The Thames Tunnel solidified Brunel's reputation as a rising star in civil engineering. The tunnel remains in use today as part of the London rail network, a testament to its durability and Brunel's engineering vision.

The Great Western Railway: Revolutionizing Transportation

Brunel's most famous and far-reaching contributions came in the realm of railway engineering. In 1833, before the Thames tunnel was complete, at just 27 years old, he was appointed chief engineer of the Great Western Railway (GWR), a project that would cement his legacy. His vision was to create a seamless rail connection between London and Bristol, facilitating the movement of goods and passengers across the country with unprecedented speed and efficiency.

Brunel's design for the GWR was innovative in multiple ways, but one of his most notable decisions was to use a broad gauge of 7 feet, rather than the standard gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches. He believed the wider gauge would allow for greater stability, faster speeds, and a more comfortable ride for passengers. While the broad gauge did offer some advantages, it was ultimately phased out in favor of the standard gauge, due to the logistical complications of operating different rail systems across the country.

Nevertheless, Brunel's work on the GWR was groundbreaking.

His commitment to high-quality engineering was evident in the construction of viaducts, tunnels, and stations, all designed with precision and an eye for aesthetics. Two of the most famous structures built for the GWR are the Box Tunnel and Maidenhead Railway Bridge.

The Box Tunnel, completed in 1841, was the longest railway tunnel in the world at the time, stretching 1.83 miles, (approximately 2.95 kilometers), through the chalk hills of Wiltshire. It was an extraordinary feat of engineering, requiring meticulous planning and execution. Legend has it that Brunel aligned the tunnel's construction so that on his birthday, the 9th of April the sunlight would shine straight through from end to end.

Earlier the Maidenhead Railway Bridge, with its flat, wide arches, was another testament to Brunel's brilliance. Completed in 1838, it was revolutionary in its use of low-rise arches that allowed for a stable railway crossing without compromising the integrity of the structure. Today, the bridge remains in use, another symbol of Brunel's lasting contributions to British infrastructure.

The Clifton Suspension Bridge: A Masterpiece of Design

One of Brunel's most iconic works, the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, stands as a symbol of his bold engineering vision. While the bridge wasn't completed during his lifetime, Brunel began work on it in the early 1830s after winning a design competition. His daring design called for a suspension bridge spanning the Avon Gorge, with a total length of 234 yards, (214 meters).

The construction of the bridge faced numerous financial and technical difficulties, however, it was eventually completed in 1864, five years after Brunel's death. Needless to say, the Clifton Suspension Bridge has since become an enduring symbol of British engineering, celebrated for both its functional design and its graceful beauty. The bridge, still in use today, is often seen as a testament to Brunel's ingenuity and his ambition to create structures that were as visually stunning as they were practical.

Engineering the Seas: Brunel's Ships

Brunel's talents were not limited to land-based engineering. His foray into maritime engineering led to the construction of three revolutionary ships that would set new standards in shipbuilding and sea travel.

SS Great Western (completed 1838): This was Brunel's first foray into shipbuilding and the world's first steamship designed for transatlantic service. The Great Western was a wooden paddle steamer, which was considered the largest passenger ship of its time. It successfully made the journey from Bristol to New York in 15 days, marking the beginning of regular steam-powered transatlantic crossings. The ship's success proved that steam-powered vessels could dominate long-distance sea travel.

SS Great Britain (completed 1845): Brunel continued to push the boundaries of maritime engineering with the SS Great Britain, the first ocean-going ship to be built with an iron hull and driven by a screw propeller. At 322 feet long, (just over 98 meters), it was the largest ship afloat at the time. The SS Great Britain combined the best of both worlds, using both sails and steam power and set a new benchmark for ship design. It revolutionized shipbuilding, influencing the design of future iron and steel ships.

SS Great Eastern (completed 1859): Brunel's most ambitious and controversial ship was the SS Great Eastern, intended to be the largest ship in the world and capable of carrying 4,000 passengers. It was an extraordinary engineering feat—692 feet long, (almost 211 meters), and 18,915 tons, (over 19218 metric tons). Unfortunately, the Great Eastern was plagued by mismanagement, cost overruns, and technical difficulties, making it a commercial failure. However, its design innovations, particularly in terms of double hull construction, had a lasting impact on shipbuilding practices.

Lasting Contributions and Legacy

Isambard Kingdom Brunel's career was marked by audacity, innovation, and an insatiable desire to push the limits of what was possible in engineering. His work on railways, bridges, tunnels, and ships not only transformed Britain's infrastructure but also laid the foundation for modern engineering practices.

Brunel's achievements extended beyond the technical. His vision of an interconnected Britain, where goods and people could move quickly and efficiently across the country and beyond, helped drive the Industrial Revolution and fostered economic growth. His pioneering use of materials such as iron, his development of new construction techniques, and his application of steam power to transport set new standards for engineering that would influence future generations of engineers.

While not all of his projects were commercial successes, Brunel's contributions to society are undeniable. His work on the Great Western Railway alone reshaped the British economy and transformed cities such as Bristol, which became key industrial hubs. Brunel's bridges, tunnels, and ships remain iconic landmarks, serving as testaments to his genius and the transformative power of engineering, in addition, to interconnecting travel.

In recognition of his extraordinary contributions, Brunel was honored in his lifetime and continues to be celebrated posthumously. In 2002, he was named second in a BBC poll of the 100 Greatest Britons, a fitting tribute to the man whose work helped build the modern world.

In conclusion, Isambard Kingdom Brunel's life and career were defined by an unwavering commitment to innovation and a drive to overcome engineering challenges. From the Thames Tunnel to the Great Western Railway, the Clifton Suspension Bridge, and his revolutionary ships, Brunel's work touched nearly every aspect of transportation in the 19th century. His inventions and achievements not only reshaped the physical landscape of Britain but also left an indelible mark on the history of engineering, making him a true visionary whose legacy continues to inspire.

View Details

The 1942 Cripps Mission took place during the middle of World War 2. It was an attempt in March of that year by Britian to secure greater Indian co-operation to World War 2. It involved Stafford Cripps, a member of the British cabinet, meeting various Indian political leaders.

Bilal Junejo explains.

*A sketch of Stafford Cripps.*

Whenever it is the purpose of a (political) mission which has to be ascertained, it behoves one to ask three questions without delay: why was the mission sent at all; why was it sent only when it was; and why did it comprise the individuals that it did. Unless such well-meaning cynicism is allowed to inform one’s analysis, it is not likely that one will be able to pierce the veil cast by official pronouncements for public consumption upon the true motives of those who were instrumental in bringing about the mission’s dispatch in the first place. There is, alas, no such thing as undue skepticism in the study of a political event.

So, to begin with, why was the mission in question — which brought with it an offer of an immediate share for Indians in the central government (Zachariah, 2004: 113) if they accepted “a promise of self-government for India via a postwar constituent assembly, subject only to the right of any province not to accede (Clarke and Toye, 2011)” — dispatched at all? A useful starting point would be Prime Minister Churchill’s declaration, when announcing in the House of Commons his administration’s decision to send a political mission to India, that:

“The crisis in the affairs of India arising out of the Japanese advance has made us wish to rally all the forces of Indian life to guard their land from the menace of the invader … We must remember also that India is one of the bases from which the strongest counter-blows must be struck at the advance of tyranny and aggression (The Times, 12 March 1942, page 4).”

Japan in the war

Since entering the war just three months earlier, Japan had already shown her might by achieving what Churchill would call “the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history” — namely the surrender of over 70,000 British and Commonwealth troops in Singapore, a British possession, in February 1942 (Palmer, 1964: 299) — and occupying thereafter the British colony of Burma, on India’s eastern border, in March — a development which marked the first time since the outbreak of war in September 1939 that India, Great Britain’s most cherished imperial possession, was directly threatened by the enemy. No such threat (or a vociferous demand for independence) had arisen at the time of World War I, which was why no similar mission (with a concrete offer) had been dispatched then. For over two years after its outbreak, no mission was dispatched during World War II either, even though a clamor for independence, spearheaded by the Indian National Congress (India’s largest political party), was existent this time. It was only the Japanese advance westward that changed the picture. In Burma, the Japanese had been “welcomed as liberators, since they established an all-Burmese government (Palmer, 1964: 63).” To the British, therefore, it was imperative that the Indians were sufficiently appeased, or sufficiently divided, to eliminate the risk of the Japanese finding hands to have the gates of India opened from within —not least because even before Japan entered the war, it had been reported that:

“Arrangements are in progress for an inter-Imperial conference on war supplies to be held in Delhi … [where] it is expected that the Governments of East Africa, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, and Malaya will be represented … to confer … on mutually developing their resources to provide the maximum for self-defence and for Great Britain … India (my emphasis), with her vast and varied resources and her central position, is the natural pivot for such arrangements (The Times, 8 August 1940, page 3).”

Small wonder, then, that the premier should have described the proposals which the Mission would be bringing as “a constructive contribution to aid India in the realization of full self-government (The Times, 12 March 1942, page 5).” But whilst a desire to garner Indian support for repelling the Japanese would seem able to explain why the mission was sent at all (as well as when), would that desire have also been sufficient to elicit on its own a public offer of eventual self-government from an imperialist as committed as Winston Churchill? As late as October 1939, in a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru (one of the principal Indian leaders), the non-party Stafford Cripps, who had established quite a good rapport with Nehru (Nehru, 2005: 224-5), would be writing (with reference to the Chamberlain administration) that:

“I recognise that it is expecting a great deal more than is probable to expect this Government to do anything more than make a meaningless gesture. The addition of Winston Churchill [to the Cabinet, as First Lord of the Admiralty] has not added to the friends of Indian freedom, though he does look at matters with a realism that is an advantage (Nehru, 2005: 398).”

Realism?

Were the Mission’s proposals a (belated) sign of that ‘realism’ then? Even though just six months earlier, shortly after drawing up with President Roosevelt the Atlantic Charter — a declaration of eight common principles in international relations, one of which was “support for the right of peoples to choose their own form of government (Palmer, 1964: 35)” — Churchill had created “a considerable stir when [he] appeared to deny that the Atlantic Charter could have any reference to India (Low, 1984: 155)”? As it turned out, it was realism on Churchill’s part, but without having anything to do with recognizing Indian aspirations. That is because when Churchill announced the Mission, his intended audience were not the Indians at all — not least because they never needed to be. The indispensability of India to the war effort was indisputable, but there was hardly ever any need for Churchill to appease the Indians in order to save the Raj. Simply consider the ease with which the Government of India, notwithstanding the continuing proximity of Japanese forces to the subcontinent, was able to quell the Congress-launched Quit India Movement of August 1942 — which was even described in a telegram to the premier by the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, as “by far the most serious rebellion since that of 1857, the gravity and extent of which we have so far concealed from the world for reasons of military security (Zachariah, 2004: 117).” The quelling anticipated Churchill’s asseveration that “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. For that task, if ever it were prescribed, someone else would have to be found … (The Times, 11 November 1942, page 8).” When British might in India was still a force to be reckoned with, what consideration(s) could have possibly served to have induced the Mission’s dispatch just five months earlier? What would Churchill not have gained had he never sent it?

There are two aspects to that, the second of which also addresses the third of our original questions — namely why the Mission was led by the individual that it was. The first aspect was Churchill’s desire, following the debacle in Singapore, to reassure not just his compatriots but also his indispensable transatlantic allies that something was being done to safeguard resource-rich India from the enemy (Owen, 2002: 78-9). With India “now a crucial theatre of war in the path of Japanese advance, Cripps exploited US pressure to secure Churchill’s reluctant agreement to the ‘Cripps offer’ (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” This was not very surprising, for given that he was president of a country which not only owed her birth to anti-imperialism but had also just subscribed to the Atlantic Charter, Roosevelt could not afford domestically to be seen condoning (British) imperialism anywhere in the world. The American view was that Indian support for fighting Japan would be better secured by conciliation than by repression (The Daily Telegraph, 13 April 1942, page 2), and Roosevelt even sent his personal representative, Colonel Louis Johnson, to India to assist in the negotiations (Clarke and Toye, 2011). Under such circumstances, Churchill could have only confuted the Americans by first making an offer of which Washington approved to the Indians, and then proclaiming the futility thereof after it had been rejected by them (The Daily Telegraph, 1 April 1942, page 3). As he wrote before the Mission’s dispatch to Linlithgow, a fellow reactionary who would do much to sabotage the ‘Cripps offer’ by his (predictable) refusal to reconstruct the Executive Council in accordance with Congress’s wishes (removing thereby any incentive Congress might have had for consenting to postwar Dominion status) (Moore, 2011):

“It would be impossible, owing to unfortunate rumours and publicity, and the general American outlook, to stand on a purely negative attitude and the Cripps Mission is indispensable to proving our honesty of purpose … If that is rejected by the Indian parties … our sincerity will be proved to the world (Zachariah, 2004: 114).”

Public relations

As anticipated, this public relations gesture, “an unpalatable political necessity” for the gesturer (Moore, 2011) and therefore proof of his ‘realism’, worked — all the more after Cripps, who considered neither Churchill nor Linlithgow primarily responsible for his failure in India (Owen, 2002: 88), proceeded to “redeem his disappointment in Delhi by a propaganda triumph, aimed particularly at the USA, with the aim of unmasking Gandhi as the cause of failure. One result of the Cripps mission, then, was … [that] influential sections of American opinion swung to a less critical view of British policy. In this respect, Churchill owed a substantial, if largely unacknowledged, debt to Cripps (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” The ulterior motive behind sending the Mission became evident to some even at the time. As Nehru himself reflected after once more landing in gaol (for his participation in the Quit India Movement):

“The abrupt termination of the Cripps’ negotiations and Sir Stafford’s sudden departure came as a surprise. Was it to make this feeble offer, which turned out to be, so far as the present was concerned, a mere repetition of what had been repeatedly said before — was it for this that a member of the British War Cabinet had journeyed to India? Or had all this been done merely as a propaganda stunt for the people of the USA (Nehru, 2004: 515)?”

A desire, therefore, to satisfy the Americans, who were his intended audience, would explain why Churchill acquiesced in the Mission. But now we come to the other aspect which was alluded to earlier — namely why it was the Cripps Mission. To begin with, Cripps, a non-party person since his expulsion from the Labour Party in January 1939 for advocating a Popular Front with the communists (Kenyon, 1994: 97), had, shortly after the outbreak of war in September, embarked upon a world tour, convinced that “India, China, Russia, and the USA were the countries of the future (Clarke and Toye, 2011)”, and that it would therefore be worth his country’s while to ascertain their future aims. “In India Cripps was warmly received as the friend of Jawaharlal Nehru … [and] though unofficial in status, Cripps’s visit was undertaken with the cognizance of the India Office and was intended to explore the prospects of an agreed plan for progress towards Indian self-government (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” But whilst this visit helped establish his bona fides with the Indian leaders and gave him such a knowledge of Indian affairs as would later make him a publiclysuitable choice for leading the Mission (The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 1952, page 7), Churchill had more private reasons for choosing Cripps in 1942 — as we shall now see.

Going abroad

After becoming prime minister in 1940, “Churchill [had] used foreign postings cannily to remove potential opponents and replace them with supporters; as well as Halifax, Hoare and Malcolm MacDonald (who was sent to Canada as high commissioner), he sent five other Chamberlainite former ministers abroad as the governors of Burma and Bombay, as minister resident in West Africa and as the high commissioners to Australia and South Africa. Several others were removed from the Commons through the time-honored expedient of ennobling them (Roberts, 2019: 622).” Similarly, the left-wing Cripps was also sent out of the country — as ambassador to Moscow, where he served for eighteen months, Churchill contemptuously observing when it was suggested Cripps be relocated that “he is a lunatic in a country of lunatics, and it would be a pity to move him (Roberts, 2019: 622).” To us, this remark shows how the Cripps Mission vis-à-vis India was inherently frivolous; for had Churchill considered the fulfilment of its ostensible aims at all important, would he have entrusted the Mission to a ‘lunatic’ (rather than to, say, Leopold Amery, who was his trusted Indian Secretary, and who had already dissuaded him from going to India himself (Lavin, 2015))?

However, after America entered the war, “Churchill [for reasons irrelevant to this essay] came to think Cripps a bigger menace in Russia than at home and sent permission for him to return to London, which he did in January 1942 … [to be] widely hailed as the man who had brought Russia into the war (Clarke and Toye, 2011)” — this at a time when Churchill himself was grappling with a weakened domestic position (Addison, 2018), which the fall of Singapore would do nothing to improve. Anxious to win over the non-party Cripps, who was now his foremost rival for the premiership (Roberts, 2019: 714), Churchill “brought him into the government as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” Rather than engage in domestic politics, however, Cripps “chose to invest his windfall political capital in an initiative to break the political impasse in India (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” But, “as Churchill may well have calculated in advance, the Mission failed and Cripps’s reputation was diminished (Addison, 2018).” The political threat to Churchill decreased considerably, for failure in India meant that Cripps’s removal as Leader of the House of Commons was “inevitable” (The Times, 22 April 1952, page 6). Who could have aspired to the premiership under such circumstances? The Mission had not even been a gamble for Churchill (who would have never sent Cripps only to add to his political capital), since the offer’s provision, prudently inserted by Amery (Lavin, 2015), for a province’s right to refuse accession to a postwar Indian Dominion was certain to have been welcomed by the Muslim League (India’s foremost Muslim political party) — which had declared its quest for some form of partition as early as March 1940 (with the Lahore Resolution), and the retention of whose support during the war was crucial because the Muslims, “besides being a hundred million strong, [constituted] the main fighting part of the [Indian] Army (Kimball, 1984: 374)” — but equally certain to have been rejected by the Hindu-dominated Congress (which was already irked by the stipulation that Dominion status would be granted only after the war, which nobody at the time could have known would end but three years later). Not for nothing had Churchill privately assured an anxious King George VI shortly after the Mission’s dispatch that “[the situation] is like a three-legged stool. Hindustan, Pakistan, and Princestan. The latter two legs, being minorities, will remain under our rule (Roberts, 2019: 720-1).”

Conclusion

To conclude, given his views on both India and Cripps, it is not surprising that the premier should have entertained a paradoxical desire for the Mission to succeed by failing — which it did. By easing American pressure on Downing Street to conciliate the Indians and politically emasculating Stafford Cripps at the same time, the Mission served both of the purposes for which it had been sent so astutely by Prime Minister Churchill.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Bibliography

Addison, P. (2018) Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32413 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Clarke, P. and Toye, R. (2011) Sir (Richard) Stafford Cripps. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32630 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Kenyon, J. (1994) The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History. Wordsworth Editions Limited.

Kimball, W. (1984) Churchill & Roosevelt: the complete correspondence. Volume 1 (Alliance Emerging, October 1933 - November 1942). Princeton University Press.

Lavin, D. (2015) Leopold Charles Maurice Stennett Amery. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/30401 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Low, D. (1984) The mediator’s moment: Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and the antecedents to the Cripps Mission to India, 1940-42. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03086538408582664 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Moore, R. (2011) Victor Alexander John Hope, second marquess of Linlithgow. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/33974 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Nehru, J. (2004) The Discovery of India. Penguin Books India.

Nehru, J. (2005) A Bunch of Old Letters. Penguin Books India.

Owen, N. (2002) The Cripps mission of 1942: A reinterpretation. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03086530208583134 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Palmer, A. (1964) A Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945. Penguin Reference Books.

Roberts, A. (2019) Churchill. Penguin Books.

The Daily Telegraph (1 April 1942, 13 April 1942, 22 April 1952)

The Times (8 August 1940, 12 March 1942, 11 November 1942, 22 April 1952)

Zachariah, B. (2004) Nehru. Routledge Historical Biographies.

View Details

The 1876 U.S. presidential election is one of the most contentious and controversial elections in American history. This election has a fraught legacy: After months of bitter fighting, lawmakers made a fateful compromise to put one man in office by effectively ending Reconstruction, leading to a century of intensified racial segregation in the South. It involved a dispute over electoral votes that was eventually resolved through a political compromise. It was not our country’s finest moment.

Lloyd W. Klein explains.

*Rutherford B. Hayes.*

The Candidates

The candidates were a reform-minded Democrat and a Reconstructionist Republican. Rutherford B. Hayes was the governor of Ohio and was the Republican candidate. His campaign focused on reform and a commitment to civil rights, particularly for African Americans in the South. Before the war he had been a Cincinnati lawyer and abolitionist. He ran against Samuel J. Tilden the governor of New York, the Democratic candidate. He was known for his efforts in fighting corruption, particularly in New York City’s Tammany Hall. Tilden had been a War Democrat who opposed slavery; Tilden opposed Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election but later supported him and the Union during the Civil War.

The Democratic VP candidate was William A Wheeler, a man about whom Hayes had recently said, “I am ashamed to say: who is Wheeler?" He was a congressman from New York whose opposition was even less prominent. Wheeler was nominated because he was popular among his colleagues and had worked to avoid making enemies in Congress. In addition, he provided geographical balance to the ticket.

The Republican VP candidate was Thomas A Hendricks, the Governor of Indiana and a former US Senator and congressman. Hendricks’s record consisted of challenging the military draft and issuing greenbacks; however, he supported the Union and prosecution of the war, consistently voting in favor of wartime appropriations. Hendricks adamantly opposed Radical Reconstruction. After the war he argued that the Southern states had never been out of the Union and were therefore entitled to representation in the U.S. Congress. Hendricks also maintained that Congress had no authority over the affairs of state governments.

It was widely expected that Tilden and the Democrats would ride a popular wave into office after 16 years of Republicans and the scandals of President Grant’s administration.

Only one of these candidates had had a successful military experience in the war. Hayes, a lawyer, businessman, and abolitionist, was a war hero who went on to serve in Congress and later as Ohio’s governor, where he championed African American suffrage, Hayes was wounded five times, most seriously at the Battle of South Mountain in 1862. He earned a reputation for bravery in combat, rising in the ranks to serve as brevet major general. He was a lawyer from Cincinnati (educated at Kenyon College and Harvard) with no formal military training. After the war had returned to politics. He had displayed great courage in the Kanawha Division, working under George Crook and David Hunter.

He was not the only potential candidate with a war background. William T Sherman was the commander of the Army but had no interest whatsoever. Grant had intentionally given Winfield Scott Hancock, a Democrat, obscure assignments away from the South. He did receive some votes in the convention in 1876 for the nomination but 1880 would be his real attempt for the office. It was widely assumed during 1875 that incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant would run for a third term as president despite the poor economic conditions, the numerous political scandals that had developed since he assumed office in 1869, and a longstanding tradition set by George Washington not to stay in office for more than two terms. Grant's inner circle advised him to run for a third term and he almost did so, but on December 15, 1875, the House, by a sweeping 233–18 vote, passed a resolution declaring that the two-term tradition was to prevent a dictatorship.

The initial favorite in 1876 was James G Blaine of Maine. He had the lead in delegates but was 100 votes short of the majority, as the southern states would not support his views. Hayes won the nomination by appealing in a conciliatory manner to the Southern Republicans, which left Frederick Douglass confused about whether the new black southern vote was wanted.

The Election Campaigns

In 1876 it was the tradition that the candidates did not campaign, and their surrogates made their cases locally. The Republicans expected to lose. The poor economic conditions made the party in power unpopular. Both candidates concentrated on the swing states of New York and Indiana, as well as the three southern states—Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida—where Reconstruction Republican governments still barely ruled, amid recurring political violence, including widespread efforts to suppress freedman voting. Democrats, whose voter base resided in the former Confederacy, had been partly shut out of the political sphere; now, with Republican Ulysses S. Grant facing charges of corruption, Tilden’s reform-minded candidacy seemed like a well-timed opportunity for Democrats to regain political power.

The Republican outlook was indeed bleak. Hayes was a virtual unknown outside his home state of Ohio. Henry Adams called Hayes "a third-rate nonentity whose only recommendations are that he is obnoxious to no one". Hayes’s most important asset was his help to the Republican ticket in carrying Ohio, a crucial swing state. For the Democrats, the newspaperman John D. Defrees described Tilden as "a very nice, prim, little, withered-up, fidgety old bachelor, about one-hundred and twenty-pounds avoirdupois, who never had a genuine impulse for many nor any affection for woman".

The Democratic strategy for victory in the South relied on paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts and the White League. These groups saw themselves as the military wing of the Democrats. Using the strategy of the Mississippi Plan, they actively suppressed both black and white Republican voting. They violently disrupted meetings and rallies, attacked party organizers, and threatened potential voters with retaliation for voting Republican.

During the election of 1876, Southern Democrats who supported Wade Hampton for governor used mob violence to attack and intimidate African American voters in Charleston. Republican Governor Daniel Henry Chamberlain appealed to President Grant for military assistance. In October 1876, Grant, after issuing a proclamation, instructed Sherman to gather all available Atlantic region troops and dispatch them to South Carolina to stop the mob violence.

It’s a cliché to say that in America, race is always on the ballot. But in 1876, it was probably the central issue. The election process in Southern states was rife with voter fraud—on the part of both parties—and marked by violent voter suppression against black Americans. Under Reconstruction, African Americans had achieved unprecedented political power, and new federal legislation sought to provide a modicum of economic equality for newly enfranchised people. In response, white Southerners rebelled against African Americans’ newfound power and sought to intimate and disenfranchise black voters through violence.

Voter suppression was rampant in the post-Confederacy South. Many historians argue that if votes had been counted accurately and fairly in Southern states, Hayes might have won the 1876 election outright. “[I]f you had a fair election in the south, a peaceful election, there’s no question that the Republican Hayes would have won a totally legitimate and indisputable victory,” wrote Eric Foner.

Election Night

On election night, Hayes was losing so badly that he prepared his concession speech before turning in for the night. His party chairman went to bed with a bottle of whiskey. “We soon fell into a refreshing sleep,” Hayes later wrote in his diary about the events of November 7, 1876. “[T]he affair seemed over.”

But after four months of fierce debate and negotiations, Hayes would be sworn into office as 19th president of the United States. Historians often describe his narrow, controversial win over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden as one of the most bitterly contested presidential elections in history.

Just a few days following the election, Tilden appeared poised to narrowly clinch the election. He had captured 51.5 percent of the popular vote to Hayes’s 48 percent, a margin of about 250,000 votes. But Tilden had amassed only 184 electoral votes—one shy of the number needed to reach the 185 electoral votes necessary for the presidency. Hayes, meanwhile, had 165. Election returns from three Republican-controlled Southern states—Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina—were divided, with both sides declaring victory. Together, the states represented a total of 19 electoral votes, which along with one disputed elector from Oregon would be enough to swing the election Hayes’s way.

Hayes’ proponents realized that those contested votes could sway the election. They seized the uncertainty of the moment, encouraging Republican leaders in the three states to stall, and argued that if black voters hadn’t been intimidated away from the polls—and if voter fraud hadn’t been as rampant—Hayes would have won the contested states. With a Republican-controlled Senate, a Democrat-control

The Disputed Election

At the end of election day, no clear winner emerged because the outcomes in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana were unclear. Both parties claimed victory in those states, but Republican-controlled “returning” boards would determine the official electoral votes. “The elections in three states—Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina—were alleged to have been conducted illegally,” the senators of those states wrote in a statement.“

Republicans and Democrats rushed to those three states to watch and try to influence the counting of the votes. The returning boards determined which votes to count and could throw out votes, if they deemed them fraudulent. The returning boards in all three states argued that fraud, intimidation, and violence in certain districts invalidated votes, and they threw out enough Democratic votes for Hayes to win. All three returning boards awarded their states’ electoral votes to Hayes.

Meanwhile in Oregon, a strange development added that state to the uncertain mix. Hayes won the state, but one of the Republican electors, John W. Watts, was also postmaster, and the US Constitution forbids federal officeholders from being electors. Watts planned to resign from his position in order to be a Republican elector, but the governor of Oregon who was a Democrat, disqualified Watts and instead certified a Tilden elector.

The U.S. Constitution provided no way of resolving the dispute, and now Congress would have to decide. As Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, and Republicans dominated in the Senate, the two sides compromised by creating a bipartisan electoral commission with five representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices.

Electors cast their ballots in state capitals on December 6, 1876. Generally, the process went smoothly but in four capitals—Salem, Oregon; Columbia, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana—two sets of conflicting electors met and voted so that the US Congress received two sets of conflicting electoral votes. At this point, Tilden had 184 electoral votes while Hayes had 165 with 20 votes still disputed.When the Electoral College does not give a majority to a candidate, such as ties or when there are uncertain electors involved, they are called contingent elections. An example of a tie was the 1800 election, and it required a compromise for Jefferson to be president over Burr. After that, a legal remedy was agreed on. Another contingent election was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams was ultimately elected over Andrew Jackson, a result that was reversed in 1828.Why wasn’t the election resolved in the states, like they are supposed to be? The Constitution outlines what is supposed to happen in these situations, but it didn’t actually happen in 1876.

That year the contingent election system was bypassed when there was a contested outcome. At the height of Reconstruction, the issue was not that no candidate got a majority in the Electoral College, but rather that the three Southern states – Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina – sent multiple slates of electoral votes to Washington, DC, after the state elections were disputed. And in Oregon, there was a dispute over one elector. The question was which were the legitimate sets of electors.The Constitution stipulates that the electoral votes be directed to the President of the Senate, who was Republican Thomas W. Ferry. Although Republicans argued that he had the right to decide which votes to count, Democrats disagreed and argued that the Democratic majority in Congress should decide.

The Compromise of 1877

A compromise was reached. In an unprecedented move, Congress decided to create an extralegal “Election Commission. Congress created a special bipartisan commission, to determine which candidate should get the 20 disputed electoral votes. So on January 29, 1877, the Electoral Commission Act established a commission of five senators (three Republicans, two Democrats), five representatives (three Democrats, two Republicans), and five Supreme Court justices (two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent) to decide which votes to count and resolve the dispute. However, the independent Supreme Court justice refused to serve on the commission and was replaced by a Republican justice.

In the disputed Presidential election of 1876 between the Republican Rutherford Hayes and the Democrat Samuel Tilden, Congress created a special Electoral Commission to decide to whom to award a total of 20 electoral votes which were disputed from the states of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon. The Commission was to be composed of 15 members: five drawn from the U.S. House of Representatives, five from the U.S. Senate, and five from the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority party in each legislative chamber would get three seats on the Commission, and the minority party would get two. Both parties agreed to this arrangement because it was understood that the Commission would have seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent.

Obviously that independent would be the one to decide. Both parties wanted the same man: Justice David Davis, a friend and former colleague of Abraham Lincoln. Judge Davis was a brilliant and ethical man, and was reputed as such in his lifetime. This episode proves it beyond any doubt, and exactly why few know about it is astounding. Davis, who was the most trusted independent in the nation. According to one historian, "No one, perhaps not even Davis himself, knew which presidential candidate he preferred." Just as the Electoral Commission Bill was passing Congress, the legislature of Illinois elected Davis to the Senate. Democrats in the Illinois Legislature believed that they had purchased Davis's support by voting for him. However, they had made a miscalculation; instead of staying on the Supreme Court so that he could serve on the Commission, he promptly resigned as a Justice, in order to take his Senate seat. His replacement, a Republican, voted for Hayes.

In late January, the commission voted 8-7 along party lines that Hayes had won all the contested states, and therefore the presidency, by just one electoral vote. They ultimately gave the votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes even though Democrat Samuel Tilden got more popular votes. With 185 votes to Tilden's 184, Hayes was declared the winner two days before he was inaugurated.

And just exactly how was this decision reached? Tilden and the Democrats gave up the election, which in all fairness, they probably did win because they got something in return. Disputed returns and secret back-room negotiations put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House. The commission voted 8 to 7 to award the electoral votes from South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana (and one from Oregon) to Hayes. But that was not the end of the election.

What Happened Behind Closed DoorsDemocratic members of Congress threatened to prevent the count of electoral votes and delay the resolution of the election with frequent adjournments and filibusters. With the threat of delay, Democrats hoped to win some concessions from Republicans. Furious Democrats refused to accept the ruling of the special commission and threatened a filibuster. So, in long meetings behind closed doors, Democrats and Hayes’ Republican allies hashed out what came to be known as the Compromise of 1877: also known as the Wormley Agreement, the Bargain of 1877, or the Corrupt Bargain: an informal but binding agreement.

Finally, just after 4 a.m. on March 2, 1877, the Senate president declared Hayes the president-elect of the United States. Hayes—dubbed “His Fraudulency” by a bitter Democratic press—would be publicly inaugurated just two days later.

A secret backroom deal decided the election. The negotiations put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House—and Democrats back in control of the South. Hayes would become president on the condition that he ended Reconstruction in the South. Hayes secured his win by agreeing to end Reconstruction. he filibuster of the certified results and the threat of political violence in exchange for an end to federal Reconstruction. Two issues interested Democrats—restoring their control of governments, and thus white supremacy, in the South (and removing the last of the federal troops) and a federal subsidy for railroads. However, it is doubtful that Hayes, his supporters, and Democrats reached any sort of deal beyond what Hayes promised to do in his letter of acceptance. Samuel J. Randall, the Democratic Speaker of the House, realizing that creating chaos would backfire on the Democrats, finally ruled the filibusterers out of order and forced the completion of the count in the early hours of March 2, 1877.In fact, even as the electoral commission deliberated, national party leaders had been meeting in secret to hash out what would become known as the Compromise of 1877. Hayes agreed to cede control of the South to Democratic governments and back away from attempts at federal intervention in the region, as well as place a Southerner in his cabinet. In return, Democrats would not dispute Hayes’s election, and agreed to respect the civil rights of Black citizens. Just two months after his inauguration, Hayes made good on his compromise and ordered the removal of the last federal troops from Louisiana. These troops had been in place since the end of the Civil War and had helped enforce the civil and legal rights of many formerly enslaved individuals.

The disputed 1876 presidential election resulted in a compromise in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. This effectively ended Reconstruction. Southern white Democrats, known as "Redeemers," regained control of state governments. They systematically dismantled Reconstruction-era reforms and restored white supremacy through laws, violence, and intimidation. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These laws undid many of the advances made during Reconstruction. In conclusion, while the Radical Republicans initially succeeded in imposing their Reconstruction policies, their gains were largely undone by the end of the 19th century, leading to nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement for African Americans in the South.

More stringent enforcement and a more robust federal military presence and oversight in the South could have provided more protection for African Americans and ensured the implementation of Reconstruction policies. This would have helped prevent the rise of white supremacist groups and the rollback of civil rights gains. I don’t think extending the occupation past 1876 would have; however, the damage was done.

With this deal, Hayes ended the Reconstruction era and ushered in a period of Southern “home rule.” Soon after his inauguration, Hayes made good on his promise, ordering federal troops to withdraw from Louisiana and South Carolina, where they had been protecting Republican claimants to the governorships in those states. This action marked the effective end of the Reconstruction era, and began a period of solid Democratic control in the South. Soon, a reactionary, unfettered white supremacist rule rose to power in many Southern states. In the absence of federal intervention over the next several decades, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan flourished, and states enacted racist Jim Crow laws whose impacts continue to be felt today. For their part, white Southern Democrats did not honor their pledge to uphold the rights of Black citizens, but moved quickly to reverse as many of Reconstruction’s policies as possible. In the decades to come, disenfranchisement of Black voters throughout the South, often through intimidation and violence, helped ensure the racial segregation imposed by the Jim Crow laws—a system that endured for more than a half-century, until the advances of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. In this sense the 1876 presidential election provided the foundation for America’s political landscape, as well as race relations, for the next 100 years.

Key decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court struck at the protections afforded by Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments and legislation. The Court’s decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), established that the 14th Amendment applied only to former enslaved people, and protected only rights granted by the federal government, not by the states.

Three years later, in United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of three white men convicted in connection with the massacre of more than 100 Black men in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873, as part of a political dispute. The men had been convicted of violating the 1870 Enforcement Act, which banned conspiracies to deny citizens’ constitutional rights and had been intended to combat violence by the Ku Klux Klan against Black people in the South.

The Supreme Court’s ruling—that the 14th Amendment’s promise of due process and equal protection covered violations of citizens’ rights by the states, but not by individuals—would make prosecuting anti-Black violence increasingly difficult, even as the Klan and other white supremacist groups were helping to disenfranchise Black voters and reassert white control of the South.

Ten years later, the debacle would also result in a long-overdue law: the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which codified Electoral College procedure. This was recently further supplemented after the events of January 6, 2020.

References

Foner, Eric (2002) [1988]. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Grant, Ulysses S. (2003) [1885]. Personal Memoirs. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

McFeely, William S. (1981). Grant: A Biography. New York: Norton.

https://www.history.com/news/reconstruction-1876-election-rutherford-hayes

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/disputed-election-1876

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/confusion-voter-suppression-and-constitutional-crisis-five-things-know-about-1876-presidential-election-180976677/

https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-election-1876

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/compromise-of-1877

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/1876-election-most-divisive-united-states-history-how-congress-responded/

View Details

Robert F. Kenned Jr.’s suspension of his third-party campaign for president and endorsement of Republican Donald J. Trump, was a development with historical resonance. RFK, Jr. has long been known as a fiercely independent and idiosyncratic lawyer and environmentalist with an eclectic collection of positions and ideas, including vaccine skepticism. But among his other actions and assertions, RFK, Jr.’s embrace of Trump and, by extension, the Republican party, stands out for its direct opposition to the Democrats, the party of his forefathers who did much to shape its values and lore, and inspire future generations of adherents. RFK, Jr. is now campaigning energetically for Trump, and given the still-potent draw of the legendary Kennedy name, his support could conceivably make the difference in a razor-tight race.

Larry Deblinger explains.

*Booby Kennedy (left) with President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966.*

Upon hearing of RFK’s decision, five of his eight surviving siblings released a brief statement condemning it as a “betrayal” of their family’s values and “a sad ending to a sad story.” Previously, at least 15 Kennedy family members had shunned RFK Jr.’s candidacy and endorsed Joe Biden for president, before Biden dropped out. These relatives appear to view RFK, Jr. as a black sheep of the family, an aberration whose actions should be lamented and dismissed.

It might be tempting to view RFK, Jr’s “sad story” through the operatic lens that the Kennedy family saga has typically been chronicled, replete with tragic and untimely deaths, noble ideals, soaring oratory, and unrealized dreams. Indeed, RFK, Jr. hinted of his move to come on the basis of a high-minded principle, befitting a Kennedy. In April, RFK, Jr. asserted on CNN that President Joe Biden was a greater threat to American democracy than Trump, even though he called Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election and other of his actions “appalling.” He argued that social media websites had blocked him from espousing his vaccine conspiracy theories under pressure and weaponization of government agencies by the Biden administration, thus violating his Constitutional right to freedom of speech, and threatening the most important pillar of democracy.

But it serves to note that RFK, Jr’s complaint was also of a direct and personal nature. And in this context, it must also be considered that among their traits of good looks and charisma, drive, wit, brilliance, eloquence, and idealism, prominent Kennedys have shown a capacity to act out of sheer spite: personal, petty, mean-spirited, and hateful vindictiveness. Both RFK, Jr.’s father, Robert F. “Bobby” Kennedy, and his uncle Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy, evinced this marked tendency in the political arena at key moments in American history. Through this lens, RFK, Jr.’s action appears not so much a “betrayal” of Kennedy family value as another familiar recurrence of a Kennedy failing, and his allegiance with Trump, little more than a personal and vindictive swipe against the Democratic party.

Youth

From his youth, Bobby Kennedy was a kind of family attack dog, keen to perceive and avenge any slights to himself or his family members. The “runt” of Rose and Joseph Kennedy’s storied litter, Bobby made up for his small size and limited talents (at least compared with his brothers) with tenacity and scrappiness in sports and academics, often spoiling for fights. It did not take much; as a student at Harvard, RFK once smashed a beer bottle over a young man’s head, sending him to the hospital for stitches, simply because he had the temerity to celebrate his birthday at the same Cambridge bar and same time as Bobby.1 And he held a grudge. “When Bobby hates you, you stay hated,” Joe Kennedy once said of the son who seemed most to take after him.2 As an adult, armed with a law degree from the University of Virginia, RFK became an assistant counsel to US Republican Senator Joseph V. McCarthy’s infamous investigative committee that during 1953-54 recklessly and often spuriously alleged Communist influence in the US government and media.

It was during this period that RFK first met then-Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, and for Bobby, it was hatred at first sight. He had known of Johnson as a protégé of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the man who had recalled his father as US Ambassador to England in 1940 and fired him; Johnson was at FDR’s side during much of the humiliating process, and that, apparently, was enough for Bobby.3 FDR had clear and substantive reasons for his action, including Joe Kennedy’s early support for appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s; publicly expressed pessimism over the survival of Great Britain and of democracy in Europe (and privately expressed antisemitism); suspicion of his being a Nazi sympathizer; and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s calls for Kennedy’s dismissal. Nonetheless, son Bobby saw the firing as a family offense not to be forgiven.

So, when Majority Leader Johnson entered the Senate cafeteria with two assistants one day in 1953 and passed a table where McCarthy was meeting with his staff, Bobby sat glowering in his seat while the rest of McCarthy’s team jumped up to shake the hand of the “Leader,” in keeping with Senate decorum. 3 Not to be deterred, the towering, almost 6 foot 4-inch tall, LBJ stood over RFK and stuck out his hand, waiting for a long, awkward moment before Bobby finally rose and shook it without looking at Johnson.

Feud

The epic LBJ-RFK feud was on. There were Johnson’s repeated attempts after the first to squeeze handshakes out of Bobby Kennedy just to torment him, and a few disparaging comments from Johnson about Joe Kennedy’s ambassadorship in England. There was the incident in 1959 on Johnson’s ranch, where RFK was sent by his brother John to sound out Johnson on his intentions of running for president, when LBJ insisted on some deer hunting and Bobby was thrown flat on his back by a rifle recoil. “Son, you’ve got to learn how to handle a gun like a man,” Johnson said as he helped him up.4

Beyond the insults, RFK despised Johnson as a man who in his opinion exhibited all the worst traits of the classic politician: an unprincipled and conniving lust for power, loose regard for the truth, rampant egoism, and selfish vanity. To RFK’s Northeastern elite sensibilities, Johnson’s rude and crude Southwestern-dirt-poor, working-class manners, physically overbearing political style, and segregationist past were repugnant and worthy of withering scorn, something Johnson fully recognized and resented.

But the true measure of RFK’s pettiness emerged with the ascendance of LBJ to Vice President in his brother John’s administration, and to the presidency after his brother’s death: an inability to respect the office however much he detested the man. Even though JFK had offered LBJ the VP post, considering him vital to his electoral prospects, and LBJ had accepted, during the Democratic convention, Bobby repeatedly visited Johnson in his hotel room to get him to decline the offer. RFK later insisted his attempts were at his brother’s behest, a contention that historians view with skepticism.5,6 It was during this episode that Johnson began calling RFK “that little shitass” and “worse” names, according to a close associate.7

The ill-will continued through JFK’s tragically shortened presidency, under which RFK served as Attorney General. JFK knew that the vice presidency was an extremely confining office for an accomplished power broker like Johnson, and he was determined that LBJ be treated with dignity, if only to assuage his massive ego. In general, JFK and Johnson enjoyed cordial, gentlemanly, and mutually respectful relations.8,9 Yet, RFK radiated disrespect towards Johnson, barging into his meetings without a word of apology and treating him like an underling9; indeed, for all practical purposes, Bobby was the number two in the JFK administration. The tight-knit Kennedy staffers called LBJ nicknames like “Uncle Cornpone” behind his back.10

Out of Office

It was even worse out of the office. Bobby and his wife Ethel held frequent parties for “Kennedy people” (Johnson called them “the Harvards”) at their home, Hickory Hill in Virginia, where the ridicule of LBJ turned kind of sick, according to historian Jeff Shesol in his 1997 book on the RFK-LBJ feud, Mutual Contempt:

Johnson jokes and Johnson stories were as inexhaustible as they were merciless. Those that percolated during the campaign had been humorous, but this new material betrayed a real bitterness, a mean-spiritedness that was hard to explain…Time (magazine)’s Hugh Sidey, a frequent visitor to Hickory Hill was appalled by the gang’s ridicule of LBJ, which he described as “just awful…inexcusable, really.” In October 1963, friends gave Bobby Kennedy an LBJ voodoo doll; “the merriment,” Sidey later reported, “was overwhelming.”11

The frivolity likely vanished after the assassination of JFK in Dallas, Texas, but not the feud between RFK and LBJ, exacerbated by the fact that the shooting occurred in Johnson’s home state. RFK, overwhelmed with grief, resolved to stay on as Attorney General, but without letting go of his animosity. “From the moment Air Force One (bearing JFK’s body) landed in Washington, and progressively in the days and weeks that followed, Bobby was ready to see slights to his brother, his brother’s widow, or himself in whatever Lyndon Johnson did or didn’t do,” wrote LBJ biographer Merle Miller.12

Although Johnson performed faithfully and admirably in honoring JFK’s legacy and advancing his policy agenda, according to contemporary journalists and historians, his personal attempts as President to show respect and sensitivity to the Kennedys were all rudely rebuffed. “Overtures from Johnson to the Kennedy family after the Kennedy assassination were rejected in a manner that was thoroughly offensive and insulting,” observed contemporary Clark Clifford, an eminent Washington DC attorney and veteran Democratic party insider.12

And the hostility did not stop at mere personal gestures. As historian Shesol explains of Johnson’s early days as president:

Johnson desperately needed affirmation, and in the hour of his greatest burden, it came from unlikely sources—from the Congress, which had spurned and mocked him for a thousand days; from the cabinet, appointed by his predecessor; from the American people, who cherished John Kennedy in death as they had not in life. All rallied to the new president. They gave him their patience and their trust.

Bobby Kennedy was not among them, and in Bobby’s absence Johnson felt the suspicion and rejection he feared from the rest.13

Ironically, a book that the Kennedy family members had commissioned expressly to control the narrative of the JFK assassination and aftermath, and protect their image, publicly exposed the intense antagonism towards LBJ, which shocked reviewers. Entitled “The Death of a President,” by William Manchester, who was given extensive and exclusive access to the Kennedys and their records, the book was, in the words of Time magazine, “seriously flawed by the fact that its partisan portrayal of Lyndon Johnson is so hostile that it almost demeans the office itself.” It is impossible to parse exactly what proportion of this hostility might have come independently from the author, rather than the Kennedys (although the author was handpicked and vetted by the family). At any rate, the Kennedys were unhappy with the book for various reasons and sued to stop general publication of it before changes were made. “Bobby worried that the book might make it appear that the Kennedys had not given Johnson a chance to succeed in the Presidency and that their opposition was nothing more than a personal vendetta,” wrote Michael W. Schuyler, an historian at Kearny State University, New Mexico.14

Bobby Kennedy

LBJ went on to win election in his own right in 1964, by one of the largest landslide victories in American history. He then successfully pushed through epochal Civil Rights legislation and social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, anti-poverty initiatives and other legislation ranging from the arts to immigration, environmental protection, education, and gun control, compiling a domestic record that, on the whole, remains a landmark achievement of American progressivism. But his controversial and disastrous Vietnam war policies rapidly undermined his presidency, compelled him to decline to run for re-election, and ended his political career. Bobby Kennedy left the Johnson administration to run for US Senator from New York, which office he won in 1965. He was assassinated while campaigning for president on an anti-war platform in 1968.

It might be reassuring, in terms of the Kennedy legacy, to think that the LBJ-RFK feud was entirely a one-off, generated by the forced proximity and interaction of two dynamic personalities who were almost uniquely born to clash. But that is not the case. A mere 12 years after Bobby’s violent death, a relatively brief but all-too-familiar spectacle of petty and personal spite and resentment involving a Kennedy took center stage in American politics.

1980 convention

The setting was the Democratic party convention of 1980, a presidential election year. The intraparty combatants were the incumbent US president James Earl Carter, son of a peanut farmer from Georgia and Ted Kennedy, US Senator from Massachusetts, scion of the wealthy, celebrated, star-crossed political family, which some Americans viewed like royals in exile. Although Carter had won the party’s nomination handily after a bitter battle, he stood awkwardly at the podium, having completed his acceptance speech, waiting for Kennedy to arrive and, in effect, certify his candidacy as though he were a higher authority.

The contest itself was inherently anomalous, and humiliating for Carter. “Never before had a sitting President, an elected President, with command of both houses of Congress and the party machinery, been so challenged by his own people. What was even more remarkable was the nature of the challenge—a charge of incompetence,” wrote contemporary journalist and historian Teddy White.15

By 1980, Carter’s presidency was foundering, beset on all sides by crises foreign and domestic. The economy was struggling with the combination of persistent inflation, slow economic growth, and high unemployment, called “stagflation.” A revolution in Iran to replace the US-backed Shah with an Islamic theocracy in 1979 spooked Americans who remembered the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970s, and drove them to hoard gas. This resulted in long gas lines, dwindling gas supplies, and mounting hysteria, including killings and riots. The infamous Iran hostage crisis of 1979 erupted when Iranian militants captured over 50 Americans at the US embassy in Tehran and kept them for 444 days, prompted at least in part by Carter’s decision to allow the exiled Shah to enter the US for cancer treatment.

Ted Kennedy

Despite some landmark achievements such as his forging of the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt, Carter failed to convince the American people that he had a sure grip on the helm of state. He had a curiously stiff personal style, despite his ever-present wide smile, and a technician’s approach to solving national problems that was uninspiring to the public and did not always work. Like Carter, his closest advisers were from Georgia, and the team, including the President, came to office with a regional chip on their shoulders, bristling with peevish hyperawareness, if not combative pride, in being outsiders to the Washington establishment. As Carter’s approval ratings began to plunge, sinking to 28% in June of 1979, a bit of that Southern defiance appeared to flare when Carter was asked at a gathering of Congressmen whether he planned to run for re-election (a question insulting in itself), particularly given the possibility that Ted Kennedy might challenge him for his party’s nomination.

“I’m going to whip his ass,” Carter replied, referring to Kennedy, and then repeated it, when asked (in disbelief) if that was what he meant.16 When confronted with the widely reported statement, Kennedy smoothly responded that the president must have been misquoted.

It was the first publicly overt expression of tension between Carter and Kennedy. Later in 1979, further signs of tension and rivalry were palpable at the opening of the John F. Kennedy Library, in Boston, where they both spoke. The event started out inauspiciously for Carter when he leaned in to kiss Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis on the cheek in greeting, “just as a matter of courtesy,” and “she flinched away ostentatiously,” as Carter remembered decades later.17In their speeches, ostensibly in honor of JFK., both Carter and Kennedy slyly inserted warnings, or shots across the bow, to each other.

Observing with growing disgust Carter’s faltering efforts to be the president the American people wanted and needed, Kennedy became convinced that he could fill the void of leadership, and announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination.

Contest

But the matchup was a contest of weaknesses. While Carter had acquired the image of a bumbler, Kennedy was a deeply flawed and inept candidate. Grave doubts about his character relentlessly shadowed him over the 1969 incident in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts, an island off Martha’s Vinyard, when he drove a car off a bridge and into a pond, causing the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a young woman who was a passenger in the car. Although Kennedy swam to safety, he failed to call the police for 10 hours during which Kopechne’s life might have been saved. Kennedy further undermined himself with a one-on-one interview on prime-time, network television, in which he was unable to answer the direct question of why he wanted to be president, responding with an incoherent stream of hesitations and pointless phrases, i.e. an epic word salad. Mirroring this ambivalence, Kennedy campaigned with inconsistent energy and conviction, championing an old-line liberalism that many thought outdated.

By a month before the convention, Carter had won enough primaries and delegates to secure his renomination, with a commanding lead over Kennedy; as promised, Carter had “whipped” Kennedy. And yet, Kennedy refused to bow out, having adopted a “kamikaze-like state of mind,” according to Jon Ward in his 2019 book about the Carter-Kennedy rivalry, Camelot’s End. “Many in the Kennedy camp were disgusted by Carter,” wrote Ward. “They felt he was no better than (Republican presidential nominee Ronald) Reagan, and almost preferred to see Reagan win,”18

The Kennedy camp insisted on an “open convention,” meaning that delegates could be free to vote for whom they wished regardless of the choice of the rank-and-file primary voters they were supposedly pledged to represent. In the meantime, a poll showed Carter with a 77% national disapproval rating.19 The Democrats agreed to the open convention format.

When the open vote was over, Carter had finally won the nomination with almost two-thirds of the vote. Kennedy conceded but he was not done fighting. His camp insisted on a party platform vote, including liberal planks far to the left of Carter’s policies, which would defy and embarrass the President, and would take place right after Senator Kennedy was scheduled to speak, so as to set the most favorable atmosphere for their approval.

The Carter people knew exactly what was planned and were losing patience. “If you have any wisdom and judgment at all, you know you don’t get carried away by personalities and pettiness in a political fight,” recounted Carter’s campaign manager, Bob Strauss, to The New Yorker. “Politics is tough enough…that you don’t cut each other’s throats.” Carter’s Press Secretary, Jody Powell, later wrote, “We neglected to take into account one of the most obvious facets of Kennedy’s character, an almost child-like self-centeredness,” in his memoir of the election.

Kennedy’s speech

In the event, Kennedy’s convention staff did behave childishly, like a bunch of drunken frat-boys, on the day of his speech. Kennedy floor manager Harold Ickes invoked an obscure procedural rule to stop the afternoon convention activities, “in a gesture done purely out of spite,” wrote Ward in a 2024 Politico article. “We just said, ‘Fuck ‘em,’” explained Ickes in an interview. “I mean, we weren’t thinking about the country. We weren’t even thinking about the general election. It was, ‘Fuck ‘em.’ You know? To be blunt about it.”

Fistfights almost broke out the convention floor when outraged Carter staffers confronted Ickes, who responded with “Go fuck yourself, I’m shutting this convention down.” The fisticuffs were luckily averted by a phone call from Kennedy at his hotel room, curious to know what had stopped the proceedings he was watching on television. When told the convention would be stalled for two hours, Kennedy, after a long pause, told Ickes to allow it to go forward.

Perhaps relieved from the burden of pursuing a losing cause, Kennedy gave a thoughtful, eloquent, stem-winding speech later that night, which is still remembered as one of the best speeches in American political convention history. Kennedy invoked the Democratic party’s heritage of support for the common man, and the wisdom of 19th century poet Alfred Lord Tennyson, with pleas to re-unite the country and the party, lyrically concluding, in a paean to big-hearted, big-spending liberalism, "the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

And yet, the good vibes and elevated, Camelot-like aura were shattered by another Kennedy-driven spectacle before a prime-time national TV audience on the last, climactic night of the convention. Carter did not help his cause by starting off his acceptance and campaign kick-off speech with a shouted tribute to Democratic Senator and former VP, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, whom he misnamed as Hubert Horatio Hornblower (Horatio Hornblower was a fictional, Napoleonic-era, British naval officer in a popular 20th century series of stories and novels) before hastily correcting himself. When he had finished his speech, almost 20 minutes ticked by as various party luminaries (and some not so luminary) joined him on the stage for a desultory show of unity, waiting for the final moment, and leaving bored TV news commentators to mutter derisive comments to their audiences.

The Kennedy team had orchestrated that final moment by insisting that Kennedy would not watch the speech at the arena but in his hotel room, and would then make his way to the convention, thus having the dramatically delayed, final appearance of the show, like the top star of a rock concert, or a champion boxer.

Handshake

When Kennedy did appear, to a roar of excitement, it was obvious to almost everyone watching, or made clear to them by the TV journalists on the scene, that Carter was looking for one thing: the classic political handshake of the party’s top politicians, former rivals, standing together in full view of the spotlights and cameras, their interlocked hands thrust high in the air, in a thrilling and triumphant show of unity, strength, and expectation of victory, of party over personal interest, bitterness, and division. He never got it. Kennedy did shake Carter’s hand five times by Ward’s count, but each time in a crowd, with the brief and perfunctory manner a campaigner might take the hand of someone in a rope line. The TV commentators duly noted each, increasingly embarrassing, failure. As Carter followed him around, Kennedy began to “smirk” and “chuckle,” according to Ward; he finally patted Carter on the back before leaving the arena to cheers.

Two months later, a peripheral, nonofficial member of the Kennedy campaign staff, but with longstanding ties as a helper to the Kennedy family, named Paul Corbin, stole Carter’s briefing books for a general election debate with Reagan and gave them to the Reagan campaign, 20 according to information gathered in a Congressional investigation and a 2009 book by political consultant and author Craig Shirley.20

After the 1980 election

Carter went on to lose the election to Reagan, but thereafter has led one of the most active, productive, and distinguished post-presidential lives in American history. Ted Kennedy, who died in 2009, remained US Senator from Massachusetts for decades, compiling a highly distinguished legislative career, featuring his steadfast advocacy for a national health care system, which was finally realized in at least some form in 2010, under the Obama administration.

With regard to health care reform, however, Carter has charged in his presidential memoirs that his administration’s proposal for a national health plan, which was devised over a two-year period by an array of economic experts and government leaders, including Ted Kennedy, and had support from key Congressional leaders, was scuttled by Kennedy in 1979 when he opposed it “at the very end,” which ultimately resulted in a 30-year delay in national health care.21 Carter repeated the charge in 2010 in TV interviews with 60 Minutesand Larry King, alleging that Kennedy acted “out of personal spite,” and his ambition to run for president and enact his own health care plan. In his own writings, Kennedy had counter-charged that it was Carter who delayed the plan (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/time-has-not-cooled-jimmy-carter-ted-kennedy-feud/).

RFK, Jr.

And so, we arrive at RFK, Jr., son of Bobby and nephew of Ted, choosing to support Republican Donald J. Trump, a convicted felon facing dozens of additional criminal charges, in his campaign for re-election as president. RFK, Jr. appears to justify his stance at least partly as a defense of freedom of speech. But he has yet to explain how supporting a candidate whose relentless abuse and corruption of that very right, by knowingly spewing lies that have sown chaos, threatened the democratic system, and endangered public safety, could possibly serve to protect freedom of speech and democracy. Then again, RFK, Jr.’s stance might have little to do with anything so grand as ideas, principles, and the national interest. After all, he is a Kennedy.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Print References

Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: pg. 63.
Ibid, pg. 66.
Ibid, ppg. 61-3.
Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: pg.10.
Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: ppg. 122-40.
Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: ppg.48-57.
Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: pg. 139.
Ibid., pg. 177-195.
Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: ppg.77-79.
Caro, Robert A. (2012). The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The Passage of Power. Alfred A. Knopf; New York, NY: pg. 198.
Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: pg.104.
Ball, Moira Ann. The phantom of the oval office: The John F. Kennedy’s assassination’s symbolic impact on Lyndon B. Johnson, his key advisors, and the Vietnam decision-making process. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 1994;24(1):105-119.
Shesol, Jeff. (1997). Mutual Contempt. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade. W.W Norton & Company; New York, NY: pg.119.
Schuyler M.W. Ghosts in the White House: LBJ, RFK, and the assassination of JFK. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 1987; 17(3):503-518.
Ward J. (2019). Camelot’s End. Kennedy vs. Carter and the Fight that Broke the Democratic Party. Hachette Book Group; New York, NY: pg. 146.
Ibid., pg. 126.
Ibid., pg. 152.
Ibid., pg.230.
Ibid., pg.251.
Ibid., pg.284-5.
Carter J. (2010). White House Diary. Farrar, Strous and Giroux. New York, NY: pg. 325.

View Details

Sir Isaac Newton, was born (according to the Julian calendar in use in England at the time) on Christmas Day, the 25th of December 1642 (New system calendar the 4th of January 1643), at Woolsthorpe Manor in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, a hamlet in the county of Lincolnshire, England.

Sir Isaac Newton was one of the most influential scientists in human history, with his groundbreaking work in mathematics, physics, and astronomy laying the foundations for classical mechanics continuing to this day and shaping modern science.

Terry Bailey explains.

*Isaac Newton in later life. Painting by James Thornhill.*

Early Life and Education

Newton's early life was marked by personal hardships. His father died three months before he was born, and when Newton was three, his mother remarried, leaving him in the care of his maternal grandmother. As a child, Newton displayed a curiosity about the world that would later evolve into groundbreaking scientific inquiries. He was sent to The King's School in Grantham, where he demonstrated a gift for mathematics and mechanics, often constructing elaborate mechanical devices, such as sundials and windmills, during his free time.

At 18, Newton enrolled at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1661. Cambridge, however, offered a curriculum centered around Aristotelian philosophy, which Newton found inadequate to explain the natural world. During this time, he encountered the works of philosophers such as René Descartes and astronomers like Galileo Galilei, which inspired his independent thinking. It was during the mid-1660s, when Cambridge was closed, (1665-1667), due to the Great Plague, that Newton made his first breakthroughs.

The Annus Mirabilis (The "Year of Wonders")

Newton's most productive period came during his time away from Cambridge between 1665 and 1667, often referred to as his "Annus Mirabilis." During these years, he developed the fundamental principles of calculus, formulated his theories on optics, and famously began to conceive the laws of motion and universal gravitation.

Calculus: The Foundation of Modern Mathematics

One of Newton's most profound achievements was the development of calculus, a new branch of mathematics that allowed for the analysis of continuously changing quantities. Although the invention of calculus is often attributed to both Newton and German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Newton's work predated Leibniz's publication by several years. It is also important to note that Archimedes, 287 BCE-212 BCE had already started developing the early concepts of integral calculus.

Newton used calculus to describe rates of change, which was crucial in his subsequent scientific discoveries. For example, calculus allowed Newton to analyze the motion of objects, calculate the changing velocities of falling bodies, and predict the paths of planets.

Optics: The Nature of Light and Color

During his retreat in 1666, Newton also conducted groundbreaking experiments with optics. Using a prism, Newton demonstrated that white light could be split into a spectrum of colors, showing that white light was a mixture of different wavelengths of light rather than a pure substance.

This discovery revolutionized the field of optics and dispelled prevailing theories that colors were produced by the modification of white light. His work on light also led him to build the first practical reflecting telescope, known as the Newtonian telescope, in 1668. This innovation eliminated chromatic aberration—a problem that plagued refracting telescopes—and allowed for sharper images of celestial objects.

The Principia and Newton's Laws of Motion

In 1687, Newton published his magnum opus, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, often referred to simply as the Principia. This work laid the groundwork for classical mechanics and established Newton's lasting influence on science.

Newton's Laws of Motion

The Principia is perhaps most famous for the articulation of Newton's three laws of motion, which describe the relationship between an object's motion and the forces acting upon it:

First Law (Inertia): An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force.

Second Law (Force and Acceleration): The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting upon it and inversely proportional to its mass. This law is succinctly expressed by the formula F = ma (force equals mass times acceleration).

Third Law (Action and Reaction): For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle explains why a rocket is propelled upward as gas is expelled downward.

These laws transformed the study of motion and became the foundation of classical mechanics, allowing scientists to predict the behavior of moving objects and understand phenomena like the orbits of planets and the trajectories of projectiles.

The Universal Law of Gravitation

Newton's law of universal gravitation is another keystone of his legacy. Newton proposed that every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This revolutionary idea provided a unifying explanation for both terrestrial and celestial phenomena.

Newton's law of gravitation explained why apples fall to the ground, why the Moon orbits the Earth, and why planets revolve around the Sun. It was the first time a mathematical theory provided a comprehensive explanation of the mechanics of the universe. With this law, Newton showed that the same forces governing falling objects on Earth were responsible for the motion of the planets, revolutionizing our understanding of the cosmos.

Later Life and Scientific Work

Following the publication of the Principia, Newton's reputation as one of the world's foremost scientists was firmly established. He was appointed Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, a position he held until 1696 when he moved to London to become Warden of the Royal Mint. There, Newton played a key role in reforming England's coinage and combating widespread counterfeiting.

Alchemy and Theology

Although Newton is best known for his contributions to mathematics and physics, he also spent a significant portion of his life studying alchemy and theology. Alchemy, a proto-scientific tradition, sought to transform base metals into gold and discover the elixir of life, (which to the initiated was a metaphorical concept for other scientific Pursuits). While Newton never made significant strides in these areas, his alchemical work reveals the breadth of his intellectual curiosity as he applied solid scientific methodologies to this pursuit.

Newton's theological writings were also substantial, though they remained unpublished during his lifetime. He was deeply interested in biblical prophecy and sought to reconcile his scientific work with his religious beliefs. Despite his unorthodox theological views, Newton believed that the universe operated under divine law, and this conviction reinforced his scientific inquiries. However, the more he studied these ideas the more separate the two concepts became.

Newton's Legacy in Science

Isaac Newton's scientific achievements had a profound impact on future generations of scientists. His methods of inquiry—based on empirical observation, mathematical rigor and logical reasoning became the standard for scientific exploration.

Influence on Physics

Newton's work in physics formed the basis for much of what is now called classical mechanics. For over two centuries, Newton's laws of motion and gravitation remained the cornerstone of physics, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the movement of bodies in the universe.

It was not until the 20th century, with the advent of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, that Newton's ideas were modified to account for the behavior of objects at extreme speeds and small scales. However, even in these contexts, Newton's laws remain a valid approximation for much of the physical world.

It is vital to understand that Newton was not incorrect and Einstein's theories simply were furtherance of Newton's findings. Issac Newton lived in the time of horse and carriage and the concept of light speed was virtually unknown. When Einstein added light speed into the equation it allowed science to move beyond Newton's discoveries, the true aspect of scientific discovery and solid proof of Newton's legacy to the world.

Impact on Mathematics

Newton's development of calculus opened new avenues for mathematical exploration. His methods for calculating the rate of change and determining areas under curves became essential tools in mathematics, engineering, and physics. Calculus remains a central component of modern mathematics education and is used extensively in fields ranging from physics to economics.

Contributions to Astronomy

Newton's law of gravitation allowed astronomers to better understand planetary motion and celestial mechanics. Using Newton's theories, astronomers could predict the orbits of planets and comets with unprecedented accuracy. Newton's work also helped scientists understand the forces governing tides, the behavior of moons, and the dynamics of stars and galaxies.

Side note:- Galileo Galilei had already discovered the first 4 moons orbiting around Jupiter, originally named the Galilean moons, (satellites), on the 7th of January 1610. These moons eventually became known as Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto.

Newton's Philosophical Impact

In addition to his scientific work, Newton influenced the philosophical understanding of nature and human knowledge. His emphasis on observation and mathematical explanation helped shape the Enlightenment view that nature operates according to discoverable laws. Philosophers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant were profoundly influenced by Newton's work, and his ideas were integral to the rise of empiricism and the scientific method.

In conclusion, Isaac Newton's life and work are solid evidence of the power of human curiosity and intellect. From his formulation of calculus and groundbreaking work in optics to his laws of motion and gravitation, Newton reshaped humanity's understanding of the natural world. His influence extended far beyond his era, setting the stage for centuries of scientific progress. Newton's legacy endures, not only in the discoveries he made but in the methods of inquiry and analysis he championed—methods that continue to drive science forward today.

Notes:

Reflecting telescope, (Newtonian telescope)

A reflecting telescope often referred to as a Newtonian telescope, is a type of reflecting telescope invented by the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton, using a concave primary mirror and a flat diagonal secondary mirror. Newton's first reflecting telescope was completed in 1668 and is the earliest known functional reflecting telescope.

The Newtonian telescope's simple design has made it very popular with amateur telescope makers.

Refracting telescope

A refracting telescope often referred to as a refractor is a type of optical telescope that uses a lens as its objective to form an image, known as a dioptric telescope and was the earliest type of optical telescope.

The first record of a refracting telescope appeared in the Netherlands about 1608 when a spectacle maker from Middelburg named Hans Lippershey unsuccessfully tried to patent one.

News of the patent spread fast and Galileo Galilei, happening to be in Venice in May 1609, heard of the invention, constructed a version of his own, and applied it to making astronomical discoveries.

Chromatic aberration

Chromatic aberration, also referred to as chromatic distortion, color fringing, and sphero-chromatism, is a common optical phenomenon that occurs when a lens cannot bring all wavelengths of light to a single converging point

Jupiter's moons

Jupiter currently has 95 moons that have been officially confirmed and recognized by the International Astronomical Union, (IAU).

View Details

The British Labour Party won the 2024 British general election. With that in mind, Vittorio Trevitt looks at the past Labour governments of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson. He considers how these governments handled welfare policy.

*Clement Attlee with John F. Kennedy in 1961.*

The UK General Election held in July 2024 was a truly historic event, with Labour returning to office after more than a decade in opposition. The fact that Labour did so with such a massive majority means that they have a strong mandate to transform Britain into a fairer nation. Although the state of public finances has resulted in Labour removing universal Winter Fuel Allowances for most pensioners (ironically reversing a policy implemented under the Blair Government in 1997) and more cuts likely to follow, it is highly probable that as economic conditions improve there will be greater leeway for Labour to expand social provisions, such as fulfilling its proposals for extending rights to statutory sick pay and introducing free breakfast clubs in all English primary schools. In the past, Labour has encountered severe financial difficulties but has still managed to establish a broad array of social security grants that have done much to ameliorate the quality of life for ordinary households. Two former Labour administrations that Starmer and his ministers can look to for guidance are the Attlee Government of 1945-51 and the 1964-70 and 1974-76 Wilson Governments.

Attlee Government

The Labour Government that came to power in the first election following the end of the Second World War has long been held in high esteem not only by historians but also by Labour Party activists and politicians. Led by veteran Labourite Clement Attlee, it was by far the most radical and successful that Britain had experienced by that time. Although the country Labour inherited was in a parlous financial state (the legacy of World War II), Attlee and his ministers would not disappoint an electorate hungry for change after years of strife and sacrifice. Over the next 6 years, they drastically changed Britain for the better. One way it achieved this was through the construction of a comprehensive and universalistic welfare model. Although Britain had a long history of welfare provision, the Attlee Government greatly built on the existing framework by setting up a system that covered all citizens. One of the pillars of this new solidaristic edifice, the National Health Service, was notable in making free access to every form of healthcare (such as medical and dental care, eyeglasses and hearing aids) a right for every citizen; one that the service has continued to uphold despite frequent cuts and overhauls in the decades since its “birth.” The 1946 National Insurance Act set up a broad network of cash payments incorporating a range of risks such as old age, widowhood and funeral costs. Apart from the normal rates, increases could be made in national insurance paymentsfor particular cases. Also, where employers had failed to meet the contribution requirements of the Act, resulting in recipients losing partly or entirely the maternity, sickness or unemployment benefits that were theirs by right, such individuals could retrieve a civil debt from said employers representing the lost amounts. A Five Year Benefit Reviewwas also included, aimed at ensuring the adequacy of allowances in helping beneficiaries to meet their basic needs. Additionally, groups such as trade unions were enabled to set up their own schemes if they so wished.

The equally far-reaching Industrial Injuries Act passed that same year bestowed various cash grants upon workers suffering from work-related injuries such as disablement gratuities and special hardship allowances (aimed at workers unable to carry out their current lines of work or equivalent due to their injuries). Five distinct benefits were also made for dependents of workers who tragically lost their lives, while allowances were given in cases of approved hospital treatment, constant attendance and unemployability; the latter geared towards disability pensioners unable to take on any form of employment. In addition, the National Assistance Act introduced two years later established a non-contributory social safety net for those in need; providing support such as shelter and nutritional assistance.

The Attlee years also witnessed the passage of other welfare measures affecting different strata of British society.Dockworkers became entitled to pay in cases of unemployment or underemployment, while a state scheme for mature university students was set up. Regulations provided numerous pension entitlements for NHS employees while the National Insurance and Civil Service (Superannuation) Rules, 1948 provided for preserved pension rights with a compensation award in cases where individuals experienced the impairment or loss of opportunity to earn a further pension. As a means of helping people reach their potential, a special scheme was instituted in 1947 whereby individuals with a gift for skilled crafts became eligible for grants to undertake training in other locations if no suitable facilities existed near where they lived.

In 1946, certain pensioners with disabilities that added to wear and tear became entitled to a new clothing allowance, while a couple of years later greater eligibility for special education allowances for children was introduced. The 1948 Local Government Act generalised various powers to pay subsistence and travelling allowances to members of local authorities while also providing payments in cases where council business attendance led to financial loss. The 1947 Agriculture Act incorporated several forms of compensation, such as for disturbance and improvement, while the 1948 Criminal Justice Act provided for the enforcement of payments of compensation or damages. Under the 1948 Children Act, local authorities were empowered to care for children who were orphaned, deserted or unable to be looked after by their parents due to circumstance. Amongst its many provisions included accommodation for children reaching 3 years of age, along with grants for students to help them with the costs of maintenance, training or education. A year later, a system of legal assistance was inaugurated that entitled most people to free legal support in both civil and criminal cases.

Impact of the Attlee Government

The extent to which the social security legislation of the Attlee Government dramatically improved people’s lives can be gauged from a poverty study conducted in York in 1950 by the legendary researcher and humanitarian Seebohm Rowntree; using that location as a representative sample. A follow up to a previous survey carried out in the same area in 1936, it estimated that the percentage of working-class people in York who lived in poverty stood at 2.77% in 1950, compared with 31.1% 14 years earlier. Although the study undoubtedly overestimated the extent to which poverty fell during that period, it nevertheless highlights the fact that the Welfare State established under Attlee did much to diminish the numbers experiencing hardship. G.R. Lavers, who co-authored the report, argued that the largest improvement since 1936 had come about as a result of the welfare reforms instituted since 1945, going as far as to claim that the Welfare State had greatly overcome poverty. This assertion gave Labour a positive message to convey to the public during the 1951 election campaign, but despite their efforts would be voted out of office; not returning to power until 1964 under the leadership of former minister Harold Wilson.

Wilson Governments

Like Attlee’s Administration, Harold Wilson and his ministers inherited a nation in a difficult economic position; one that eventually resulted in the currency being devalued. This culminated in detestable austerity policies including higher charges for school meals. Also, In a dubious move, one that undoubtedly reflected exaggerated perceptions of welfare fraud that persist to this day, a “four-week rule” was instituted in July 1968 in certain places. This involved social assistance benefits being removed from recipients after this time if it was believed that there was suitable work available. Assessing the impact of this measure, one study edited by the anti-poverty activist and future cabinet minister Frank Field provided the estimate that 10% of those affected by the rule subsequently ventured into crime as a consequence of their losing their benefits. Despite a ministerial claim that this policy had been a success in tackling benefit fraud, Field’s study suggests that it was a misguided decision that caused unnecessary hardship.

Nevertheless, for most of its period in office Labour not only boosted public spending but also rolled out a programme of radical welfare reform that did much to lessen inequality. New benefits were introduced concerning risks that previously had been left uncovered by the Attlee welfare laws. Redundancy pay was set up, along with income supplements for beneficiaries such as unwell, injured and jobless persons; the latter to lessen the impact of unemployment for skilled employees. New allowances for partially incapacitated men were also established, with increased amounts were permitted in certain cases.

The 1965 Solicitors Act allowed for grants to be paid in hardship situations, while other laws introduced varying forms of compensation for those affected by compulsory land purchases and damage. National Assistance was superseded by a new Supplementary Benefits Scheme; an overhaul carried out partly to prevent detailed individual enquiries. Reflecting this philosophical shift, changes were made, for instance, to rent allowance payments for non-householders (previously, these had been dependent upon a household’s make-up). Although not without its faults, it was a definite improvement over the previous social assistance arrangements. Higher benefit rates were provided and, although the allowances under the new scheme were mostly the same as under National Assistance (with exceptions such as an additional allowance for long-term claimants), what differed was the fact that the new scheme sought to ensure that benefits would be given as a right to those who met the means-tested conditions, while seniors were entitled to an income guarantee. Measures were also carried out with the intention of enabling widows and women whose marriages had dissolved to receive higher pensions, while regulations established improved levels of financial assistance for disabled people (such as an allowance for severe disabilities), and allowed for Christmas bonuses to be disregarded in the estimation or calculation of earnings when determining national insurance payments. Local tax rebates were created to assist less well-off ratepayers, and the 1965 Matrimonial Causes Act was designed to helpwomen by means of ordering alimony and other forms of payment to the concerned parties. Additionally, measures were undertaken to tackle homelessness and deliver residential services to persons who are ill and living with disabilities.

The social security record of Wilson’s first administration can be justified by the impact its policies had on those living on low incomes. In 1970, the amount that benefits and taxes added to the incomes of those earning £315 annually was more than twice the equivalent amount from 1964. Measurements have also suggested that the number of individuals living in poverty was far lower in 1970 than in 1964; further justification of Labour’s welfare record from the Sixties. One such benchmark, utilising a 1970-based absolute poverty line, has suggested that the percentage of poor Britons fell from around 20% to around 15% by the end of Wilson’s first premiership. Wilson’s last government from 1974 to 1976 would also see further landmarks in social security, with various laws passed that established new entitlements including invalidity pensions and mobility and invalidity care allowances for the disabled, earnings-related pensions, and Child Benefit; a universal payment which for the first time included financial support to families with at least one child and enhanced the amount of assistance allocated to low-income families.

The administrations in context

In a way, both administrations reflected the spirit of the times that they governed in. In the decade or so following the end of the hostilities, several war-torn nations in Europe came under the leadership of left-wing coalitions that expanded their social aid systems, while even poorer nations led by progressives including Burma (Myanmar), Guatemala, Iran and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) undertook reforms in this field. Similarly, during Wilson’s first stint as prime minister several developing nations led by reformers throughout the Sixties like India, Turkey, Honduras and the Philippines also embarked upon their own programmes of welfare innovation. The revolutionary social security reforms implemented under Attlee and Wilson therefore reflected broader geopolitical trends during their incumbencies.

The record of the Attlee and Wilson administrations shows that even under dire economic circumstances there is much that can be achieved in strengthening the social security structure that has done much throughout the decades to prevent and mitigate poverty in the United Kingdom. Like their forebears, the Starmer Government must never lose sight of Labour’s goal to make Britain a nation free of injustice. A more generous welfare system is a prerequisite to this. Although it is likely that it will take time until the financial situation improves to the point that Labour will be able to pursue looser, more expansionary fiscal measures to attain its reformist vision, the Starmer Government must nevertheless reinforce the Welfare State as an effective tool against the scourges of poverty, as most Labour governments have done so in the past. The welfare records of the Attlee and Wilson ministries are ones that the new Labour administration can learn greatly from today.

View Details

Every October for the past 52 years, the International Hot Air Balloon Festival takes place in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This event is the world's largest hot air balloon festival, with over 500 hot air balloons and nearly 1 million people in attendance. The hot air balloon made its first American flight in 1793, yet it still captures our attention and imagination. So, what is the history behind these magnificent flying balloons?

Angie Grandstaff explains.

*A depiction of an early balloon flight in Annonay, France in 1783.*

The Origins of Hot Air Balloons

The idea of flying is something that humans have fantasized about for centuries. Many have theorized about how this could happen. English philosopher Roger Bacon hypothesized in the 13th century that man could fly if attached to a large hollow ball of copper filled with liquid fire or air. Many dreamed of similar ideas, but it wasn’t until 1783 that the dream became a reality.

French brothers Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Etienne Montgolfier were paper manufacturers who observed that a paper bag would rise if hot air was put inside it. Many successful experiments proved their theory. The Montgolfier brothers were to demonstrate their flying balloon to King Louis XVI in September 1783. They enlisted the help of a famous wallpaper manufacturer, Jean Baptiste Réveillon, to help with the balloon design. The balloon was made of taffeta and coated with alum for fireproofing. It was 30 feet in diameter and decorated with zodiac signs and suns in honor of the King.

A crowd of 130,000 people, including King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, watched the Montgolfier brothers place a sheep, rooster, and duck in a basket beneath the balloon. The balloon floated for two miles and was safely returned to the ground with the animals unharmed. This successful flight showed what was possible, and they began planning a manned trip into the sky.

There was much concern about what the high altitude may do to a human, so King Louis XVI offered a condemned prisoner to be the first to fly. But Jean-Francois Pilatre de Rozier, a chemistry and physics teacher, asked and was granted the opportunity to be the first. The Montgolfier brothers sent de Rozier into the sky on several occasions. Benjamin Franklin, the Ambassador to France at the time, witnessed their November 1783 flight. Franklin wrote home about what he saw, bringing the idea of hot air balloons to American visionaries.

An American Over the English Channel

Advances were being made with different fabrics and gases, including hydrogen, to keep the balloon aloft. Many brave individuals were heading into the skies. Boston-born Dr. John Jeffries was eager to fly. Jeffries offered to fund French inventor Jean-Pierre Blanchard’s hot air balloon expedition to cross the English Channel if he was allowed a seat. Dr. Jeffries was a medical man interested in meteorology, so this trip into the clouds fascinated him.

The two men headed into the air from the cliffs of Dover, England in January 1785. Blanchard’s gear and a boat-shaped gondola carrying him and Jeffries weighed down the hydrogen-filled balloon. The balloon struggled with the weight as it headed across the channel, so much so that they had to throw everything overboard. Their desperation to stay in the air even led them to throw the clothes on their backs overboard. The pair landed safely in France minus their trousers but were greeted by locals who thankfully clothed them.

First Flight in America

Blanchard’s groundbreaking achievements in Europe brought him to America in 1793. He offered tickets to watch the first manned, untethered hot air balloon flight. The first flight was launched from the Walnut Street Prison yard in Philadelphia. George Washington was in attendance with other future presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and James Monroe. Blanchard, who did not speak English, was given a passport by Washington to ensure safe passage wherever he landed. Blanchard ascended 5,800 feet into the air and landed 15 miles away in Deptford, New Jersey.

Europe dominated the field of aeronautics, but Blanchard’s first American flight demonstrated the possibilities of flight to America and its leaders. It inspired American inventors and explorers to take to the skies. It was a significant step in the global progress of aviation. An interesting side note about Blanchard: his wife Sophie was also an avid balloonist, a woman ahead of her time. They both died in separate ballooning accidents.

Early American Balloonists

The Montgolfier brothers' ballooning adventures led to balloon madness in America. There was much interest in the science of flying balloons as well as how balloons can be used as entertainment.

Philadelphia doctor John Foulke was fascinated with the science of ballooning. He witnessed the Montgolfier brothers’ successful manned hot-air balloon flights in Paris with Benjamin Franklin. Foulke returned to his Philadelphia home and conducted experiments, sending small hot air balloons into the sky. He lectured at the University of Pennsylvania on ballooning, even inviting George Washington to one. Washington could not attend but was keenly interested in hot air balloons and saw their potential for military use. Foulke began raising funds to build America's first hot air balloon but never reached his goal.

While Foulke was lecturing about the science of ballooning and attempting to raise funds, a Bladensburg, Maryland tavern owner and lawyer, Peter Carnes, was ready to send a balloon into the air in June 1784. Carnes was a very ambitious man with an entrepreneurial spirit. He saw American’s enthusiasm for the magnificent flying balloons as a way to make money. Interestingly, Carnes had very little knowledge about how to make a balloon take flight, but against all odds, he built a balloon. His tethered unmanned balloon was sent 70 feet into the air. Carnes set up a more significant event in Baltimore, selling tickets to a balloon-mad city for a manned flight. Unfortunately, Carnes was too heavy for the balloon, but a 13-year-old boy, Edward Warren, volunteered to be the first. Warren ascended into the sky and was brought back safely to the ground, becoming the first American aviator.

Cincinnati watchmaker Richard Clayton saw ballooning as an opportunity to entertain the masses. In 1835, he sold tickets to the launch of his Star of the West balloon. This 50-foot high, hydrogen gas-fueled balloon carried Clayton and his dog. Once a mile above the city, Clayton, wanting to put on the best show for his crowd, threw his dog out of the balloon. The dog parachuted to the ground safely. Clayton’s nine-hour trip took him to present-day West Virginia. This voyage, Clayton’s Ascent, was commemorated on jugs and bandboxes, some of which are part of the Cincinnati Art Museum’s collection. Clayton traveled to many American cities with his balloons and entertained thousands. Clayton used his connections with the press to help bring in the crowds.

Thaddeus Lowe was a New Hampshire-born balloonist and inventor who was primarily self-educated. He began building balloons in the 1850s, traveling the country, giving lectures, and offering rides to paying customers. Lowe believed hot air balloons could be used for communication and was devising a plan to build a balloon that could cross the Atlantic Ocean when the Civil War began.

Balloons in the Civil War

President Lincoln was interested in finding out how flying balloons could gather intelligence for military purposes. In June 1861, Lowe was summoned to Washington D.C., where he demonstrated to President Lincoln how a balloon's view from the sky combined with telegraph technology could give the Union Army knowledge of the Confederate troop movements. President Lincoln saw how this could help his army. So, he formed the Union Army Balloon Corps. Thaddeus Lowe was the Corps' Chief Aeronaut. Lowe used a portable hydrogen gas generator that he invented for his seven balloons.

The Peninsula campaign gave Lowe his first chance to show how his balloons could contribute positively to the Union Army. In the spring of 1862, he was able to observe and relay the Confederate Army’s defensive setup during the advance on Richmond. Lowe’s aerial surveillance gave the Union Army the location of artillery and troops during the Fredericksburg campaign in 1862 and the Chancellorsville campaign in 1863.

The Balloon Corps made 3,000 flights during the Civil War. The surveillance obtained from these flights was used for map-making and communicating live reports of battles. The balloon reconnaissance allowed the Union to point their artillery in the correct direction even though they couldn’t see the enemy, which was a first. The Confederates made several attempts to destroy the balloons, but all attempts were unsuccessful. The balloons proved to be a valuable tool in war.

Unfortunately, Thaddeus Lowe faced significant challenges from Union Army leaders who questioned the cost of his balloons and his administrative skills. Lowe was placed under stricter military command, a difficult situation for him. Ultimately, Lowe resigned from his position in the Balloon Corps, and the use of balloons during battle ceased. Lowe's journey led him back to the private sector, where he eventually settled in Pasadena, California, and continued his inventive pursuits, eventually holding 200 patents.

Modern Hot Air Balloons

Hot air balloons lost their popularity as America entered the 20th century. But in the 1950s, Ed Yost set out to revive the hot air balloon industry. Yost is known as the Father of Modern Hot Air Ballooning. He saw the need for the hot air balloon to carry its own fuel, so he pioneered the use of propane to heat the inside of the balloon. Yost also created the teardrop balloon design. He experimented with balloons, including building his own, and made the first modern-day hot-air balloon flight in 1960. Yost was strapped in a chair attached to a plywood board beneath a propane-fueled balloon traveling for an hour and a half in Nebraska. His improvements made hot air balloons safer and semi-maneuverable. Yost crossed the English Channel and attempted to cross the Atlantic Ocean solo. His attempt across the Atlantic failed, but he built a balloon for Ben Abruzzo, Maxie Anderson, and Larry Newman to try again. The Double Eagle II was the first balloon to cross the Atlantic in 1978.

Yost’s achievements and those of many other American hot air balloon enthusiasts helped the sport of hot air ballooning take flight in the second half of the 20th century. Hot air balloon festivals now take place around the country year-round and are major tourist attractions. The Albuquerque International Hot Air Balloon Festival is the world's biggest hot air balloon festival. Hot air balloons have become big business for travelers who want a bird’s eye view of America.

Humans have always wanted to conquer the skies. The curiosity and ingenuity of people like the Montgolfier brothers laid the foundation for Americans to push the boundaries of aviation. The early experiments of scientists and entertainers helped 20th-century inventors and adventurers build safer hot air balloons. Today, there is a vibrant hot-air balloon culture in America. Millions of Americans celebrate the scientific milestones and the sheer joy of flight every year. The history of hot air ballooning shows us the power of imagination and dreams.

Angie Grandstaff is a writer who loves to write about history, books, and self-development.

References

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/presidential-writings-reveal-early-interest-ballooning

https://balloonfiesta.com/Hot-Air-History

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/thaddeus-sobieski-constantine-lowe

https://fly.historicwings.com/2012/06/the-first-american-aviator/

https://ltaflightmagazine.com/the-first-aerial-crossing-of-the-english-channel/

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-and-ballooning

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/us/04yost.html

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/ed-yost-father-of-ballooning-subject-of-new-albuquerque-balloon-museum-exhibit/article_917c38b2-6138-11ee-9a3d-4786ca2ea0c6.html

https://www.space.com/16595-montgolfiers-first-balloon-flight.html

https://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/history-richard-clayton-balloon

View Details

The naval victory at Midway on June 4, 1942 has rightly been recognized as one of the greatest in the history of the US Navy, and one of the most significant victories in the history of armed conflict. However, events did not follow the plan formulated by US Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Chester Nimitz, and the battle was very nearly lost by Pacific Fleet forces. Conspicuously missing from earlier accounts of the Battle of Midway is a description of the Nimitz plan to confront the Japanese carrier fleet.

Dale Jenkins explains. Dale is author of Diplomats & Admirals: From Failed Negotiations and Tragic Misjudgments to Powerful Leaders and Heroic Deeds, the Untold Story of the Pacific War from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

*Chester Nimitz while Chief of Naval Operations.*

The actions taken by Pacific Fleet forces during the Midway battle deviated significantly from the Nimitz plan. But, despite the deviation, the battle was won. What occurred at Midway was essentially a broken play, but positive action from a junior task force commander, astute calculations from an air group commander, and intrepid, skilled flying from carrier pilots saved the day.

The intelligence team at Pearl Harbor had decrypted sufficient Japanese messages by May 27 to advise Nimitz of expected Japanese fleet movements on June 4. Nimitz’s intelligence staff, headed by LCdr Edwin Layton, informed him that the Japanese carrier fleet, or Striking Force:

“would probably attack on the morning of 4 June, from the northwest on a bearing of 325 degrees. They could be sighted at about 175 miles from Midway at around 0700 (0600 local) time.”(1)

Layton expected four or five Japanese carriers steaming from the northwest at 26 knots. There were four: Akagi(flagship of carrier Striking Force commander Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo), Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu. Nimitz had a week to plan a defense of the attack, formulate a counter-attack, and continue to assemble forces on Midway to carry out the plan. He issued Operation Order 29-42 that detailed the forces that were to be employed, including the scouting operation of PBY amphibious planes and a picket line of submarines.

Additional Japanese forces included an amphibious Occupation Force operating south of the carrier force, a separate force to attack the Aleutian Islands, and a battleship force trailing 300 miles astern of the carriers. The battleship force included super-battleship Yamato with Combined Fleet commander Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto embarked.

The Japanese planned to launch 108 planes, half the total air complement of the four carriers, against the shore defenses of Midway Island at 0430 on June 4 when approximately 220-240 miles from Midway,. The remaining reserve force would be armed with anti-ship bombs and torpedoes to combat any unexpected Pacific Fleet forces. The Japanese command expected the Pacific Fleet carriers to rush to the scene from Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese would destroy them with their carrier planes and battleships in a showdown confrontation.

To counter the Japanese carrier force, Nimitz had planes on Midway Island and three Pacific Fleet carriers, Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown, under the overall command of Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher. Fletcher, embarked on Yorktown, was in direct command of Task Force 17. A more junior rear admiral, Raymond Spruance, embarked on Enterprise, commanded Task Force 16 of Enterprise and Hornet.

Operating range

A particular problem was the difference in operating ranges between the Japanese carrier planes and those of the Pacific Fleet. The Japanese operating range was 240 miles, and the equivalent for the Pacific Fleet planes was just 175 miles. That difference meant the Japanese planes could attack the Pacific Fleet carriers when the Pacific Fleet planes were out of range of the Japanese carriers. Nimitz had to have a plan that would get the carriers through the band between 240 miles and 175 miles without being spotted and attacked. The difference, 65 miles, meant that a carrier covering that distance, averaging 25 knots, would have to steam for 2 ½ hours to cross the band where they were vulnerable to attack without being able to return it.

Nimitz designed an attack on the Japanese carrier fleet by moving the Pacific Fleet carriers through the night of June 3-4, under cover of darkness, to arrive at a position where they had the best chance to launch an attack before they were discovered by Japanese scouts. He planned to use PBY amphibious planes from Midway as scouts because the Japanese could sight the PBYs without being alerted to the presence of carriers. The light wind coming out of the southeast meant that the Japanese carriers, steaming into the wind, would launch and recover planes without changing course. Layton based his calculations on the PBYs taking off from Midway at 0430, plus plane and ship speeds, to arrive at his calculation that the PBYs should encounter the Japanese at about 0600, 175 miles from Midway. The planes on Midway would launch immediately upon receipt of the scouting report. Japanese carriers would move about 35 miles after the PBY report until the Midway planes intercepted them about 0720, 140 miles from Midway.

Nimitz formulated a plan for a concentration of force of Midway planes and carrier planes. To accomplish this, he determined that the Pacific Fleet carriers were to be at a position 140 miles northeast of the interception point at 0600. That position also was 200 miles directly north of Midway Island and was designated as the navigation reference point for the carrier force. When the report from a PBY was received at approximately 0600 the planes from both Midway and the three carriers would launch their planes. In a successful execution, all the Pacific Fleet planes would arrive over the Japanese carriers at approximately 0720 in a concentration of force. The goal was a victory by 0800-0815.

Because the Japanese planes attacking Midway would not return before 0830, the Pacific Fleet attack would be against just half of the Japanese air defenses. In addition, if the flight decks of the Japanese carriers were heavily damaged, even if the carriers themselves were not sunk, the planes returning from Midway would have to ditch in the ocean.

*A graphic of Nimitz’s plan at the Battle. Copyright Dale Jenkins. Printed with permission.*

After-action report

The after-action report of Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher confirms the intended movements of the carrier force in conformity with the Nimitz plan:

ENTERPRISE and HORNET maintained their air groups

In readiness as a striking force. During the night of June 3-4

both forces [TF-17 and TF-16] proceeded for a point two

hundred miles North of Midway. (Emphasis added) Reports of enemy forces to the Westward of Midway were received from Midway and Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet. These reports indicated the location of the enemy Occupation Force but not the Striking Force.(2)

The ComCruPac (Fletcher) report refers to PBY scouts on June 3, when the Occupation Force was sighted and the carrier Striking Force was still under heavy clouds. It confirms Fletcher’s knowledge of the plan and his intended movements. Further confirmation of the Nimitz plan and the ordered position of the carriers to be 200 miles north of Midway at 0600 on June 4 is contained in published accounts of at least three contemporary historians who had the opportunity to interview participants during and after the war: Richard W. Bates, Samuel Eliot Morison, and E. B. Potter. (3)

On June 3 the PBYs took off from Midway at 0430 and contacted the Japanese occupation force. This contact confirmed that the Japanese were proceeding with the plan as previously decrypted by Layton’s intelligence unit. The carrier force was still under a heavy weather overcast and was not discovered on June 3.

On June 4 the PBYs launched again at 0430. At 0534 a sighting of enemy carriers was transmitted to Admirals Fletcher and Spruance, and to the forces on Midway. At 0603 the earlier report was amplified:

“2 carriers and battleships bearing 320 degrees, distance 180, course 135, speed 25 knots.” (4)

Immediately after receiving the latter report the planes on Midway took to the air. Fighters rose to defend Midway, and six Avenger torpedo planes and four B-26s fitted with torpedoes flew to attack the Japanese carriers. Two more carriers were in the Japanese formation but were not seen by the PBY pilot.

However, Pacific Fleet carriers were not in position to launch planes at 0603 because Fletcher, while heading southwest overnight June 3-4 toward the designated position 200 miles north of Midway, decided that the scouting as ordered in Operation Order 29-42 might not be sufficient. At first light, he ordered Yorktown carrier planes to conduct a separate sweep to the north and east. To do this the carriers had to change course to the southeast to launch planes into the wind, and to be on that course to recover the planes. These course changes took the carriers away from the interception point. When the 0603 message from the scout arrived, the carriers were 200 miles east and north of the interception point and 25 miles beyond their operating range of 175 miles.

At 0607 Fletcher sent a message to Spruance:

“Proceed southwesterly and attack enemy carriers when definitely located. I will follow as soon as planes recovered.”(5)

Spruance, detached with Enterprise and Hornet, proceeded southwest at all possible speed to close the range, but at an average speed of 25 knots it would take an hour to cover 25 miles. Meanwhile, the planes from Midway arrived separately over the Japanese carriers and attacked. The plan for a concentration of force had failed.

The Avengers and B-26s, arriving at 0710, flew into the teeth of the Zero fighter defenders. They attempted valiant torpedo runs against two of the four carriers, but the inexperienced pilots were hopelessly outclassed by the fast, agile and deadly Zeros. There were no hits or even good chances for hits, and the Zeros sent five of the six Avengers flaming into the ocean. The B-26s hardly did better, but one pilot, with his plane on fire and probably knowing he was never getting home, dove at the bridge of the Japanese flagship. He missed by a few feet and crashed into the ocean.

B-26 pilot

The B-26 pilot may have done as much as anyone that day to turn the tide of the battle. At 0715 the shocked Admiral Nagumo, already notified that the Midway attack had run into heavy resistance, decided that a second attack on Midway was required. He ordered the armaments of the standby force to be changed from anti-ship bombs and torpedoes to point detonating bombs for land targets. All of this would require over an hour to complete, and not before the Midway attack force would be returning to land about 0830, low on fuel.

Admiral Spruance, ready to launch planes from his two carriers at 0700, plotted courses to a new interception. Ranging closely together between 231 degrees and 240 degrees, but delayed at the launch, the planes expected to arrive at the new interception at 0925 – almost 2 1/2 hours after the launch time.

At 0917, with the Midway force landed, Admiral Nagumo turned northeast to confront the Pacific Fleet carriers that a Japanese scout had discovered earlier. Decisions he had made, including landing the Midway planes, had delayed any attack on the American carriers. The Americans were still making attacks, but the Zeros swept them aside easily. Now Nagumo was supremely confident. Rearming and refueling the entire air complement on all four carriers would be completed by 1045. They would launch a massive, coordinated attack of over 200 planes and sink the American carrier fleet.

The Enterprise and Hornet planes crossed the revised intercept point at 0925 but found nothing but open ocean. The Hornet air group commander took his squadrons southeast to protect Midway. The Enterprise air commander realized that the Japanese carrier force probably had been delayed by earlier actions. He took two squadrons of dive bombers on a northwest course to retrace the Japanese movements, then began a box search that came upon a Japanese destroyer, and that led to the Japanese carriers. Diving out of the sun at 1025 caught the Japanese defenders by surprise, and in five minutes Akagi and Kaga were destroyed. The Yorktown planes suddenly appeared and destroyed Soryu.

Hiryu, the remaining Japanese carrier, launched dive bomber and torpedo plane attacks which led to the loss of Yorktown. Later in the day on June 4 Enterprise dive bombers destroyed Hiryu. The greatest victory of the US Navy had been realized.

Aftermath

In the aftermath of the Midway victory no one was going to complain about not following the Nimitz battle plan, least of all Admiral Nimitz. Consequently, the existence of the plan has been overlooked until now. Whether following the plan would have resulted in the same victory by Pacific Fleet forces, or the same victory without as many losses in ships, planes and personnel, has never been explored and is left to speculation.

As a reminder, Dale is author of Diplomats & Admirals: From Failed Negotiations and Tragic Misjudgments to Powerful Leaders and Heroic Deeds, the Untold Story of the Pacific War from Pearl Harbor to Midway. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

References

(1) Layton, Edwin T., And I Was There, Konecky & Konecky, Old Saybrook, CT, 1985, p. 430

(2) Report of Commander Cruisers, Pacific Fleet (Adm. Fletcher), To: Commander-in-Chief,

United States Pacific Fleet, Subject: Battle of Midway, 14 June 1942, Pearl Harbor, T.H., Para. 3, included as Enclosure (H) in United States Pacific Fleet, Advance Report – Battle of Midway, 15 June 1942

(3) Bates, Richard W., The Battle of Midway, U.S. Naval War College, 1948, p. 108; Morison, Samuel Eliot, Coral Sea, Midway, and Submarine Actions, Naval Institute Press, 1949, p. 102; Potter, E.B., Nimitz, Naval Institute Press, 1976, p. 87.

(4) Morison, p. 103.

(5) Morison, p.113

View Details

Archimedes of Syracuse, one of the greatest mathematicians and inventors of antiquity, profoundly influenced fields ranging from geometry to hydrostatics. Born in 287 BCE in Syracuse, a Greek city-state on the island of Sicily, Archimedes lived during a period of scientific discovery and political turbulence. His contributions not only advanced the knowledge of his time but also laid the foundations for future innovations, impacting fields as diverse as engineering, physics, and military strategy.

Terry Bailey explains.

*Portrait of a scholar (Archimedes?).* Domenico Fetti, 1620.

Early life and education

Archimedes was born into a family connected to the ruling elite of Syracuse. In his work 'The Sand-Reckoner', Archimedes gives his father's name as Phidias, an astronomer about whom nothing else is known, it is assumed this is what likely sparked Archimedes' early interest in the sciences. Little is known about Archimedes' early years, but it is believed he travelled to Alexandria in Egypt, the intellectual hub of the Mediterranean world, to study under the successors of Euclid. This connection with Alexandria placed Archimedes within the vibrant mathematical community of his time.

Upon returning to Syracuse, Archimedes dedicated himself to a life of inquiry and discovery. His surviving written work indicates a keen desire to explore both the abstract principles of mathematics and their practical applications. He had a deep love for pure mathematics but was equally committed to solving real-world problems.

Mathematical contribution

Archimedes' work in mathematics established him as a towering figure in the discipline. One of his most celebrated achievements is the approximation of pi (π). Archimedes developed a method of calculating the value of π by inscribing and circumscribing polygons around a circle, finding their perimeters and using this data to estimate π with remarkable precision. His method, known as the method of exhaustion, is considered an early form of integral calculus and remained the most accurate approximation of π until modern times.

Another significant contribution is Archimedes' principle of the lever. In his treatise 'On the Equilibrium of Planes', Archimedes laid down the laws governing levers and balance. His famous statement, "Give me a place to stand, and a lever long enough, and I will move the Earth, (World)," captures the essence of his discovery that a small force, applied correctly using a lever, can move large objects. This principle revolutionized mechanics and influenced engineering practices for centuries.

Archimedes also made strides in understanding the concept of centroids in geometry. In his work, 'On the Quadrature of the Parabola', he calculated the area of a parabolic segment and demonstrated that the centroid of a parabola lies along its axis. His ability to combine abstract reasoning with physical insight was unparalleled in the ancient world.

Hydrostatics and the principle of buoyancy

Archimedes is perhaps best known for his work in hydrostatics, particularly his discovery of the principle of buoyancy. This principle states that any object immersed in a fluid experiences an upward force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object. The story of Archimedes' Eureka, (Greek: εὕρηκα, I have found), moment is legendary, even if not exactly what occurred.

King Hiero II of Syracuse asked Archimedes to determine whether a crown made for him was pure gold or adulterated with silver. While bathing, Archimedes realized that the water displaced by his body in the bath provided a way to measure the volume of the crown and thus its density. Leaping from his bath in excitement, Archimedes is said to have run through the streets shouting Eureka!, I have found it!

Archimedes' principle of buoyancy became a cornerstone of fluid mechanics, underpinning theories of flotation and sinking. This discovery had practical applications in shipbuilding, as it allowed engineers to calculate whether ships would float based on their weight and the water they displaced.

Inventions and engineering feats

Archimedes' inventive genius was not limited to theoretical work; he also designed practical machines that were ahead of their time. One of his most famous inventions is the Archimedean screw, a device used to raise water. The screw consists of a helical surface inside a cylinder, and when turned, it would lift water from a lower to a higher elevation. Originally designed for irrigation in Egypt, the Archimedean screw is still used today in some parts of the world for pumping water.

In the realm of warfare, Archimedes applied his knowledge of mechanics to develop powerful machines that helped defend Syracuse during the Second Punic War. His military devices were so effective that they became the stuff of legend. Among these were massive catapults capable of hurling projectiles at enemy ships, and large cranes or "claws" that could grab ships, lift them out of the water, and then smash them back down, sinking them. Another invention, known as the Archimedes' heat ray, allegedly used mirrors to focus sunlight onto Roman ships, setting them on fire. While the historical accuracy of the heat ray remains debated, it highlights the blend of scientific theory and military necessity in Archimedes' work.

The method of mechanical theorems

One of Archimedes' lesser-known yet most significant contributions to mathematics is the method of mechanical theorems, detailed in his work of the same name. In this treatise, Archimedes explored the use of mechanical reasoning to discover mathematical theorems. By imagining geometric figures as physical bodies with weight, he was able to "balance" them and deduce geometric relationships. This approach was revolutionary because it introduced an early form of integral calculus long before Newton and Leibniz developed the field in the 17th century.

Archimedes' spiral—a curve traced by a point moving uniformly away from a central point while the point revolves around that point—was another breakthrough. He used this spiral to square the circle, showing that the area under one turn of the spiral was equal to a quarter of a circle's area. His work on spirals remains relevant in modern mathematics, particularly in polar coordinate systems.

The Sand Reckoner, challenging the size of the universe

Archimedes' curiosity extended beyond the Earth and into the cosmos. In his treatise 'The Sand Reckoner', he set out to determine whether it was possible to calculate the number of grains of sand that could fill the known universe. While this might seem like a trivial exercise, Archimedes used it as a way to propose a new system for expressing large numbers, challenging the conventional Greek numeral system. His estimate pushed the boundaries of ancient cosmology and provided a method for handling astronomical magnitudes, illustrating his unique ability to connect mathematics with natural philosophy.

Archimedes' death and legacy

The legacy of Archimedes is indelibly tied to his tragic death during the Siege of Syracuse in 212 BCE. The Romans, led by General Marcus Claudius Marcellus, laid siege to the city, and Archimedes played a critical role in designing machines that delayed the Roman advance. According to Plutarch, Archimedes was so engrossed in his work during the siege that he was oblivious to the Roman army entering the city. A Roman soldier found Archimedes working on a mathematical problem, allegedly Archimedes responded, "Do not disturb my circles," referring to the geometric figures he was drawing in the sand, the soldier, either misunderstood or ignored the orders, killing Archimedes on the spot, despite orders from Marcellus that Archimedes was to be spared.

Archimedes' contributions to science and engineering left an enduring legacy. His surviving works were studied, copied, and transmitted through the centuries, influencing Islamic scholars in the medieval period and later the European Renaissance. His method of approximation and mechanical theorems paved the way for the development of modern calculus, while his inventions demonstrated the power of applied science. Archimedes' influence can be seen in the works of later astronomers and mathematicians such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and even physicists mathematicians and engineers of today.

Rediscovery of Archimedes' works

Many of Archimedes' original writings were lost over time, but his ideas and concepts survived through Latin and Arabic translations. One of the most exciting discoveries related to Archimedes' work came in 1906 when the Archimedes Palimpsest was uncovered. This medieval manuscript contained previously unknown works by Archimedes, including The Method of Mechanical Theorems. The palimpsest was produced when monks in the 13th century scraped off the original Archimedean text and reused the parchment for religious writings. Modern technology has allowed scholars to recover the erased text, providing new insight into Archimedes' mathematical genius.

Archimedes stands as a beacon of human ingenuity and intellectual curiosity. His profound insight into mathematics, physics, mechanics, and applied science such as hydrostatics continues to resonate today, demonstrating how a single individual's quest for knowledge can shape the course of human history.

From his invention of the Archimedean screw to his principles of levers and buoyancy, Archimedes' achievements spanned both theoretical brilliance and practical applications. His life and work exemplify the synergy between scientific inquiry and the real-world problems that science seeks to solve, making him one of the most remarkable figures of the ancient world.

Notes:

Surviving writing of Archimedes:

· Measurement of a Circle

· The Sand Reckoner

· On the Equilibrium of Planes

· Quadrature of the Parabola

· On the Sphere and Cylinder

· On Spirals

· On Conoids and Spheroids

· On Floating Bodies

· Ostomachion, (Loculus of Archimedes or Archimedes' Box)

· The cattle problem

· The Method of Mechanical Theorems

· Book of Lemmas or Liber Assumptorum is a treatise with 15 propositions on the nature of circles

· Archimedes' Palimpsest described above includes treatises:-

· On the Equilibrium of Planes

· On Spirals

· Measurement of a Circle

· On the Sphere and Cylinder

· On Floating Bodies

· The Method of Mechanical Theorems

· Stomach-ion

· Speeches by the 4th century BC politician Hypereides

· A Commentary on Aristotle's Categories

· Associated other works

Euclid

Euclid (Εὐκλείδης) was a Greek mathematician, often referred to as the "father of geometry." He lived around 300 BCE, during the reign of Ptolemy I in Alexandria. His most famous work, Elements, is a comprehensive compilation of the mathematical knowledge of his time and became the foundational text for geometry for centuries.

Elements consist of 13 books covering geometry, number theory, and mathematical logic. Euclid also contributed to optics, astronomy, and the study of conic sections. His work laid the groundwork for deductive reasoning in mathematics, a method still used today.

View Details

Here is a fascinating history from early 17th century Russia, featuring somebody who apparently returned from the dead and a coup to take control of the country. This the story of Prince Dmitri. Lanny Cotton, who wrote the below for a podcast originally, explains.

*Ivan the Terrible. By Hans Weigel.*

Today, I would like to tell you a story. A story about a sinister conspiracy, a lost and noble prince, an evil tyrant, and a war over the soul of an empire. Or, more likely, a story about a crazed conspiracy theory, a deceitful imposter, an unfortunate monarch, and a chaotic civil war which brought death and destruction to said empire. Along the way we’ll play knife games with the boys, mutilate a poor, innocent church bell, and perform history’s first and only reverse sled-by shooting. I hope you enjoy the ride.

PART ONE

Our story begins with Ivan the Terrible, the first Tsar of Russia. Ivan is himself a fascinating figure, but here our story concerns itself with what happened after his death. Oh, and a side note: the epithet “the Terrible” is somewhat misleading. The Russian word “grozny” is translated into “terrible” in the sense of something “inspiring terror”, rather than being of low quality. It wasn’t a pleasant nickname, but it wasn’t an insult either, and it suited the paranoid Tsar who had thousands of his subjects murdered on the slightest provocations. Ivan’s first wife was a woman named Anastasia Romanovna, who he chose out of a lineup of a few hundred other eligible maidens. It seems that Anastasia and Ivan got along fairly well, and she managed to keep his more violent tendencies at bay. The couple had six children, four of which would die in infancy. This left Ivan with an heir and a spare, Prince Ivan Ivanovich and Prince Feodor. In the summer of 1560, Anastasia died of a sudden illness. Ivan was convinced that his beloved wife was poisoned and began a purge against the boyars, the Russian nobility, having many noblemen tortured and executed. Was this pure paranoia? In 2001, Anastasia’s body was examined by Russian scientists, who discovered a high buildup of mercury in her bones, a sign that the Tsar’s wife may have actually been poisoned.

Ivan took at least five more wives after Anastasia, though there are later reports of another two which historians doubt. Technically, this was illegal under the rules of the Russian Orthodox Church, which only permitted three marriages in a lifetime. Ivan was Tsar, though, and didn’t have to care about the rules. The next two wives, Maria and Marfa, also died suddenly, kicking off another couple rounds of purges. The two after that, both named Anna, eventually bored their imperial husband and found themselves shipped off to nunneries. The sixth and final of Ivan’s canonical wives was named Maria Nagaya. Ivan and Maria didn’t get along well, and she almost got nunneried like the Annas, but then she got pregnant. Maria gave birth on October 19, 1582 to little Prince Dmitri, Ivan’s third son.

So let’s talk about the sons. First is Prince Ivan Ivanovich. This Ivan seems to have been a good heir, intelligent and capable, and he might have made a good Tsar. But we’ll never know, because on November 15th, 1581, the two Ivans got into a heated argument which ended in the Tsar striking his son and heir with his scepter. The blow broke the prince’s skull and sent him into a coma. Four days later he died without waking up. This left Feodor as heir, which was problematic because Feodor was kind of useless. Feodor was weak and sickly since childhood, and while personally nice he never showed interest in rulership, preferring to spend his days in prayer and meditation. Some historians believe he may have suffered from some sort of learning disorder, in particular placing him somewhere on the autism spectrum, though we’ll never know for sure. When Ivan died in March of 1584, Feodor was crowned Tsar. However, Feodor didn’t actually reign. The responsibilities of government were turned over to a council of boyars, led by a man named Boris Godunov. The Godunov family was not powerful or influential, Boris had only gotten into the Muscovite court because his father-in-law was the head of the oprichnina, Ivan the Terrible’s infamous secret police. Feodor was at this time 27 years old, though it was clear that he would never make a good Tsar, and that his regency would be in effect perpetual. And since Feodor didn’t have any children of his own, the technically illegitimate Dmitri stood to inherit the empire. This meant that he could pose a threat to Boris’ regency, should he grow up to be a better ruler than his half-brother.

Shortly after Ivan’s death and Feodor’s ascension to the throne, Boris had the sixteen month old Dmitri and his mother Maria sent off to the town of Uglich on the Volga River. The young prince seemed to have suffered from epileptic seizures, but other than that was healthy. His hobbies are said to have included watching cows be slaughtered and beating chickens to death with sticks, which maybe aren’t the most wholesome activities for an eight year old, but who am I to say? He also seemed to have enjoyed a game which consisted of throwing a marlinspike into the ground. What happened next isn’t quite clear. On May 15th, 1591, the eight year old Dmitri was found dead of a neck wound. There are two theories about what happened. The official story, published soon after, was that Dmitri had a seizure while playing the game and ended up falling onto his marlinspike. This was the conclusion of an inquiry led by a boyar by the name of Vasily Shuisky. Remember that name. But the other theory was much sexier. This theory stated that Boris Godunov, the tsar in all but name, had murdered the rightful heir in order to seize the throne for himself. His death was rather convenient for the regent. Incidentally, Maria Nagaya was sent to a nunnery after all, once her son was dead.

The church bell rang to signal the death of the prince. Can you imagine which of the two theories the people of Uglich believed first? That’s right, as soon as the bell rang they knew that their beloved prince had been murdered by the cruel tyrant in Moscow. And so they rioted, led by Boris’ political enemies. The citizens of Uglich did usual riot stuff, murdered tax collectors, burned buildings, stole stuff, the whole thing. Soldiers from Moscow soon arrived to put down the rioting, and many of those who took part were exiled to Siberia. One of these exiles was the bell which had begun the riot by announcing the prince’s death. In addition to being exiled, the bell had its “tongue” removed and was whipped through the streets. In 1892, three hundred years after its heinous crime, the bell was pardoned by Tsar Alexander III and allowed to return to Uglich. It was even given a new tongue. So Dmitri is dead. But his story isn’t over, it’s just beginning. Because in the years after his death, a third theory emerged. This theory stated that the prince was not, in fact, dead. He had been replaced by another poor child who died in his place, and was spirited away from Uglich just before the regent’s agents arrived to carry out their scheme.

Tsar Feodor died in February of 1598, less than seven years after his brother. The incompetent tsar had only one child, a daughter who died in childhood four years earlier. Without a clear heir, Boris Godunov declared himself Tsar, breaking a dynastic line that had ruled Russia, according to legend, since the Viking chief Rurik of Novgorod seven hundred years earlier. Things went bad for Tsar Boris pretty quickly. The rumors of his role in the prince’s death had not gone away in the intervening years, if anything they had just spread further. The older and wealthier boyars, those that had survived Ivan’s purges at least, resented Boris for his low birth, which meant from the beginning he was surrounded by potential enemies. During Boris’ tenure as imperial regent he had strengthened the power of the aristocracy at the expense of the peasants, in 1592 ending the traditional practice of serfs being able to move freely for the two weeks surrounding St. George’s Day. Without this privilege serfs were effectively made a part of the land itself, to be bought and sold with the land they worked. This would long outlive Boris and remained law until the 19th century. This was done in a desperate attempt to reverse the economic downturn which plagued Russia during the regency. So Boris was unpopular with both the nobility and the peasantry. This would only get worse, because of events taking place on the other side of the planet, in Peru.

PART TWO

In February of 1600, the volcano Huaynaputina, in modern day Peru, erupted. The eruption spewed thousands of tons of ash and debris into the atmosphere, where it partially blocked sunlight across the planet for years to come. Russia was among the hardest hit. 1601 was cold and wet, bad news for agriculture. Winter came early that year, ruining harvests across the empire. Food became scarce, prices skyrocketed, and the imperial treasury was stretched to breaking point. The result was perhaps the harshest famine in Russian history. It’s impossible to put an exact number on the death toll, but historians believe that about one third of the entire Russian population died during the next ten years, from starvation or disease or violence. The situation had spiraled far out of control, and the Tsar was powerless to stop it. What popular support he had dissolved. In the superstitious 17th century, this famine was taken as a sign of God’s wrath. A low-born had schemed his way to the throne by murdering Dmitri, the rightful heir, and possibly the pious Feodor as well. But if the tyrant was overthrown, who would replace him?

Remember that third theory I mentioned? Well, in 1603 Dmitri returned from the dead. We still don’t know who exactly this man was, but he was about the same age and looked fairly similar to the dead prince, only a decade older. He first emerged in Poland, under the protection of a powerful Ukrainian nobleman by the name of Adam Vishnevetskii. Poland was the main rival of the Russian Empire, a powerful kingdom to the west. Unlike Russia, Poland had a weak ruler and a powerful aristocracy. The Sejm, the Polish parliament, could veto any of the king’s decisions. Unlike just about every other monarchy in Europe, the Polish monarchy was non-hereditary. When the King died, the next king was elected by the Sejm. The Polish nobility saw the weakness of Russia and supported Dmitri in order to further destabilize their mortal enemies. In October of 1604, Dmitri crossed the border at the front of a Polish army. Boris was unable to organize an effective defense. The Russian army was scattered and mostly under the control of local magnates, many of whom opposed the Godunov regime. The food shortages had hit the army hard, desertion was rampant as hungry soldiers left their posts to become bandits or just return home to protect their families. As word of Dmitri’s return spread across Russia, the peasantry rose in support of their true Tsar, the long-lost prince. Boris waged a war of propaganda against the Pretender, claiming to have “discovered” that his true name was Grigory Otrepev and that he was a disgraced former monk. Boris’ health continued to decline amidst famine and civil war, and in April of 1605 he suddenly died. He was succeeded by his son, the sixteen year old Feodor. Feodor II didn’t last long. Two months into his reign, the teenage Tsar was overthrown and assassinated by Dmitri’s supporters in Moscow. Dmitri himself showed up a few weeks later to enter the city, and was proclaimed Tsar Dmitri I. His “mother”, Maria Nagaya, was brought back from the nunnery and publicly acknowledged him as her lost son. For all intents and purposes, this rando was now the son of Ivan the Terrible and the true Tsar. The evidence? Trust me bro.

Almost immediately Dmitri messed it up. His alliance with the hated Poles caught up to the Pretender, and rumors spread that he was a secret Catholic, bent on subverting the holy Orthodoxy and twisting Russia towards damnable Catholic heresy. Oh, and remember that name I told you to remember earlier? I’m sure you do, intelligent and wise listener. Vasily Shuisky, the man who had led the inquiry which concluded that Dmitri had died in an accident, changed his story once Dmitri arrived in Moscow. Now he backed Dmitri’s version of the story, admitting that he lied in his initial report due to pressure from Godunov. But Vasily personally hated the new Tsar. And his once messianic reputation among the peasantry began to fade as conditions failed to improve in the countryside. Not only that, but tensions began to grow between the citizens of Moscow and the new Polish arrivals, soldiers and noblemen supported by Dmitri. This situation was not eased when Dmitri announced his plan to marry a Polish woman, the daughter of one of the noblemen who supported his invasion. On the morning of May 17th, 1606, a week after the wedding and a year after his ascension to the throne, an angry mob stormed the palace. Dmitri tried to flee by jumping out a window and running along the rooftops to safety, but he slipped and fell, breaking his leg. The assassins found the Tsar in the alleyway and killed him, presumably telling him to stay dead this time. Dmitri’s body was stripped naked and dragged through the city, while Vasily Shuisky proclaimed him as a heretic and an imposter. His body was publicly displayed in Red Square for three days, before being loaded into a cannon and fired in the direction of Poland. Two days later, Vasily Shuisky proclaimed himself Tsar Vasily IV, ending the reign of False Dmitri… the First. That’s right, we’re not done yet.

PART THREE

Word of the coup spread through Russia, triggering a new wave of unrest and resentment. While the sheen had started to fade from the Pretender, he was still fairly popular in the provinces. Vasily worked out a pretty clever way to discount the legend of Dmitri’s survival. He sent agents to Uglich to dig up the prince’s body, and these agents “discovered” that the body was miraculously undecomposed. In Russian Orthodoxy, if a body fails to decay that means that the soul of its former inhabitant has ascended to Heaven and been made a saint. So the eight year old princeling who enjoyed torturing farmyard animals had been worthy of sainthood. He could not be on Earth, he had ascended to Heaven, and Vasily had proof. The prince’s coffin was taken from Uglich to Moscow in a grand procession. The coffin, however, was closed. It did smell nice, apparently. The sainted prince was taken to Archangel Cathedral in Moscow where his coffin was displayed for several days, until even incense could no longer cover up the smell. Then the body was quietly buried. The trick didn’t work. A new rumor emerged in Moscow. Not only did Dmitri survive the first assassination, he also survived the second one. The body dragged through the streets of Moscow and displayed in Red Square was another imposter, and the true Dmitri had escaped once more.

The unrest that began with the assassination of Dmitri had by this time escalated into full scale rebellion in western and southern Russia. But these rebels didn’t have a claimant to the throne, so even if they overthrew the government in Moscow they would still struggle to find a Tsar. Into this scene comes a traveling beggar claiming to be Andrei Nagoy, a cousin of Prince/Tsar Dmitri, who claimed to have secret information on his cousin’s whereabouts. His true identity is still unknown, though tradition holds that he was either a priest’s servant banished after sleeping with the priest’s wife, or a Jew who had converted to Christianity to escape persecution. Either way, he was captured by the rebels in July of 1607 in order to reveal Dmitri’s whereabouts. Under threat of torture, this man revealed himself to be the missing prince, escaped from Moscow as he had with Uglich, returned once again to take his rightful throne. Upon this shocking declaration, the rebels pledged their allegiance to their Tsar once more, and suddenly the beggar had an army of thousands at his back. But this Tsar would never make it to Moscow. Like the first false Dmitri, Dmitri number two’s army had a large contingent of foreign mercenaries, largely Polish. But this Dmitri didn’t get along quite as well with the Polish nobility, which meant he lacked the funding to pay those mercenaries. Dmitri II made progress in his campaign northeast, but met with heavy resistance along the way, and his army was hemorrhaging men due to desertion from lack of pay. He received the endorsement of the first False Dmitri’s Polish wife, who recognized the pretender as her lost husband.

In 1609, King Sigismund of Poland personally intervened in Russia, officially declaring war on the Moscow government and laying siege to the strategic city of Smolensk. His goal was to place his son, Vladislav, on the Russian throne, effectively making it his vassal. This was a complete disaster for Dmitri. His Polish soldiers preferred to fight on the side of their king rather than a Russian pretender, and those nobles that had supported Dmitri defected to the Polish side, declaring Vladislav the new Tsar instead of the pretender. Another faction defected from both sides. These were those patriotic boyars who opposed the Polish invasion on principle, and saw both Vladislav and Dmitri as foreign interlopers. Back in Moscow, the pro-Polish faction staged a coup against Tsar Vasily in July of 1610, forcing him to become a monk while they established a council of Seven Boyars, turning over control of the capital to the Polish army in September. False Dmitri II didn’t outlast his nemesis for long, though. Pushed back and weakened, Dmitri lashed out at his inner circle. On forged evidence he had one of his bodyguards, Peter Usanov, whipped and fired in December of 1610. The former bodyguard then went out and got drunk with his friends, wandering around the city. Then he stumbled upon his former boss on a sleighride, and being drunk and pissed off, pulled out his pistol and shot Dmitri to death. This is the end of False Dmitri II. Two down, one to go.

It’s a cliche at this point that Russia is not a good place to invade, and by 1612 the war had started to go the other way. The Patriotic boyars, led by Dmitri Pozharsky, consolidated their power in what part of Russia remained free and negotiated an alliance with Sweden, then a major military power on the rise in central Europe. Incidentally, the king of Sweden was the uncle of the King of Poland. The Polish soldiers in Moscow were now essentially under siege, much of the city was controlled by rebels and their forces outside the city walls were constantly being raided.

It’s about this time that Dmitri returns from the dead for the third, and final, time in the border city of Pskov. We don’t know a lot about this guy, just that he showed up in Pskov and said he was Dmitri. His support outside that city was limited to a handful of rebels sitting outside Moscow and harassing random Poles. The first False Dmitri was a big deal, the second was an occasion, but the third was just redundant. And besides, this Dmitri lacked the charisma of the first and the timing of the second and quickly wore out his welcome. He was overthrown by his subjects and turned over to Moscow, where he was executed in May of 1612. And so ends the time of the False Dmitris. Finally, on October 27th, 1612, Prozharsky retook Moscow from the Polish occupation force. The anniversary is still celebrated as National Unity Day. With the last pretender defeated and the capital liberated, the boyars assembled a grand council to decide, once and for all, who was going to be Tsar. They settled on the sixteen year old Michael Romanov, the son of the Patriarch of Moscow and the great-nephew of Anastasia Romanovna, Ivan the Terrible’s beloved first wife. Despite his young age, Michael managed to hold onto power until his death thirty-two years later, kicked the Poles out of Russia, and established a dynasty which would rule Russia until the Russian Revolution in 1917.

The period between the death of Feodor I and the ascension of Michael I is known in Russia as the “Time of Troubles”. In fifteen years over one third of the population of Russia had died, the empire had been torn apart by famine and civil war, and central authority had completely collapsed. The Empire that arose from this chaos was more authoritarian than the one that had fallen. The vast majority of the population were serfs, in effect slaves tied to the land. After fifteen years of chaos the nobility accepted Tsarist autocracy as a restoration of proper order. The Tsar became a quasi-religious figure, chosen by God to guide Russia and prevent a second Time of Troubles. The legacy of this autocratic turn still lingers in Russia to this day.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

The main source here is A Short History of Russia’s First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty by Chester S.L. Dunning, if you want to know more go read it. It's a good book.

View Details

The seventy-seventh anniversary of India and Pakistan’s Independence from Great Britain recently took place, ending a nearly 200 year reign dating back to the British victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. But one territory of India has known a very different type of independence for much longer than that.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

*Maurice Vidal Portman with Andamanese chiefs.*

Only six weeks away from Indigenous People’s Day, and tucked away in the Andaman archipelago, is a small island known as North Sentinel. It’s not only one of the most dangerous places on earth, it’s also one of the most important. Unlike the other islands in the Andaman Chain including South Sentinel Island, this island is quite different.

It is home to one of the last isolated tribes on earth, the Sentinelese. It’s been nearly 1200 years since Marco Polo explored the Andaman Islands and first described what we believe were the Sentinelese mistakenly as cannibals.

After the British claimed dominion over the India in 1757 — an East India Company shipped first noticed fires on its beaches in 1771. The first colonial, Holmfray (a British surveyor) landed on the Island in 1867. That same year, the MV Ninevah ran aground on North Sentinel’s reef. The 106 passengers and crew fended off attacks by the Sentinelese until a British ship rescued them.

Maurice Vidal Portman

When Maurice Vidal Portman became British Government Administrator to the Andaman’s — he may multiple trips to the Island starting in January 1880. In one such trip, taking an elderly Sentinelese couple and their grandchildren back to Port Blair. After the elderly grandparents died of disease shortly after arriving at Port Blair, the children were returned to the island with gifts.

In 1896, a convict who escaped from a nearby penal colony drifted his way onto the shores of North Sentinel. His body was found days later full of arrows. And then there was the MV Primrose ran aground on the reefs of North Sentinel Island in 1981. After several harrowing days where the Sentinelese attempted to use boats to board the ship — the shaken crew was rescued. In 2006 — a boat with two fisherman drifted onto the beaches of the island and were killed by the Sentinelese. Most recently in 2018, American Missionary John Allen Chau landed on the island was killed by the tribe. In 1975, they even fired arrows at King Leopold III of Belgium.

Thankfully, recent history shows us that not all encounters ended in hostility. North Sentinel isn’t just a forbidden, largely unexplored island. In the 1990s, multiple trips to the island from local anthropologists even saw the tribe accepting coconuts as gifts. Sanctioned trips to the island ceased in 1997.

Although the isolated land of wonderment continues to be a magnet for encounters between one of the world’s last uncontacted tribes and modern civilization, we cannot allow it to be for many reasons, and a few of those should serve as dire warnings.

Lack of immunity

Just like those two elderly Sentinelese that Maurice Vidal Portman abducted, the Sentinelese have no immunity to modern diseases which are prevalent in our society today. Whether the tribe’s population is 50 or 400, contact with us — which they clearly don’t want — could wipe them out completely. Contact from a single American missionary could be catastrophic to the entire tribe.

Since the dawn of man, we’ve made choices about our planet. Whether because of tribal belief, invaders who abduct their elders and children, or some history that we don’t know like the Japanese occupation of the Andaman Islands, the Sentinelese want nothing to do with us. Successful trips to the island and periods of contact have frequently ended with Sentinelese standing on their haunches and brandishing weapons. We should honor their wishes.

Gateway to the past

North Sentinel Island isn’t just a forbidden, unexplored Island. It’s a gateway into our past. Around 60,000 years ago, it’s believed that the Sentinelese walked from the nearby continents and became trapped on the Island as sea levels rose. They are a window into our past, a rare look back at where we’ve come from. One that should not be disturbed.

With a world population of approximately 8,091,734,930 and a population of less than 500 on North Sentinel — the responsibility is ours to protect them. Not the other way around. The tribe preserves the lifestyle that they choose each and every day by being independently sustainable on that remote island. Even though they are technically part of India — they don’t know it.

It could be argued that we need to study their way of life and make every attempt to see North Sentinel Island. But with the dangers that it posses to the people of North Sentinel from both disease and from the unfortunate violence when outsiders are encounters, makes the status quo that has withstood for thousands of years most appropriate.

In 2004, after a tsunami had crashed into the Andaman Islands, the Indian Navy dispatched a helicopter to fly over North Sentinel to offer assistance. A lone tribesman emerged pointing a bow and arrow at the helicopter and so communicated the Sentinelese view of us — please leave well enough alone.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt is a historical writer who lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

View Details

Hugh Judson Kilpatrick was a Union cavalry commander who was notorious for sending his men into difficult situations but continued to be promoted despite his lack of military sense or personal integrity. It turned out that this was precisely the sort of leader the Union army needed in its cavalry arm. He was a determined and fierce fighter, which were good and necessary qualities in a cavalry leader. Still, he also had a propensity for shady dealings. Moreover, he often ordered suicidal cavalry charges against infantry. The rifled musket had rendered the cavalry charge outdated and dangerous. By the Civil War, the value of cavalry was essentially limited to screening, raiding, and reconnaissance, a lesson that Kilpatrick never seemed to grasp.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

*General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.*

Early Years

Kilpatrick graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1861, shortly after the war began, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the 1st U.S. Artillery. In just three days he was a captain in the 5th New York Infantry On June 10, 1861, Kilpatrick gained notoriety by becoming the initial US Army officer injured in the Civil War when he was hit in the thigh by canister fire while commanding a company in the Battle of Big Bethel.

He was promoted to Lt Col of the 2ns New York Cavalry Regiment. For months he was relegated to staff jobs and minor skirmishes. That changed at Second Manassas when he was sent on a raid that culminated in a cavalry charge with consequences that became all too familiar to Kilpatrick’s leadership. He raided the Virginia Central Railroad early in the campaign and ordered a twilight cavalry charge the first evening of the battle, losing a full squadron of troopers.

His men despised him due to his arrogant attitude and disregard for their safety. He earned the unflattering nickname "Kill Cavalry" due to his reckless and impulsive style in the beginning. His camps lacked sanitary facilities and were not very comfortable, often visited by prostitutes who came to see him. He was first arrested for profiting from selling confiscated Confederate goods. The second occasion involved accepting bribes in exchange for obtaining low-quality horses for his soldiers. He was imprisoned in 1862 for corrupt activities, and later for a night of drinking. His soldiers noticed that despite his many failures and misconducts, and the fact that his official dealings were often ethically challenged, he continued to be promoted primarily due to his skill in political maneuvering, but also because he was a West Point graduate who was fearless under fire.

Promotion to Brigade Command

In February 1863, Major General Joseph Hooker established a Cavalry Corps led by Maj Gen George Stoneman, with Kilpatrick in charge of its 1st brigade, 2nd division.

In April of 1863, General Hooker began moving his troops to compel General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to vacate their positions at Fredericksburg. He dispatched a 10,000-strong cavalry led by Major General George Stoneman to maneuver between Lee and the Confederate capital, Richmond. At the same time, he was aiming to maneuver past Lee's defenses, a plan that led to the Battle of Chancellorsville. Stoneman's expedition shares some intriguing similarities with Stuart's raid in the month prior to Gettysburg.

Hooker's intention in sending the Union cavalry to raid instead of serving as a screen for Lee was to disrupt Lee's supply lines, sabotage railroads, and divert attention away from Hooker's main operation across the Rappahannock. Hooker anticipated that Stoneman would cut off Lee's supply route by destroying the crucial Orange and Alexandria Railroad in Gordonsville. Hooker hoped that this action would force Lee to pull out of Fredericksburg, isolating him from supply and transport.

The main cavalry brigadier of this raid was Brig Gen John Buford, a popular and effective officer. He sought out a field command and joined the Reserve Brigade in battle, where most of the Regular Army cavalry units in the east were stationed. Buford's Brigade, consisting of the First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth U.S. Cavalry, departed from their base at Falmouth, Virginia, to start their bold and ambitious raid. The very next day, they found themselves in battle with the enemy at Kelly's Ford.

However, the weather shifted and heavy rain fell for 16 days, causing the river to swell to the point where the ford was impassable. Some of his horses had broken down by the time he was able to cross. Stoneman found himself trapped in the enemy territory and was unable to cause as much chaos as expected, resulting in Hooker being unaware of Lee's movements due to Stoneman's absence.

Despite these setbacks, Kilpatrick stood out as the star of the raid. While the cavalry overall did not succeed in diverting Lee as planned, Kilpatrick gained renown for boldly seizing wagons, destroying bridges, and circling Lee, nearly reaching the outskirts of Richmond.

Promotion to Brigadier General

Kilpatrick also was conspicuous at Brandy Station, where he led one of Gregg’s brigades in a charge up Fleetwood Hill. He was promoted to Brig Gen on June 13, 1863 just 2 years after graduating from West Point.

In the middle of June 1863, General Lee was maneuvering his troops towards the west before heading north through the Shenandoah Valley, utilizing the Blue Ridge Mountains as cover. Hooker was receiving a barrage of messages from Lincoln and Stanton, instructing him to locate Lee and launch an attack. To achieve this, he needed to find a way to penetrate the strategic cavalry defense established by Jeb Stuart and Wade Hampton. Despite having fewer soldiers, the Confederate cavalry understood the importance of securing the mountain passes due to the significant consequences.

After Chancellorsville and before Gettysburg, there were major changes made in the cavalry command structure. Stoneman was sent west, and General Alfred Pleasanton took command of the Cavalry Corps. Brig Gen John Buford and his brigade were transferred to the 1st Cavalry, and he took command of the Division. Brig Gen Wesley Merritt took command of the Reserve brigade. Grimes Davis had been killed at Brandy Station, and Col. Gamble was assigned command of Buford's 1st brigade. Kilpatrick is promoted to Division command, with George Armstrong Custer promoted to brigade command.

The Union's nearest approach was during the Battle of Aldie on June 17, 1863, just 2 weeks before Gettysburg. Aldie was a town where a road passed through that connected Ashby's Gap and Snicker's Gap. Following four hours of fierce combat, the Confederate troops retreated but maintained control of the mountain passes. Kilpatrick was in charge of the advance, following the lead of division commander Brig Gen David McM. Gregg. The Confederate officer Thomas Mumford led a brigade that successfully halted the Union forces. The initial skirmish at Aldie marked the beginning of a sequence of minor battles on Ashby's Gap Turnpike, during which Stuart's troops effectively stalled Pleasanton’s advance through Loudoun Valley, preventing him from discovering Lee's army. Hooker got dismissed, but Pleasonton was the one who didn't succeed.

Gettysburg

In the Gettysburg Campaign, Judson Kilpatrick participated in several cavalry clashes against Confederate Major General J. E. B. Stuart's cavalry, such as the Battle of Aldie (June 17, 1863), the Battle of Middleburg (June 11–June 19, 1863), and the Battle of Upperville (June 21, 1863). Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major in the regular army for his "Gallant and Meritorious Services" at the Battle of Aldie.

During his time at Upperville, he was briefly taken prisoner but managed to escape. On June 29, 1863, Major General George G. Meade appointed Judson Kilpatrick as the leader of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Potomac. He battled Stuart in Hanover on June 30. On July 2nd, he was still in the midst of a struggle with Wade Hampton at Hunterstown. On July 3rd, he eventually arrived at the Gettysburg battlefield. George Armstrong Custer's brigade was told to go to East Cavalry Field to join Gregg's division, while Kilpatrick and his single brigade were sent to the west side of the field.

It was clear that the end of the battle was near after Pickett’s Charge failed. Undoubtedly, Kilpatrick believed that he had been absent from the major fight. However, he then commanded a cavalry attack on the infantry positions of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's Corps on the Confederate right flank, located just to the west of Little Round Top. Trying to outmaneuver the retreating Confederates at Big Round Top and disrupt their withdrawal, Kilpatrick asked one of his commanders to attack the enemy skirmish line between Big Round Top and the Emmetsburg Road. Following the unsuccessful attempt by the 1st West Virginia Regiment to break the line, Kilpatrick insisted that another regiment, the 1st Vermont which had already suffered casualties, be brought into the fight.

But a cavalry charge against massed infantry was well known at that time to be futile.

This was truly a pointless, self-destructive assault that went against all the principles of war during that era. Kilpatrick's lone brigade commander, Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth protested against the futility of such a move. Kilpatrick essentially challenged his courage and supposedly provoked him to attack. Farnsworth replied, “General, do you mean it? Shall I throw my handful of men over rough ground, through timber, against a brigade of infantry. The 1st Vermont has already been fought half to pieces. These are too good men to kill.”

“Do you refuse my order?” snapped an angry Kilpatrick.” If you are afraid to lead this charge, I will lead it.” Demanding a retraction, the equally furious Farnsworth turned in the saddle. “General, if you order the charge, I will lead it,” he said, “but you must take the responsibility.”

The following assault unfolded exactly as Farnsworth had predicted - a complete disaster. Confederate riflemen took cover behind rocks, trees, and fences and dismounted numerous Union riders, including Farnsworth, who was struck by at least five fatal wounds. The rebellious Farnsworth, when asked to give up, decided to end his own life, as reported by Confederate Colonel William C. Oates. However, this version has been challenged by other witnesses and dismissed by the majority of historians.

Kilpatrick received much criticism for ordering the charge, but no official action was taken against him. There were no consequences for his outrageous order, and actually, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the regular army effective July 3, 1863, for “Gallant and Meritorious Services at the Battle of Gettysburg.”

Farnsworth was a rising star, one of the 3 “boy generals” who had just been promoted to his generalship despite his young age with 2 others -- Custer and Wesley Merrtit – both of whom would go on to illustrious military careers. Famously, Merritt had engaged in a fistfight with Kilpatrick while they were undergraduates at West Point, and despised his vainglorious superior.

Kilpatrick, having lived up to his nickname all too well, showed no remorse. He pointed out that the Union infantry had not capitalized on the distraction created by the mounted diversion he had offered them. As for Farnsworth, he gushed sentimentally: “We can say of him, in the language of another, ‘Good soldier, faithful friend, great heart, hail and farewell.”

The Retreat From Gettysburg

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry harassed Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s retreating Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Williamsport (July 6–16, 1863) and the Battle of Boonsboro (July 8, 1863).

Upon reaching Williamsport, Confederate cavalry Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden, leading the operation, discovered that the pontoon bridge had been destroyed, and the wagon train carrying wounded soldiers was attacked by Federal cavalry. The Potomac River overflowed at Williamsport, Maryland on July 6, 1863, causing Imboden's wagon train to get stuck. He assembled a defensive unit comprising of an artillery battery and as many injured soldiers as possible who were able to handle muskets. In the afternoon of July 6, 1863, Buford led Union cavalry to the east of Williamsport, surrounding the town. Kilpatrick chose an alternative path that led him along the main thoroughfare. At sunset, Custer and his Michigan "Wolverines" came to battle but were promptly withdrawn.

There were insufficient healthy soldiers around to man the defenses. Imboden asked his wagoners (wagon drivers) to join the fight with walking wounded, and over 600 readily volunteered. This hastily organized force turned back attacks from Union cavalry generals Buford and Kilpatrick, saving the wagon train. Imboden, with the river at his back, put on a stubborn defense until General Fitz Lee's cavalry arrived and the Federals were driven off

Imboden fooled the enemy by advancing a line of infantry about 100 yards beyond the crest of the ridge and then slowly pulling the men back out of sight.

On July 6, Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick's cavalry division drove two Confederate cavalry brigades through Hagerstown before being forced to retire by the arrival of the rest of Stuart's command.

By July 7, Imboden stopped Buford's Union cavalry from occupying Williamsport and destroying Confederate trains.

On the morning of July 14, Kilpatrick's and Buford's cavalry divisions approached from the north and east respectively. Before allowing Buford to gain a position on the flank and rear, Kilpatrick attacked the rearguard division of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth, taking more than 500 prisoners. Confederate Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew was mortally wounded in the fight.

On July 16, Brig. Gen. David McM. Gregg's cavalry approached Shepherdstown where the brigades of Brig. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and John R. Chambliss, supported by Col. Milton J. Ferguson's brigade, held the Potomac River fords against the Union infantry. Fitzhugh Lee and Chambliss attacked Gregg, who held out against several attacks and sorties, fighting sporadically until nightfall, when he withdrew. Meade chose not to attack Lee, who was entrenched, believing the position could not be successfully breached.

The Richmond Raid

In the spring of 1864, Judson Kilpatrick led a failed cavalry raid against Richmond, Virginia. This event is likely the most intriguing military initiative Kilpatrick participated in, and to this day, its true purpose remains a mystery.

Early in February 1864, Kilpatrick consulted with President Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton. He received permission for a raid that, in conjunction with an infantry feint and another cavalry raid near Charlottesville, would approach Richmond from the north, destroying rails, canals, and Confederate infrastructure along the way. There may also have been a plan to free prisoners of war from Belle Isle.

At a social gathering on February 23, Kilpatrick encountered Ulric Dahlgren and asked him to participate in the mission. Dahlgren was the son of noted Union rear admiral John A. Dahlgren. Ulric was prepared to return to the battlefield despite losing his right leg at Gettysburg the summer before. The idea was for him to command a smaller group, circle around Richmond, and attack the capital from the southern direction.

The Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid (February 28–March 3, 1864) lived up to the “Kill-Cavalry” legend. Kilpatrick and Dahlgren set out from Stevensburg, Virginia, on the evening of February 28. The following afternoon, Kilpatrick and his detachment of 3,500 men reached Beaver Dam Station and began ripping up rails and destroying Confederate property. They failed, however, to prevent an approaching train from reaching Richmond and spreading the alarm. Confederate home guard units mobilized around the capital, and late that evening Confederate cavalrymen under Major General Wade Hampton set off in pursuit of the raiders.

By March 2, after slow progress through sleet, snow, and rain, Kilpatrick reached the inner defensive lines of Richmond. But there was no sign of Dahlgren inside the city, so Kilpatrick waited. On the night of March 2, Kilpatrick considered another attack on Richmond, but the arrival of Hampton’s troopers foiled these plans. Kilpatrick finally reached the safety of Union lines at Yorktown on March 4.

The raid turned into a fiasco when Kilpatrick’s men were stopped northwest of the city. The supporting group was routed when it could not cross the James River. Dahlgren and his detachment of about five hundred men had made it to the James River at Dover Mills but were unable to cross because of recent rains. After turning to approach Richmond from the east, Dahlgren encountered stiff resistance at the Battle of Walkerton. He retreated toward Union lines on the Peninsula, but Confederate cavalrymen and bushwhackers ambushed and killed him.

The raid accomplished nothing except minor damage to railroads and buildings. The death of Dahlgren, however, led to one of the most controversial episodes of the war when documents were found on his body and were subsequently published by the Richmond press. The papers detailed plans to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Public opinion in both the North and the South was aggravated, and only a disavowal by General Meade to General Lee settled the incident.

It is still unclear under whose authority the Dahlgren Papers were generated or if they were authentic. A thirteen-year-old member of Richmond’s home guard, William Littlepage, searching for valuables, instead discovered on the Union colonel’s body handwritten orders to free Union prisoners from Belle Isle, supply them with flammable material, torch the city of Richmond and capture and kill Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. The papers were eventually forwarded to Fitzhugh Lee, who brought them to Mr. Davis and Mr. Benjamin.

Outraged Confederate authorities published them in the press. Dahlgren’s father, among many others in the North, insisted they were fabrications, while the Richmond Examiner waxed indignant: “The depredations of the last Yankee raiders, and the wantonness of their devastation equal anything heretofore committed during the war.”

It has been suggested that Booth’s assassination plot was motivated by this event. It has never been determined if the papers were forged or if they written by Dahlgren, Kilpatrick, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton or President Lincoln.Some have suggested that the papers were forged and intended to justify the numerous plots by the Confederate Secret Service to kidnap Lincoln or to blow up the White House. Nevertheless, a handwriting study performed on the papers by the Smithsonian Channel seemed to confirm that the documents are authentic and that Edwin Stanton was the originator of the assassination order.

The Western Theater – Atlanta Campaign

During his tenure as a cavalry commander in the East, Judson Kilpatrick developed an unsavory reputation as a braggart, womanizer, and reckless leader who tolerated lax discipline amongst his troops. He had been arrested for bribery at least twice. You’d expect that his military career would soon be over. Following Judson Kilpatrick’s failed raid against Richmond, Virginia in 1864, Union General-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant demoted Kilpatrick from divisional to brigade command.

But on April 26, 1864, Kilpatrick was sent west and placed in command of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Cumberland. He participated as a division commander throughout the Atlanta campaign against Joseph E Johnston.

General Sherman was “mistrustful of cavalry.” Yet as one of the finest military thinkers of the Civil War, he knew only too well how critically important that arm of the service was to any large-scale campaign. He was a “nervous and somewhat careless rider,” which may have colored his opinion of his cavalry. David Evans has written that Sherman “had no affinity for horse soldiers, no grasp of their capabilities, and no patience with their limitations.”

All this became painfully obvious during Sherman’s Atlanta campaign (May-September 1864). While his infantry columns eventually triumphed and captured Atlanta after a series of hard-fought battles, his cavalry fumbled most of its strategic assignments. Some of the blame lay with Sherman, who persisted in sending his riders against the Rebel railroads that converged on the Gate City, operations for which they were ill-prepared. Wrecking iron track is not easy for lightly equipped riders, and most of the damage they inflicted was quickly repaired. Sherman’s inability to choke off Atlanta using only his cavalry was one of the great frustrations he experienced during that campaign.

On May 13, 1864, Judson Kilpatrick suffered a severe bullet wound to the thigh fighting in the Battle of Resaca. He was brevetted to colonel in the regular army for “Gallant and Meritorious Services”. Kilpatrick assisted in the capture of Atlanta in 1864.

Kilpatrick had the good fortune to receive this minor wound early in the Atlanta campaign. He was absent during many of the underachieving cavalry expeditions that so annoyed Sherman, though soon after his return in late July he undertook his own railroad wrecking operation, which delivered much less than expected.

On August 13, 1864, General Sherman issued directives for the XX Corps to retreat to the railroad bridge at the Chattahoochee River. Their primary responsibilities included fortifying the crossing, safeguarding the trains, hospitals, and artillery reserves, while the remainder of the Army was to advance collectively towards the Macon railroad situated south of East Point. In the subsequent days, Sherman's admiration for Cavalry Division Commander Judson Kilpatrick grew due to Kilpatrick's enthusiasm, initiative, and confidence, which stood in stark contrast to his other cavalry leaders. Consequently, Sherman tasked Kilpatrick with a mission to disrupt the Macon railroad near Jonesboro. After a four-day reconnaissance around Atlanta, Kilpatrick returned to report that repairs to the Macon road would require approximately ten days.

In his Memoirs, Sherman recounts a telegraphic communication sent to Halleck, stating, "Heavy fires in Atlanta, caused by our artillery. I will be all ready, and will commence the movement around Atlanta by the south, tomorrow night, and for some time you will hear little of us. I will keep open a courier line back to the Chattahoochee bridge by way of Sandtown. The XX Corps will hold the railroad-bridge, and I will move with the balance of the Army, provisioned for 20 days." This marked the initiation of Sherman's Great Left Wheel maneuver towards the railroads south of Atlanta, setting the stage for the Battle of Jonesboro and the subsequent evacuation of the city.

March to the Sea

Sherman's March, spanning approximately 300 miles across Georgia, was completed within a mere 36 days, with 25 of those days dedicated to actual marching. Despite common misconceptions, this remarkable feat was not achieved without opposition. Sherman encountered several skilled cavalry units along the way, resulting in skirmishes that required strategic camouflage of his movements and intentions.

To execute his plan, Sherman divided his army into two distinct "wings," each following separate but parallel routes that were spaced 20-60 miles apart. The southern column, known as the Army of the Tennessee, marched alongside the Georgia railroad and the Macon and Western railroad. Meanwhile, the northern column, led by the Army of Georgia, followed the Georgia railroad in a coordinated effort to advance through the region.

General Henry Slocum was in command of the left wing, composed of the newly created Army of Georgia, (XIV Corps and the XX Corps) The Army of the Cumberland. Gen. Oliver O. Howard commanded the right wing, consisting of the XV and XVII Corps of the Army of the Tennessee. Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick commanded the cavalry. Under the leadership of General Henry Slocum and General Oliver O. Howard, the left and right wings of Sherman's army, respectively, made significant progress. Despite initial setbacks in the east, these generals proved their capabilities in the western theater, showcasing their strategic prowess. Additionally, Sherman's decision to detach armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to address Hood's threat in the Franklin-Nashville campaign further demonstrated his adept command of military operations. Sherman also detached two armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to deal with Hood in the Franklin–Nashville campaign.

Sherman faced a difficult decision when it came to selecting a cavalry leader for the March to the Sea campaign. He opted for a complete reorganization of the mounted corps under his command and brought in Major General James H. Wilson, an outsider, to take on the role. However, Wilson was needed in Tennessee to accomplish another task, leaving Sherman with the challenge of choosing a commander for the mounted force that would accompany his foot soldiers. After considering officers who had previously failed him, Sherman ultimately selected Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick, a choice that many would have considered unlikely.

Asked to describe Kilpatrick, Sherman said "He's seven kinds of damned fool, but he's a good cavalry commander". Sherman decided that for his march to Savannah, he would only take one cavalry division and he picked Kilpatrick to command it because he figured "a damned fool" would be perfect for the job. Another source reports this quote as Sherman saying, “I know that Kilpatrick is a hell of a damned fool, but I want just that sort of man to command my cavalry on this expedition.”

Kilpatrick's reputation as a cavalryman was far from favorable, with one of Sherman's staff officers describing him as vain, conceited, and ungraceful. Despite these negative perceptions, Kilpatrick performed well during the March to the Sea, a feat that may have been attributed to Sherman's close supervision. This decision to appoint Kilpatrick, despite his shortcomings, proved to be a strategic choice that contributed to the success of the campaign, probably because he was closely monitored by Sherman personally.

During the March to the Sea campaign, Kilpatrick led approximately five thousand troopers, who were divided into two brigades. In the initial phase, he was assigned to the Right Wing under Major General Oliver O. Howard, who was also a veteran of the Army of the Potomac, just like Kilpatrick. His primary responsibility was to protect Howard’s exposed right flank as his columns advanced from Atlanta towards Macon, which was to be bypassed. A trooper in the 9th Ohio Cavalry was well aware that the cavalry's role was to always be positioned between the infantry and the enemy. After Stoneman, who was now also part of Sherman’s army, was captured, Kilpatrick led a raid against Macon.

Reports of violence against southern citizens during the March have been exaggerated in modern times. However, Sherman was on the verge of ordering an increase in violence after receiving a specific report from General Kilpatrick. There were several reports of Union soldiers being killed and mutilated by Wheeler’s men. General Kilpatrick had included several of these reports in his official correspondence with Sherman, who monitored the situation but did not respond to the cavalry chieftain until Thursday, December 1, 1864. Kilpatrick had been informing Sherman of numerous instances of murder and mutilation of his men after they had been taken prisoner.

Sherman wanted to ensure that Kilpatrick had communicated his concerns to Confederate cavalry commander General Joseph Wheeler before issuing any retaliatory order. Once Kilpatrick had alerted Wheeler, if he obtained substantial proof that Rebel soldiers were committing any excesses, he would receive official approval to retaliate. In such a situation, Sherman’s command was: “You may hang and mutilate man for man without regard to rank.” The killings stopped for unknown reasons. It is worth noting that almost 40 years later, Filipino soldiers opposing Wheeler in that conflict were mutilated, and Wheeler claimed that the Filipino army was responsible.

The Shirt-Tail Skedaddle

During the spring of 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was by the side of Major General William T. Sherman as they engaged in skirmishes with Confederate cavalry throughout the Carolinas Campaign. One particular event that stood out was the Shirt-Tail Skedaddle, which became a legendary and humorous moment amid the campaign.

The allure of flirtation and suggestion is not a modern phenomenon reserved only for the present day. Marie Boozer, a prominent figure during the Civil War era, was known for her captivating charm and beauty. She was considered the "it" girl of her time, captivating the attention of many suitors with her coquettish ways.

Mary "Marie" Boozer's reputation as the most beautiful lady in Columbia, SC, preceded her and continued to flourish despite the turmoil of war. Her beauty was so renowned that even prominent figures like General John S. Preston and General Sherman were captivated by her charm. The scandalous tales surrounding Boozer and her ambitious mother, as depicted in Tom Elmore's book “The Scandalous Lives of Carolina Belles Marie Boozer and Amelia Feaster: Flirting With the Enemy” tells the story of Boozer and her ambitious, Yankee-supporting mother, who was herself considered a beauty, married four times. Essentially, the mother was promoting her daughter in a social-climbing scheme.

Following Wade Hampton's departure from Columbia SC on February 17, 1865, the town succumbed to Sherman's forces and was engulfed in a devastating fire, vividly depicted in Royster's The Destructive War. Within three days, 1400 establishments and residences were reduced to ashes. Realizing that a war-torn, burnt-out town was not conducive to their aspirations, Marie's mother made the decision to accompany the Union army, with her daughter in tow. The soldiers, naturally, were more than willing to have two attractive women join their ranks. Despite the attention from the soldiers, Marie and her mother had already chosen a particular officer to look after them: Judson Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick and Marie were frequently seen together.

Judson Kilpatrick narrowly avoided capture by Wade Hampton during the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads on March 10, 1865. General Hampton, along with Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler’s Cavalry Corps, surprised Kilpatrick’s camp in an attempt to delay Kilpatrick’s cavalry and allow Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee’s infantry to cross the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville, North Carolina. Due to Kilpatrick’s overconfidence and failure to post enough cavalry pickets, Hampton and Wheeler’s attack caught the Federals off guard. Kilpatrick had to flee into a swamp wearing only a nightshirt to escape capture. Marie was left behind, reputedly in a scanty nightdress, to be cared for by the Confederate cavalry, who were (naturally) only too pleased to liberate her from the Yankees.

Despite the embarrassing incident, Kilpatrick managed to regroup his troops and recapture his camp after intense dismounted fighting. Hampton, upon learning that infantry reinforcements were on their way, decided to withdraw, having achieved his objective of keeping Kilpatrick’s cavalry occupied for a significant amount of time. The Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads left a mark on the federal commander’s reputation, but Kilpatrick’s escape in his nightshirt became a subject of ridicule known as Kilpatrick's Shirt-tail Skedaddle.

Marie overcame this minor setback to become a celebrity. She eventually made her way north, married a wealthy Northerner, and later married a French count after a dramatic divorce. Further sordid tales continue from there. Her life story became legendary, with tales of her reign as a queen of international society in Europe. Despite the initial misfortune at Monroe’s Crossroads, Marie’s resilience and subsequent adventures added to her intriguing narrative.

End of the War

On March 13, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick took part in the capture of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for which he was brevetted to brigadier general in the regular army.

Effective the same date (March 13, 1865) Judson Kilpatrick was brevetted to major general in the regular army “for Gallant and Meritorious Services” during the Carolinas Campaign.
Judson Kilpatrick led his cavalry during the Battle of Bentonville (March 19–21, 1865), the largest Civil War engagement fought in North Carolina, and the final battle of the Carolinas Campaign.
In early April 1865, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry served as Major General William T. Sherman’s escort when Confederate General Joseph Johnston surrendered his troops at Bennett’s Place.
On June 18, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major general of volunteers.
He later became the US Ambassador to Chile, marrying a lady from a wealthy family.

One last story about Judson Kilpatrick that you just could never make up. Lieutenant General Wade Hampton, the highest-ranking cavalry officer in the history of the Confederacy, and Major General William T. Sherman's chief of cavalry, Kilpatrick, had a long history of clashes on various battlefields during the Civil War. From Brandy Station to the Atlanta campaign, these two adversaries had faced off multiple times before the Carolinas Campaign.

Following Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, General Johnston led his troops to Greensboro and then sought to make peace with Sherman. Convinced that further bloodshed was unjustified, Johnston arranged to meet Sherman at James Bennett's house near Durham Station on April 17. The two officers, along with their entourages, gathered at the appointed time for negotiations.

As Sherman and Johnston conducted their discussions inside the Bennett house, General Hampton and his son relaxed outside. Hampton, dressed in his finest uniform and sporting a black felt hat with gold braid, exuded an air of confidence. Despite carrying a switch instead of his usual broadsword, Hampton's presence still conveyed a sense of authority and readiness to defend his beliefs.

Determined to end the fraternizing among his men, Hampton snarled, “Fall in!” When Kilpatrick approached to protest, remembered one witness, “Wade Hampton looked savage enough to eat ‘Little Kil’”, which prompted his antagonist to return “his looks most defiantly.”

“The war is over,” proclaimed Kilpatrick to his old adversary. “Let the men fraternize.”

“I do not intend to surrender,” snapped Hampton. He added that he would never fraternize with the Yankees, “but would retaliate with torch and sword” to avenge the style of war the North had waged. With a stern tone, Hampton again snarled at his troopers, “Fall in!”

The dialogue swiftly transitioned into a series of insults, blending humor with genuine animosity. Hampton initiated the exchange by mentioning Monroe’s Crossroads, prompting Kilpatrick to retaliate with accounts of battles where he had emerged victorious. The conversation escalated into a heated argument, drawing the attention of a crowd of officers and journalists. Johnston and Sherman eventually intervened to diffuse the confrontation.

Following the conclusion of the conflict, Hampton went on to serve as governor and later as a US Senator representing South Carolina. Kilpatrick became involved in politics and served as US Ambassador to Chile, where he met his wife. They went on to raise a family of several children.

In 1881, President James A. Garfield nominated Judson Kilpatrick to resume his role as ambassador to Chile, a decision that required Senate approval. Wade Hampton, despite their past rivalry, presented Kilpatrick's name to the Senate, leading to his unanimous confirmation for the position.

References

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid/

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-dahlgren-affair-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-on-richmond/

https://www.battlefields.org/visit/heritage-sites/dahlgrens-cavalry-raid

https://civilwarmonths.com/2024/03/02/the-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-takes-a-sinister-turn/

https://www.historynet.com/kill-cavalrys-ride-sea/

https://www.wistv.com/story/22292427/columbias-it-girl-in-the-1860s-as-notorious-as-todays-celebrities/

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/A-Southern-Belles-Notorious-Tale

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2017/02/16/wade-hampton-and-judson-kilpatrick/#:~:text=Beginning%20in%20the%20spring%20of%201863%2C%20Wade%20Hampton,Sherman’s%20chief%20of%20cavalry%20for%20his%20Carolinas%20Campaign.

View Details

If you thought automation and robotics are a modern development, then you could not be further from the truth. Hero (Ηρων) of Alexandria (sometimes referred to as Heron) is often hailed as one of antiquity's greatest engineers and inventors who was a monumental figure in the history of science and technology of the ancient world. His contributions to mechanical engineering, mathematics, robotics and automation continue to resonate, influencing the development of various technologies that are still relevant today.

Living in the 1st century CE, Hero is best remembered for his ingenious devices, many of which were powered by water, air pressure, and steam—pioneering innovations that made him the father of automation.

Terry Bailey explains.

*An illustration of Hero’s aeolipile.*

Life of Hero of Alexandria

Hero's precise dates of birth and death are not well-documented, but he is thought to have lived in the Roman province of Egypt during the 1st century CE, possibly under the rule of emperor Vespasian. Alexandria, the city where he resided and worked, was a vibrant intellectual hub, home to the famous Library of Alexandria and many scholars. Hero likely studied and worked at the Museion, (Museum), (μουσείο), of Alexandria, an institution that supported scientific research and housed many of the era's most important intellectuals.

Little is known about Hero's personal life, as much of the biographical data about him has been lost over the centuries. What is clear, however, is his status as a polymath. Making significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering, and his works were highly regarded by scholars in both his time and during the Renaissance. His influence extended beyond the Greco-Roman world, impacting Islamic scholars who preserved many of his writings and eventually the European world.

Hero's Inventions

Hero's inventive genius is best demonstrated through his numerous mechanical devices. He designed automated machines powered by water, air, and steam that performed tasks automatically without human intervention. These inventions ranged from toys and gadgets to practical devices, many were seen as marvels of engineering during his time.

Some of his most significant inventions include:

1. Aeolipile (Hero's Engine)

Hero's most famous invention is the aeolipile, which is often considered the earliest recorded example of a simply steam-driven device. The aeolipile consisted of a spherical vessel mounted on a set of bearings. Attached to the sphere were two bent nozzles. When the vessel was heated, water inside it turned to steam, which was forced out of the nozzles, causing the sphere to spin. While the device was not used for practical purposes, it demonstrated the potential of steam power and laid the groundwork for his later developments in engine technology.

2. The Automatic Temple Doors

The ingeniously designed system developed by Hero to open and close temple doors using the same principles of steam power that Hero discovered on his Aeolipile was a marvel. In this device, the fire would be lit on an altar, heating water. The steam produced would flow into a container, causing it to displace air or liquid into a system of counterweights, which in turn moved the temple doors. This dramatic use of automation not only impressed worshippers but also showcased the mechanical principles Hero was developing and his ability to utilize steam.

3. Vending Machine

Long before modern convenience stores and vending machines, Hero designed what is often considered the world's first vending machine. His machine dispensed water when a coin was inserted. The coin would land on a lever that opened a valve, allowing a set amount of water to pour out. Once the coin slid off the lever, the valve would close. This was a prime example of Hero's knack for designing automated systems that performed repetitive tasks efficiently.

4. The Programmable Cart

The development of a programmable cart, which could be pre-set to follow a specific course was groundbreaking. The cart was powered by a falling weight, and strings attached to the wheels that controlled its direction. By adjusting the length of the strings, Hero was able to "program" the cart to move in a particular pattern. This early form of automation and programming revealed a very forward-thinking approach to engineering.

5. Hydraulis (Water Organ)

One of Hero's mechanical masterpieces was the hydraulis, an early form of a pipe organ that used water pressure to produce sound. The device utilized air pushed through pipes by water that produced music that was both automated and regulated. It is widely considered one of the earliest known musical instruments that combined mechanics with artistry, in addition to, basic mechanical programming. Needless to say, it is from this we derive the modern word hydraulics, (from Ancient Greek ὕδωρ (húdōr) 'water' and αὐλός (aulós) 'pipe)

6. Automata and Theatrical Devices

It was his fascination with automata, or self-operating machines, that offered him an opportunity to produce fully automated theatre shows complete with theatrical settings. He designed mechanical birds that could sing and even designed a miniature theatre complete with figures that moved automatically. These inventions were primarily used for entertainment, but they also highlighted Hero's understanding of pneumatics and robotics. His automata amazed audiences and further demonstrated his mastery of mechanical engineering.

Greatest Achievements and Legacy

Hero's inventions were undoubtedly revolutionary, but perhaps his greatest achievement lies in his ability to document and share his knowledge. The writings of his work have survived the ages, offering a wealth of information about the scientific and technological advancements of his time. Some of his most important works include Pneumatica, Automatopoietica, Mechanica, and Metrica. These texts not only describe his inventions but also delve into the principles of mathematics, geometry, and physics that underpinned his work.

1. Pneumatica

The treatise Pneumatica is one of his most famous works, where Hero describes a variety of machines that operated on the principles of air pressure and hydraulics. This includes devices like the aeolipile, the automatic temple doors, and various fountains. Pneumatica is a treasure trove of early engineering, showing how Hero applied scientific principles to everyday life, from temples to theatres.

2. Automatopoietica

In Automatopoietica, the focus was on automata and robotics. In this work he explained the mechanics behind self-operating devices, offering insight into how machines could perform tasks automatically. This work is an early exploration of robotics, showing that the concept of automating tasks was already being considered in ancient times.

3. Mechanica

The Mechanica explored the fundamental principles of mechanics, such as levers, pulleys, and gears. This work reveals the underlying principles of his inventions and shows Hero's broad understanding of mechanical forces. In Mechanica, he also delves into architectural engineering, explaining how large structures like temples and catapults could be constructed using mechanical systems.

4. Metrica

In Metrica, Hero turned his attention to mathematics and particularly geometry. This work is significant because it compiled various mathematical formulas and theorems that could be applied to practical engineering problems. Metrica includes formulas for calculating the area and volume of different shapes, as well as methods for measuring distances and determining the size of objects. This blend of theoretical mathematics and applied science helped bridge the gap between abstract geometry and practical engineering.

Influence and Impact

Although much of Hero's work was ignored during the Middle Ages, it was rediscovered by Islamic scholars and engineers during the Islamic Golden Age. His works were translated into Arabic and studied by thinkers like Al-Jazari, who expanded upon Hero's concepts. Later, during the Renaissance, Hero's writings became widely available in Europe, and his engineering principles were further developed by scientists and inventors such as Leonardo da Vinci.

Hero's greatest legacy is his role as a pioneer of automation. His inventions demonstrate that the idea of machines performing tasks independently of human intervention is not a modern one but dates back thousands of years. His inventions particularly the aeolipile, foreshadowed the Industrial Revolution, where steam engines became a driving force of change. Hero's work serves as evidence of the innovative spirit of the ancient world and continues to inspire engineers and inventors to this day.

In conclusion, Hero of Alexandria was a visionary whose work laid the foundations for automation and mechanical engineering. His life and inventions are remarkable examples of ancient ingenuity, and his influence extends far beyond his era. From the aeolipile to automata, Hero's devices were centuries ahead of their time, demonstrating a deep understanding of physics, mechanics, and mathematics. His writings and inventions not only entertained and served practical purposes in his time but also shaped the future of technology. As the father of automation, Hero's legacy endures, reminding us of the incredible potential for human innovation and development that ancient cultures provided humankind.

Notes:

Automation

The word automaton is derived from the Ancient Greek automaton (αὐτόματον), which means "acting of one's own will". It was first used by Homer to describe an automatic door opening or automatic movement of wheeled tripods.

Robotics

We derive the term robotics from the Czech word robota meaning 'forced labor'. It was used for the first time, 100 years ago, in a play by the author of the same nationality, Karel Capek.

The full term robotics was first used by American science fiction author Isaac Asimov in 1941 from robot +‎ -ics by comparison to "physics ... hydraulics, celestial mechanics, and so on" in his short story Liar

Mechanics

The word Mechanics is derived from Ancient Greek: μηχανική, mēkhanikḗ, lit. 'of machines', is the area of physics concerned with the relationships between force, matter, and motion among physical objects.

Pneumatics

We derive the word Pneumatics from the Ancient Greek πνεῦμα pneuma' wind, breath and related to the use of gas or pressurized air in mechanical systems.

View Details

Unlike many other Poles who took part in the Civil War on the Union side, Count Adam Gurowski was not a soldier or a commander, and his actions had no influence on the shape of the Civil War. He was primarily a publicist whose sharp views on the actions of Abraham Lincoln's government were so violent and uncompromising that the US president even treated him as a potential assassin. Rafal Guminski explains.

*Adam Gurowski.*

Count Adam Gurowski: History and Political Activity in Europe

Adam Gurowski was born on September 10, 1805, into a family of noble origins and a count's title. He was the oldest of seven siblings. His sister, Cecilia, was married to Baron Frederiks, general adjutant of Tsar Nicholas I, and his brother, Ignacy, married the Spanish Infanta Isabella de Borbón, daughter of the Duke of Cadiz, and became a Spanish grandee. As the oldest son, he received a good education. After completing his education at the provincial school, he began his studies in Berlin, Leipzig, Göttingen, and Heidelberg. He studied law, philosophy, history, and classical philology.

After his studies, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland and joined a political party from the western part of the country, which sought to maintain the status quo and preserve the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland. The count quickly left the organization, and in January 1829 he was supposed to take part in preparations for the so-called coronation plot, the aim of which was the death of the Russian Tsar Nicholas I. After the outbreak of the November Uprising, Gurowski became involved in organizing the insurgent administration and civil authorities, which, however, ended in failure. The count became a staunch critic of the insurgent dictatorship, and after its fall, he became a member of the Patriotic Society, on behalf of which he demanded the dethronement of Tsar Nicholas I as the King of Poland.

Despite being blind in one eye, he joined the insurgents as an ordinary soldier and took part in battles, for which he was promoted to officer and received the Silver Cross of Virtuti Militari. After leaving the army, he became an envoy of the Patriotic Society to Paris, where in French magazines such as Trubine, François, National, Reformateur, La Révolution de 1831 and Le Globe, he undertook to criticize the authorities of the November Uprising. After the fall of the Uprising, Gurowski struggled with the instability of his political views and a tendency to sharp disputes, through which he quickly alienated people from his closest surroundings.

The year 1834 was special for the Pole because of the radical change in his views and ideas. His statements began to include comments of a pan-Slavic nature with Poland as the unifier of the Slavic world. He also viewed the Polish emigration differently, whose activities for the liberation of the country he had previously assessed negatively. The change in the count's views is best seen in his interest in the postulates of French utopian socialism. The changes in Gurowski's worldview reached even such basic assumptions as nation and patriotism.

The count's new views conflicted him with his family and Polish patriotic circles, but it was only the request for amnesty addressed to Tsar Nicholas I and the recognition of Russia as the country that was to lead the unification of Slavic nations that made Gurowski a national apostate. His stay in Russia turned out to be difficult. The state apparatus of the Tsarist regime forced him to reassess his views once again, and the complete isolation from his family and countrymen began to weigh heavily on him.

A Polish Count on American Soil

In 1840, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland to sort out his property and family affairs. The attempt to recover his confiscated property ended in failure. Finding himself in a hopeless situation, the count decided to emigrate. In April 1844, he left the border of the Kingdom of Poland forever and went to the West. For some time, he lived in Bavaria, Hesse, and then in Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy. Unable to settle down permanently, the Pole decided to leave the Old Continent and emigrate to the United States of America. On December 2, 1849, Count Gurowski found himself in New York.

The Pole's situation in America was quite stable at first. He had brought a supply of cash with him from Europe, and thanks to letters of recommendation, he had access to intellectual circles from the very beginning. After half a year, the count's financial situation began to deteriorate, which forced him to seek a source of support outside New York. In Boston, he was even offered a chance to lecture on law at Harvard University, but due to poor attendance, his lectures were quickly suspended. During this time, the Pole became keenly interested in the issue of slavery and took an active part in the life of the local intellectual social elite. He managed to get to know the leaders of American literature and poetry: Henry W. Longfellow and James R. Lowell, who, together with Gurowski, had in common a particular aversion to slavery and criticism of that institution.

Eventually, the Pole returned to New York and in 1852 took a job at the New York Daily Tribune. He wrote a column on European affairs, criticizing the rule of Tsar Nicholas I. Despite his continued interest in European affairs, the Pole was fascinated by his new homeland, which he admired in many ways. He traveled extensively in the northern and southern states, and published his observations in “America and Europe”, which was warmly received by critics and praised for its impartiality and insightful observations. The Pole was greatly impressed by his new homeland and in many ways recognized its superiority over European countries. He paid special attention to the unique relationship between power and freedom. In his opinion, in Europe, these two forces competed with each other, while in America, they cooperated for the common good and development. The count was equally impressed by the class structure of American society. In his opinion, the superiority of the American system was the lack of class division dominated by the aristocracy. He noted with admiration that the law was created on the initiative of the people and for the people, and not by a privileged ruling group.

Gurowski's relations with the New York Daily Tribune began to deteriorate significantly, and as a result, the count lost his job. From then on, for four years he supported himself by publishing articles in various magazines. During this time, he continued to write a book on the history of world slavery, which was published in 1860 under the title “Slavery in History”.

Abraham Lincoln under harsh criticism from Adam Gurowski

The Pole, who was increasingly vocal in his criticism of slavery, decided to move to the US capital, Washington, where he hoped for greater understanding of his views. He wanted to seek support from politicians from the radical wing of the Republican Party. Thanks to his work in the New York Daily Tribune and his authorship of the books: “America and Europe” and “Slavery in History”, the Pole was already a well-known person in Washington. He quickly established important acquaintances, including Salmon P. Chase, the future chief justice of the United States, and John A. Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he joined a volunteer unit under the command of Cassius M. Clay, which was to protect and patrol the capital. After the threat had passed, the Pole got a job at the State Department. His duties included reading the European press and preparing reports on articles of interest to the department. However, Gurowski lost his job after his diary, in which he criticized the government, the president, and the Union generals, fell into the wrong hands. Ultimately, he published the contents of the diary in December 1862. Thus began his crusade against Abraham Lincoln.

Adam Gurowski should be considered the most ardent critic of the federal government and the president at the time. Although the Pole spoke positively about Lincoln's inaugural address, the government's lack of decisive action in the event of the attack on Fort Sumter and the riots in Baltimore ultimately confirmed his dislike of Abraham Lincoln. Gurowski stated that the current Union government "lacked the blood" to defeat the Confederacy, and calling up 75,000 volunteers was definitely not enough to defeat the Confederacy. He also believed that the situation overwhelmed Abraham Lincoln, who had no leadership skills and could not compare to George Washington or Andrew Jackson. He considered the president's greatest flaw to be his lack of decisiveness, and he saw it as the cause of the Army of the Potomac's defeats. Gurowski also criticized Lincoln's personnel decisions, especially the delay in dismissing General George McClellan from the position of commander of the Army of the Potomac. However, Gurowski was able to appreciate Lincoln. He praised the president's behavior after the defeat at Chancellorsville. The count accused Lincoln of manipulating election promises and making military decisions through the prism of politics, which was to result in the deaths of many soldiers. However, in the face of the president's re-election, Gurowski showed a shadow of support for him, fearing for the election of the hated McClellan and his pro-slavery lobby.

There is no doubt that Gurowski's criticism of the president was often exaggerated, but in some aspects the Pole's opinion coincides with the contemporary opinion of historians. The count's attitude towards the president was dictated by his views and difficult, uncompromising personality. The Pole's most positive opinion of Lincoln was expressed after the president's death. In Gurowski's eyes, the murdered president became a martyr close to sainthood, who will go down in world history as a great and noble man.

References

· Carter R., Gurowski, „The Atlantic Monthly” 1866, t. 18, nr 109.

· Derengowski P., Polacy w wojnie secesyjnej 1861-1865, Napoleon V, Oświęcim 2015.

· Fisher L.H., Lincoln’s Gadfly, Adam Gurowski, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman 1964.

· Garewicz J., Gracz. Rzecz o Adamie Gurowskim [1805-1866], „Res Publica”, 2 (1988), nr 5,

· Głębocki H., „Diabeł Asmodeusz” w niebieskich binoklach i kraj przyszłości: hr. Adam Gurowski i Rosja, Arcana, Kraków 2012.

· Łukasiewicz W., Gurowski Adam, Polski słownik biograficzny, V. 9, Wrocław 1960-1961.

· Stasik F., Adam Gurowski 1805-1866, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN ,Warszawa 1977.

View Details

An introduction by the author Jeb Smith: I have often engaged in discussions with both lay people and academics on the various causes of Southern secession. I have also read many books from both sides' perspectives of the war. I consistently hear the same arguments used to support the claim that the South left the Union to preserve slavery. I will respond here to the most common arguments and, hopefully, explain why the evidence does not support this conclusion.

This is the final part in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here, and part 4 on the Confederate Constitution here.

*John S. Mosby.*

Slave Owners Rebellion?

It is said that the most robust support for secession came from the areas that had the most slaveowners. Based on this information, some would argue that the cause of withdrawal was slavery. High federal support in areas with limited slaveowners, such as West Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee, are prime examples to support this claim. But first, we must ask the following questions: What about the non-slave owners in Eastern Virginia who supported the South? What about non-slaveholding Western Tennesseans and Deep South voters who supported secession? Should we claim they prove secession was in support of abolishing slavery? What about the slave states that stayed in the Union?

In Confederate Arkansas, 20% of their households were slave owners, while Kentucky, which remained primarily loyal to the Union, had 23% of their households that were slave owners. In North Carolina, near-unanimous support for secession was given after Lincoln's call for volunteers when only 27% of the households in the state were slave owners. Arkansas voted 65 to 5 for secession after Lincoln's call for volunteers, yet only 20% of households were slave owners. Although there were few Southern Jewish Confederates slave owners, a large portion of the group supported secession. Further, thirteen percent of the Virginia delegates from high slave-owning counties voted against secession.

A closer look shows that politics, not slavery, drove the secession movement. For example, in Western Virginia, many areas with a low percentage of slave owners supported secession, while many areas that were politically supporters of the Whigs did not. James McPherson , [who used the argument we are discussing] acknowledges, "A good many low slaveholding Democratic counties voted for immediate secession, while numerous high-slaveholding Whig counties cooperation." In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts looks at this argument and finds that while slave ownership influenced secession votes, political party associations were far more critical.

"A high slave-owning country in eastern Virginia was far more likely to poll a strong secession vote than a low slave-owning county in western Virginia. But a whig county in eastern Virginia was more likely to show more union strength than a Breckinridge country, just as a Breckinridge county in western Virginia was more likely to show pockets of secession support than a whig county."

-Daniel W. Crofts Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis University of North Carolina Press reprint 1993

Further, the area that would become West Virginia had long opposed unfair tax rates within Virginia.[1] West Virginia, like today, was more an extension of Pennsylvania and did not share the southern culture of Virginia. Immigrants from Pennsylvania mostly inhabited West Virginia. In Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee, Michael Korda wrote, "Mountainous northwestern Virginia...was largely populated by settlers from Pennsylvanian who were instinctively pro-union." The Appalachian areas of Western Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee had very different ethnic, political, and cultural histories.

West Virginia supported the Confederacy more than commonly believed. Many of the Virginia votes against secession did come from the western part of the state, but that does not make them supporters of the Union. These counties were surrounded by federal territory and not so anxious to jump into a war. The most robust support for the Union came from the northern panhandle or around the railroads who had a financial interest in remaining in the Union. The rest of the state was decidedly pro-South. Further, many Ohio and Pennsylvania troops went to West Virginia recruiting stations [this was common] and formed union regiments, so the actual number of units supporting the North is inflated.

Western Virginia's support for the Union is overstated for many reasons. Early in the conflict, much of western Virginia was controlled by the Union, and a pro-union "restored government of Virginia" was instituted. Elections were only held in areas of Union control, as pro south civilians and soldiers fled the state and thus, were not allowed to vote on whether or not to join the Union. Lincoln decided to recognize this pro north government that met in Wheeling. This Government was not officially recognized by the state of Virginia but was rather an unconstitutionally created, militarily controlled area. Therefore, basing conclusions on this occupied territory is not a fair judge of western Virginia's loyalties.

The Union support in Tennessee seems to be exaggerated and possibly based on a limited number of Union newspapers during the war. As in Virginia, Daniel W. Crofts shows that counties that were "traditionally Democrat," the low-level slave-owning middle and western Tennessee counties, voted for secession. It was only in the Eastern area of the state where spare slave-owning counties held a strong pro-Union stance.

Maryland's southern and eastern areas were similar in culture and politics to the rest of the South. In contrast, the pro northern areas of Maryland were heavily influenced by socialist immigrants from Europe and thus supported the North. Overall, support for the Union in Maryland also seems overstated.[2] The truth is that Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, and Western North Carolina remained Republican areas after the war. In contrast, the planter areas remained Democratic after the war.[3]

Lastly, if the Government did oppress a particular group, specifically slave owners, violating their rights, wouldn't we then expect strong resistance from that sector? For example, if today's politicians decided that pizza is unhealthy for us and outlawed it, then most pizza shop owners would likely be among those who would resist those efforts. Others may agree with the pizza owners but not be so willing to leave the country over it. So it should not be a surprise that slave owners were among the most dedicated secessionists.

The Confederate Constitution did not allow States to abolish Slavery

The first argument one often hears is that the Confederate Constitution made it impossible to abolish slavery. It is true that the central Confederate government could not abolish slavery; however, neither could the federal government under the U.S. Constitution in 1861, as Lincoln accepted in his First Inaugural Address. Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa points out that freeing slaves was a state issue in the C.S.A. just as it was in antebellum America. Some have misread Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 of the C.S.A. Constitution, claiming it outlaws the freeing of slaves; however, this section applies only to Congress and not to the sovereign states.

As DeRosa argues that the clause even demonstrates that its authors believed non-slave states would join the Confederacy. This is also shown in Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1. Many in the Confederacy, including vice president Stephens, thought the non-slaveholding upper Midwest would join the Confederacy because its free trade laws would encourage states connected to the Mississippi River to join. In his infamous Cornerstone Address on March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens said, "We made ample provision in our Constitution for the admission of other States...Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way."

Professor DeRosa shows that the South wanted border states and the free Midwest states to join the Confederacy. During the constitutional convention, the delegates rejected Howell Cobb of Georgia's proposal that all states be required to be slave-owning. Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated, "Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself." The state of Georgia declared, "New States formed out of territory now belonging to the United States, or which may be hereafter acquired, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people thereof may determine at the time of admission." So while slavery was optional, states' rights were applied in the C.S.A., regardless of their choice. In The Confederate Constitution of 1861, DeRosa summarizes, "Thus, slavery was not a constitutional prerequisite for admission, and once admitted, a state could either reorganize or prohibit the institution."

Slavery was the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy

The first argument I am usually given is that Alexander Stephens declared slavery to be the "Cornerstone of the Confederacy." Although his speech has been named the "Cornerstone Speech, "he focuses also on tariffs, internal improvements, and economic issues. So why is most of his speech ignored and only a few sentences pulled out and attacked? The focus is on the portion that mentions slavery because slavery is what we want to be remembered as the primary cause of secession.

His speech was unprepared and given in the deep South state of Georgia. But I also think that there are other reasons to be cautious about the importance and understanding of the speech.

For one, it is only a transcribed piece. According to the newspaper reporter who transcribed it, it "Is not a perfect report, but only a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens."It is simply an interpretation of a portion of his actual speech. According to Stephens, in writings after the war, the speech was misinterpreted and misunderstood. He claimed he was simply restating what Judge Baldwin of the United States Supreme Court had said. The following, written in 1884 by Richard M Johnson, summed up Stephens’ speech and his use of the term "cornerstone."

"On the subject of slavery there was no essential change in the new Constitution from the old as Judge Baldwin [of Connecticut] of the U.S. supreme court had announced from the bench several years before, that slavery was the cornerstone of the old Constitution [1781-89], so it is of the new" [1833] .

-Quote in Lochlainn Seabrook , Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery Is Wrong Sea Raven Press 2014

Later, Stephens wrote that what caused secession was a dispute over centralization. Stephens' speech simply clarified disputed subjects in the U.S. Constitution that are now clearly defined and beyond dispute in the C.S.A. Constitution. These subjects include tariffs, internal improvement, and slavery. He was trying to assure the audience that the states would decide on these issues, not the central government.

As the Kennedy twins argue, if anyone should have been seen as speaking for the whole country, it ought to have been the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis. His three most essential speeches (Farewell to Congress, First Inaugural in Montgomery, Second Inaugural in Richmond) all speak to the causes of secession. He mentioned that the reasons for secession were liberty, state's rights, tariffs, the Constitution, and preserving the Union from Northern Democracy. Jefferson Davis said, "I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Davis does discuss slavery in the first of those speeches, but stresses more the sovereign right of his state, Mississippi, to secede.

Fugitive Slave Laws

Some critics claim that the South only cared for states' rights when slavery was involved. To support this claim, they point out that the South objected to Northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave laws. This objection seems reasonable on the surface but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states' rights and the Union of 1860.

Even if we assume the premise for the sake of argument, it will only prove that the South did not care for the rights of the states in the North, not their state's rights. Since the rights of the people of each state were in place to secure its individual states citizen's rights and not another’s, this would make sense. And if one state decides not to follow the compact or contract [Constitution], disagreement will occur. This is also why the right to secession is vital to self-government.

However, a proper understanding of states' rights is not lawlessness or states ignoring the Constitution; it is, in fact, the opposite. States' rights are in place to prevent the current politicians in power from violating the Constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case, the northern states were violating the Constitution because, in their minds, slavery was wrong in God’s eyes. As William Seward put it, "There is a higher law than the constitution."

Within the Constitution, southerners were already granted the right to have their property returned. Northern states were violating this. Therefore states’ rights, as Jefferson said, are the best way of preserving the authority of the Constitution over elected politicians in D.C. who would seek to abolish it. The Constitution, not men, was the authority. The wording of the United States "supremacy clause" is set out below, occurring in Article VI. The wording of the Confederate equivalent, also occurring in Article VI, is identical apart from the substitution of "Confederate" for "United."

This Constitution and the Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or to be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Only the Slave States joined the Confederacy

"Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson threatened to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the Democrats won in 1860, the northern states would have been the seceding states, not the southern."

- James R. and Walter D. Kennedy, The South Was Right! Pelican Publishing Gretna 2008

Some believe it is self-evident that slavery caused secession because only slave states joined the Confederacy. So if I am defending the causes of the South and saying slavery was not the sole cause of secession, then why didn't any free states join?

Keep in mind that when the Confederacy was first formed, there were more slave states still in the Union. Furthermore, if secession was driven by slavery, why didn't all the slave states join the South? Many volunteers fought for the South from the non-slave state of California. New Jersey produced two Confederate generals, Gen. Samuel Gibbs French and Gen. Julius Adolphus de Lagnel.[4]

Many free states nearly left the Union as well. NY almost left the Union, and a middle confederacy might have formed, which could have included Penn, NY, NJ, MD, and D.E. On March 13, 1861, a report from A R Wright Esq of Georgia said Gov Hicks of Maryland was already corresponding with New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey governors about forming a central confederacy. Delaware, Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio were also later mentioned. The rise of a radical Republican party[5] to national prominence caused all sorts of upheavals.

The South originally planned for the northwest to join them. When Robert Smith addressed the citizens of Alabama, he believed Indiana and Illinois would join the Confederacy. He desired the entire Union (excluding New England) to eventually be drawn under the new Confederate Constitution, restoring the Union of the founders. However, when Lincoln called for war, many were unwilling to face an uphill battle against the might of the North. Further, nationalism and patriotism drove many to volunteer for the Union.

Also, consider that the states most influenced by the Jeffersonian tradition did leave the Union. And we must not forget the North maintained slavery during the war in MO, KY, DE, Washington DC, MD, Western Virginia, northern controlled sections of the Indian territory, and Union-controlled LA and Virginia.

John Mosby said Secession was about Slavery

The "Grey Ghost" of the Confederacy, John Mosby, said that the South was on the side of slavery during the war. Here, critics say, we have an admission from a former confederate informing us of what we all already knew, the South left to preserve slavery. Yet we are also told that post-war southerners are part of the "lost cause" and should not be listened to. Unless, of course, it is Mosby who was telling certain historians what they wanted to hear. Highlighting one statement made after the war by a southerner turned Republican trying to gain favor does not negate the factual purposes of southern secession.

Another argument used is not historical but rather philosophical. The argument is that the South could not care for freedom since they denied that freedom to others. However, this at most shows inconsistency in how they apply liberty. It also seems to assume the South left to preserve slavery.

In response, the South said that its citizens had more rights and were allowed more freedom than the North. The majority of states in the North did not allow individuals the freedom to own or buy human property as the "slave optional"[6] states did. All men were created equal; southerners had rights like anyone to own their property, including slaves. This is also why African-Americans, Native Americans, Jews, and others had equal rights to own slaves in the South. States had maintained legal slavery since before the Union was created. The world had accepted slavery for thousands of years. African slaves had no rights in Africa when they were enslaved.

Slavery also offered the owner freedom of another sort that we will discuss later. During an interview with historynet.com over his latest book on Lincoln, distinguished historian Eric Foner said, "To most white Southerners, owning a slave was not a contradiction to the idea of freedom, indeed rather the opposite, owning slaves made a person more free, it and enabled you to achieve the economic independence that all Americans thought was very important to freedom."

States' Rights were just to protect Slavery

"The doctrine of States’ rights was never a mere pretense for slavery, but reflected a deep passion for self-government rooted in Southern culture as well as an earnest understanding of the Constitution rooted in Southern history."

-James Rutledge Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters; The Constitutional Doctrine of States Rights in the Old South Shotwell Publishing Columbia SC 2018

The claim that states' rights were just an excuse to preserve slavery is a common one. This claim was covered earlier, but additional information is needed since it is repeated so often. State's rights were vital to our Union, self-government, and our whole political system. Therefore, the next chapter also will be dedicated to this topic, and after reading it, this objection should dissipate.

As with the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution did not allow the central Government to abolish slavery. If the South had left to preserve slavery alone, why did they also add additional powers to the states? If states' rights were to protect slavery, and slavery was protected, why the need for an even more decentralized Constitution? If the intention was to protect slavery, then the United States Constitution would have sufficed, and there would have been no need to create a document ensuring more vital states' rights.

When the Confederate government overreached into state matters on non-slavery issues during the civil war, states resisted it. This resulted in states like Georgia threatening to secede. After slavery had ended in the United States, the South still maintained the most robust states' rights philosophy in the country.

The first state's rights advocates in the U.S., many of whom spoke out against slavery, were Southern men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, St. George Tucker, George Mason, Patrick Henry, John Taylor of Caroline, and John Randolph. Patrick Henry called slavery "a lamentable evil,"but then said, "I deny that the general government ought to set them free." George Mason said, "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant." John Taylor of Caroline said, "The fact is that negro slavery is an evil which the United States must look in the face."

States' rights were also crucial to northern states before the civil war. There were Democrats in the North who were both for states' rights and against slavery. These two came together in the northern states' nullification of the fugitive slave laws. During the Civil War, Republicans wished to institute national banking, and many northern Democrats objected. Lazarus Powell stated, "The result of this course of legislation is to utterly destroy all the rights of the States. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here." No matter the issue, states had pushed back against federal overreach; slavery was simply one more area where the federal was intruding on the states' rights in 1860.

Preserving slavery was far from the primary goal of secessionists. During the war, Southern General Patrick Cleburne wanted to free all the slaves. Near the end of the war, Jefferson Davis sent diplomats to France and Britain, offering to end slavery if they would recognize the Confederacy. Some Northern generals, like General George Thomas, were wealthy slave owners who fought for the North despite saying during the war, "I am wholly sick of states' rights." State's rights did not equal slavery. This misunderstanding comes from a post-war nationalistic approach to antebellum America. The next chapter will detail states' rights before the Civil War to help us understand why they were considered vital to self-government and the Union.

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] See George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864

[2] For more info, see Jeb Stuart; The Last Cavalier by Burke Davis.

[3] See "Man Over Money" the Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism by Bruce Palmer.

[4] De Lagnel was appointed Brigadier General in the Confederate forces but for unknown reasons declined the rank, eventually rising to Lieutenant Colonel.

[5] A party that has not changed in its modern form.

[6] As the Kennedy’s described them.

View Details

Because she played her cards right, Anne of Cleves, as the fourth wife of King Henry VIII of England, managed to escape the wrath he inflicted on two of his previous wives and lived a privileged life on good terms with the king after their separation.

C. M. Schmidlkofer explains.

*Anne of Cleves. Painitng by Barthel Bruyn the Younger.*

It seems unfair that Anne of Cleves, the fourth wife of King Henry VIII, is known throughout history as the “ugly” wife (out of the six total he had) when in reality, it was her wit and intellect that makes her remarkable.

Born in Dusseldorf in 1515, Anne of Cleves was the daughter of Maria of Julich-Berg and Johan III, Duke of Cleves. Her marriage to Henry in Jan. 6, 1540, right from the start was fraught with disappointment and misunderstanding.

First, at the tender age of 24, she was invited to become Henry’s fourth bride based on a painting the king commissioned of her countenance which he later said looked nothing like her. But that came a bit later.

The marriage was a political arrangement fostered by Henry’s “fixer,” Chief Minister Thomas Cromwell who sought to temper the power plays of Spain and France while boosting Protestant influence with the union.

First meeting

The first meeting between the king and his bride was a massive fail, as Anne rejected Henry’s surprise meeting wearing a disguise and the relationship went downhill from there.

The complaints began in earnest then as the king complained she did not look like the commissioned portrait.

He called her a “Flanders Mare,” said she smelled, and reportedly refused to have marital sex with her.

Anne was a fish out of water in Tudor Court. Her upbringing did not include dancing and music, the heart of Tudor life, but was focused on learning duties of a noblewoman she was expected to become along with household skills.

In an attempt to integrate herself into life with Henry, perhaps nervous over what lay ahead, she had the foresight to socialize with her English travelers to learn customs and social skills as well as learning the king’s favorite card games during her voyage to meet him.

There is little known about Anne’s feelings about the marriage but she was keenly aware that two of Henry’s first three wives were either banished or beheaded and that the purpose of any union was to produce a male heir for the king.

And although Henry had his coveted son through his third wife, Jane Seymour, who died shortly after giving birth, he was forging ahead with the fourth marriage to secure another.

End of marriage

Seven months after his marriage to Anne, who served as queen consort, Henry notified his bride their marriage was to be annulled three days hence. His reasoning was the marriage was never consummated and for good measure threw in questions about Anne’s relationship years ago with her brief engagement to Francis the Duke of Bar in 1527.

Wisely, Anne knew that arguing or pleading to continue the marriage would not be successful and instead fully cooperated with the king’s wishes. Certainly, she had nothing to lose and as it turned out she gained beautifully.

Henry, possibly relieved over Anne’s cooperation, awarded her with a generous settlement, granted her the title of “the King’s Sister” as long as she remained in England and bestowed upon her large tracts of properties, such as Hever Castle – the former childhood home of Henry’s second wife, Anne Boleyn, whom he had beheaded in 1536.

Unlike Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who resisted the king’s demand for annulment on religious grounds, ending up banished from court until her death in 1536, Anne was allowed to keep her jewels, her metal plate and her dresses, and received a generous annual stipend along with revenue from other properties.

She willingly turned over her wedding ring to Henry, asking that it be destroyed “as a thing which she knew of no force or value.”

Henry seemed to value Anne’s counsel after their separation and continued a cordial relationship with her until he died in 1547.

Later years

At that point Anne lost her title of the “King’s Sister” and she moved away from court, leading a quiet life until Mary I, Henry’s daughter with his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and Anne’s stepdaughter, took the throne in 1553. Anne briefly came under suspicion when a plot to depose the queen and place Elizabeth I on the throne was investigated because Anne also had a close relationship with Elizabeth I, the daughter of the king and Anne Boleyn.

She escaped a charge of treason and remained cordial with Mary I until her death in 1557 at the age of 41 after a brief illness in Chelsea Old Manor, her home and former home of Catherine Parr, Henry’s sixth and last wife.

References

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/sixwives/meet/ac_handbook_children.html

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-death-of-anne-of-cleves/

https://www.historytools.org/stories/anne-of-cleves-the-unwanted-queen-who-survived-and-thrived

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/henry-viii-and-anne-of-cleves/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anne-of-Cleves-queen-of-England

View Details

Operation Frankton was a covert military operation carried out by the Royal Marines during the Second World War and was one of the most audacious and daring raids in military history. The raid was executed in December 1942 and targeted the German-occupied French port of Bordeaux, a crucial hub for the Axis powers, which facilitated the movement of supplies critical to the German war effort. The operation, led by a small group of commandos, was remarkable not only for its boldness but also for its significant impact on the war effort. Delving into the main reasons behind the mission, the key figures involved, and the importance of the operation, it is also possible to lightly explore the separately planned parallel mission by the Special Operations Executive (SOE) against the same targets.

Terry Bailey explains.

*Tannenfels, a German blockade runner which was sunk.*

The Strategic Importance of Bordeaux

Bordeaux, located in southwest France along the Garonne River, was a vital port for the Axis powers during the Second World War. Following the fall of France in 1940, the German military took control of the port and used it to facilitate the movement of supplies utilizing blockade runners. The port was especially important for the transit of rubber, which was essential for manufacturing tires and other military equipment. The loss of Bordeaux would disrupt the supply lines and put a significant strain on the German war machine, making it a prime target for Allied forces.

The British Admiralty recognized the strategic value of targeting Bordeaux early in the war. However, conventional bombing raids were deemed too risky to the civilian population and ineffective due to the heavy defenses surrounding the port. The need for a more unconventional approach led to the conception of Operation Frankton, a mission designed to strike at the heart of the German supply chain with minimal resources.

The Planning of Operation Frankton

The idea for Operation Frankton was conceived by Major Herbert "Blondie" Hasler, a Royal Marines officer with a background in unconventional warfare and small boats. Hasler, who had previously served as a fleet landing officer in Scapa Flow, was then sent to Narvik in support of the French Foreign Legion in the Norwegian campaign, for which duties he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), mentioned in dispatches, and awarded the French Croix de Guerre.

He was known for his innovative thinking and determination and believed that a small, highly trained team could infiltrate the heavily guarded port using kayaks, plant explosive charges on the ships, and escape undetected. The operation would rely on stealth, surprise, and the ability to navigate the treacherous waters of the Gironde estuary.

Hasler's plan was initially met with skepticism by some members of the Admiralty, who viewed it as too risky and unlikely to succeed. However, Hasler's persistence, coupled with the lack of viable alternatives, eventually won over his superiors. The operation was given the green light, and Hasler was put in charge of selecting and training the men who would carry out the raid.

The men Hasler recruited became part of the Royal Marine Boom Patrol Detachment which was part of combined operations. The group who carried out the raid consisted of 13 Royal Marines, including Hasler himself, 6 two-man teams plus one reserve. The men were chosen for their physical fitness, mental toughness, and ability to operate under extreme conditions. They underwent rigorous training in kayaking, explosives, and navigation, practicing initially in the waters in southern England, and eventually in the cold and treacherous waters off the coast of Scotland.

The operation was set to take place in December 1942, during the winter, when the long nights would provide the cover of darkness needed for the raid. The men would use specially designed folding kayaks, nicknamed "cockles," to navigate the Gironde estuary and reach the port of Bordeaux. Once there, they would attach limpet mines to the hulls of the German blockade-running ships and then attempt to escape through France to Spain, with the help of the French Resistance.

The Execution of the Raid

The operation began on the night of the 7th of December, 1942, when Royal Navy submarine HMS Tuna sailed from Holy Loch in Scotland with the six kayaks and raiders on board, where the men were dropped off the coast of France, near the mouth of the Gironde estuary. The plan was for the men to paddle their kayaks up the estuary, cover a distance of around 70 miles, and reach the port of Bordeaux within four nights.

The hull of Cachalot was damaged while being passed out of the submarine hatch, leaving just five kayaks to start the raid. The reserve member of the team, Colley, was not needed, so he remained aboard the submarine with the Cachalot crew Ellery and Fisher.

The first night of the mission was fraught with difficulties. The strong currents and freezing temperatures took a toll on the men, fighting against strong cross tides and cross winds, Coalfish became separated. The remaining kayaks then encountered 5 ft (1.5 m) high waves and Conger capsized and had to be scuttled, once it became apparent that it would not be possible to bail it out, Sheard and Moffatt held on to two of the remaining kayaks, which carried them as close to the shore as possible, then had to swim for it, the remaining kayaks then came across the separated Coalfish.

As the conditions deteriorated Mackinnon and Conway in Cuttlefish became separated from the other kayaks in the group. After reaching the shore, MacKinnon and Conway evaded capture for four days but were betrayed and arrested by the Gendarmerie and handed over to the Germans at La Reole hospital 30 miles southeast of Bordeaux, while attempting to make their way to the Spanish border.

The 3 remaining kayaks, Catfish, Crayfish and Coalfish, covered 20 miles in five hours landed near St Vivien du Medoc, and laid up through the day, however, while resting during the day and unknown to the others, Wallace and Ewart in Coalfish had been captured at daybreak near the Pointe de Grave lighthouse where they had come ashore, now they were only 2.

The second night, 8/9 December, the two remaining kayaks Catfish and Crayfish paddled a further 22 miles in six hours. On the third night, 9/10 December, they paddled 15 miles and on the fourth night, 10/11 December, because of the strong ebb tide they only managed to cover 9 miles.

Hasler's original plan was for the raid to be carried out on the 10th of December, but now Hasler had to change his plan, due to the strength of the ebb tide they still had a short distance to paddle, so the remaining commandos laid up for another day, setting off to and reach Bordeaux on the night of 11/12 December.

On the night of the 11th of December, 1942, after four grueling nights of paddling, avoiding German patrols, the surviving commandos reached the port of Bordeaux. The men split into two teams, with Hasler and Marine Bill Sparks in the kayak Catfish taking one side of the port and Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in the kayak Crayfish taking the other side of the port. Using limpet mines, the teams successfully attached explosives to the hulls of six German ships. The explosives were set to detonate in the early hours of the morning, ensuring the commandos had time to extract themselves from the immediate area.

The raiders then made their escape, splitting up into pairs and heading in different directions to avoid capture. Hasler and Sparks managed to make contact with the French Resistance and began their journey south towards Spain. Laver and Ellery, however, were not as fortunate. They were captured by the Germans a few days later and executed, as part of Hitler's infamous commando order. Hasler and Sparks, after a harrowing journey through occupied France, eventually reached Spain and were repatriated to the United Kingdom via Gibraltar in April 1943.

The Aftermath and Impact of Operation Frankton

Operation Frankton was a tactical success, with 2 ships sunk, 2 ships several damaged and a further 2 ships slightly damaged. The damage to the ships and the resulting disruption to German supply lines had a significant impact on the war effort. The raid also had a profound psychological effect, demonstrating that even heavily guarded ports were vulnerable to small, highly trained commando units.

However, the mission came at a high cost. Of the 10 men who set out on the raid, only 2 survived, Hasler and Bill Sparks, 6 were captured and executed by the Germans, while 2 were lost at sea. Despite these losses, the bravery and determination of the Royal Marines became a symbol of courage and ingenuity.

Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, later praised the operation, stating that it shortened the war by six months. While this claim is difficult to verify, there is no doubt that Operation Frankton had a significant impact on the course of the war, both strategically and symbolically. The Germans defined the raid as the most daring raid of the Second World War.

The Parallel Mission by the Special Operations Executive (SOE)

While Operation Frankton is the most well-known raid on Bordeaux, it is important to note that the SOE had also planned a 2 part parallel mission against the same targets. The SOE, a British organization responsible for conducting espionage, and sabotage in occupied Europe, recognized the importance of disrupting German supply lines in Bordeaux.

A team led by Claude de Baissac of the Special Operations Executive were preparing to take explosives onto the ships when he heard the explosions of Hasler's limpet mines. The loss of the opportunity for Hasler and de Baissac to work together to strike a harder blow against the Germans was a hard lesson.

The other aspect of the SOE's plan was codenamed "Operation Josephine B," which involved a sabotage mission aimed at destroying the electricity supply to the port of Bordeaux. The mission was to be carried out by a team of SOE and French resistance, who would infiltrate the power station and plant explosives to disable the facility. The objective was to cut off electricity to the port, rendering the German ships and facilities inoperable.

Operation Josephine B was planned to take place around the same time as Operation Frankton, this aspect of the SOE mission was delayed due to difficulties in securing the necessary explosives and logistical support. By the time the mission was ready to go ahead, Operation Frankton had already been executed.

Despite the delay, Operation Josephine B was eventually carried out in June 1943, and the power station was successfully sabotaged. The mission achieved its objective, but the impact was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the ships in the port had already been severely damaged by Operation Frankton. The SOE's mission, while important, is often overshadowed by the daring and dramatic nature of the Royal Marines' raid.

The SOE was aware of the Royal Marines' mission, but the Royal Marines were unaware of the SOE mission due to SOE's secrecy policy. However, after Operation Frankton a clearing and controlling house was set up that would coordinate all special operations in the future ensuring that missions did not clash, this process is still in place today.

In conclusion, Operation Frankton stands as a testament to the courage, ingenuity, and determination of the Royal Marines during the Second World War. The raid on Bordeaux, carried out by a small team of commandos using unconventional methods, dealt a significant blow to the German war effort and demonstrated the vulnerability of even the most heavily defended targets.

The operation also highlighted the importance of coordinated efforts in warfare, as the separately planned SOE mission against the same targets showed. While both missions were successful in their own right, the lack of coordination between these missions is a reminder of the challenges faced by Allied forces in executing complex operations during the Second World War and the loss of a greater blow to the Germans.

The legacy of Operation Frankton lives on, not only in military history but also in the broader narrative of the Second World War. The bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Marines continue to inspire generations of military personnel and serve as a powerful example of what can be achieved through courage, ingenuity, and determination in the face of overwhelming odds.

Notes:

The Bordeaux raiding team consisted of:

A Division

Blondie Hasler and Marine Bill Sparks in kayak Catfish.

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in kayak Crayfish.

Corporal George Sheard and Marine David Moffatt in kayak Conger.

B Division

Lieutenant John Mackinnon and Marine James Conway in kayak Cuttlefish.

Sergeant Samuel Wallace and Marine Robert Ewart in kayak Coalfish.

Marine W. A. Ellery and Marine E. Fisher in kayak Cachalot.

A thirteenth man was taken as a reserve, Marine Norman Colley.

Blockade runner

A blockade runner is a light fast merchant vessel used to evade a naval blockade of a port or strait. In addition to, speed it uses stealth, blockade runners transport cargo, such as food or arms to a blockaded city.

The Special Boat Service

The Special Boat Service (SBS) is a special forces unit of the United Kingdom under the control of Royal Navy admiralty and part of the Royal Marine Commando.

The SBS traces its origins back to the Second World War when the Army Special Boat Section was formed in 1940 as a sub-unit of the Special Air Service, (SAS). However, after the Second World War, the Royal Navy through the Royal Marines commando formed the SBS special forces, initially as the Special Boat Company in 1951 then re-designated as the Special Boat Squadron in 1974—until on the 28th of July, 1987 the unit was formally renamed as the Special Boat Service, bringing it inline from a naming point of view with the army special forces unit the Special Air Service, (SAS), warranting the SBS its own budget.

The reformation of the SBS after the Second World War as part of the Royal Marine Commandos is in part due to Operation Frankton by the Royal Marine Boom Patrol Detachment (RMBPD).

Words of Lord Mountbatten, the commander of Combined Operations

Mountbatten's words are carved into a stone at the Royal Marine Commando base in Poole, Dorset, (the current headquarters of the SBS).

"Of the many brave and dashing raids carried out by the men of Combined Operations Command none was more courageous or imaginative than Operation Frankton".

Point of interest:

The reader may be interested to know that the author of this article personally met and knew both Blondie Hasler and Bill Sparks in the early 1980s.

Herbert George "Blondie" Hasler, DSO, OBE

Herbert George "Blondie" Hasler, DSO, OBE (27 February 1914 – 5 May 1987) served as an officer in the Royal Marines and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

He was recommended for the Victoria Cross, for Operation Frankton, however, he was not eligible as his actions were not "in the face of the enemy" as required for that decoration.

William, (Bill), Edward Sparks DSM

William, (Bill), Edward Sparks DSM (5 September 1922 – 1 December 2002) was a British Royal Marine Commando in the Second World War.

He volunteered for hazardous service as a way of avenging his brother Benny who had died on the cruiser HMS Naiad.

One of his three sons Terry Sparks, became a Captain in the Royal Marine Commandos

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in the kayak Crayfish were also recommended for the DSM which at the time could not be awarded posthumously, so instead were mentioned in dispatches.

View Details

During the First World War, the Triple Entente was faced with the very real prospect of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Eager to secure their interests in the Middle East, the British and the French drew up the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region in the case of victory against the Central Powers. Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never enacted, it set the framework for the Middle East’s current borders and the name Sykes-Picot has since become synonymous to many with an era of colonial misrule.

Holly Farrell explains.

*Sir Mark Sykes.*

*Francois Georges-Picot.*

Holly Farrell explains.

‘The Sick Man of Europe’: Why did the Allies anticipate the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire?

By the turn of the 20th century the Ottoman Empire, which controlled areas across North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, was struggling both economically and militaristically. The Ottomans became unable to maintain such an extensive bureaucracy and a vast decentralized political structure. Although reforms attempted to modernize the Empire, these measures were of short-lived success and contributed to a growing debt crisis in the late 19th century. The Ottoman Empire also lost many territories in the decades preceding the First World War. France gained control of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881, Italy took Libya in 1911, and Britain took control of Oman in 1861, the Arabian Gulf Chiefdoms in 1820, Kuwait in 1899, Egypt in 1882 and Sudan in 1899. In October 1914 the Ottoman Empire joined the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, hoping to confront Britain and France, and benefit from German aid.

Drawing up the Sykes-Picot Agreement

Negotiations between the Entente Powers of Britain, France, and Russia for the division of Ottoman territories began in November 1915. They were initially between Mark Sykes, a scholar and guard in the British military during the Boer War, and Francois Georges-Picot, a lawyer-turned-delegate for the French government. However, the eventual agreement was also up to the assent of Russia. All three powers aimed to secure territory, trade routes, and oil wealth, but also had their own ambitions for particular areas. Russia hoped to gain ports in the Dardanelles, including Constantinople, to access trade routes to the Black Sea. Britain wanted to control Palestine due to its proximity with the Suez Canal, and secure access to India through the Persian Gulf. France, meanwhile, was the largest investor in the Ottoman Empire and sought to maintain their influence in the region to protect their investments.

The Entente Powers had already given Constantinople and its surroundings areas to Russia as part of the Constantinople Agreement in March 1915. This crucially granted Russia access to the Mediterranean Sea. Meanwhile, the Sykes-Picot Agreement sought to coordinate Britain and France’s interests in the region. On May 16 1916 a deal was secretly signed between Sykes and Picot and approved by Russian foreign minister, Sergey Sazonov.

Under the terms of the agreement, France was allocated control of Syria, Lebanon, Cilicia, and Mosul, whilst Britain was allocated Baghdad and Basra and northern Palestine (this included the ports of Haifa and Acre, and modern-day Jordan). However, as shown on the map below, these territories were divided into spheres of control and those of ‘influence’. It was decided that Palestine would be put under international administration due to its holy sites. Independent states would be created in the remaining Arab territories.

Britain’s contradictory promises: Sykes-Picot, the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, and the Balfour Declaration

Whilst Britain, France and Russia appeared to have settled their vision for the post-war Middle East, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was threatened by two additional contradictory agreements which Britain had made with the Arab nationalist and Zionist movements.

In July 1915, several months prior to the beginning of Sykes’ and Picot’s negotiations, Hussein bin Ali (Arab nationalist leader and Sharif of Mecca) wrote to Henry McMahon (the British High Commissioner in Egypt) to request British support for an independent Arab state. McMahon was initially reluctant to collaborate with Hussein, believing his territorial ambitions to be ‘extravagant’, however he was eventually persuaded to offer his support. When McMahon replied to Hussein, British and French troops were suffering defeats by Turkish forces in the Gallipoli campaign. McMahon believed that an Arab uprising would distract and weaken Ottoman forces in the region, enabling the Entente troops to make a tactical withdrawal. Consequently, Britain saw an advantage in working with Hussein. Over the course of ten letters between July 1915 and March 1916 (referred to as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence) Hussein and McMahon negotiated a plan of British support for an independent Arab state if the Arab nationalists launched a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. However, the British excluded three areas from the independent state as they claimed they were not ‘Arab enough’. This affected the provinces of Basra and Baghdad, the Turkish districts of Alexandretta and Merson, and the districts of Syria that lay west of Damascus, Homs, Aleppo and Merson. The nationalist uprising began in June 1916 and, although the Entente provided limited manpower, they provided officers, gold, and munitions to support the war against the Ottomans. However, the Hussein-McMahon correspondence lacked the formality of a treaty and its contradiction with Britain’s plans under Sykes-Picot ultimately made it an empty promise.

However, Britain’s conflicting plans for the Middle East did not end here. On November 2 1917 the British government issued an arrangement for Palestine in the Balfour Declaration. In a letter to prominent Zionist Lord Rothschild, the British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour outlined Britain’s promise to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This support was later publicized. However, the question of why the British government issued this declaration has still gone unanswered. Whilst some historians have argued that many members of the British government had Zionist sympathies, others have suggested that antisemitism increased support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Alternatively, it has been argued that Britain was trying to gain the support of Jews across the world, particularly in the US, who the British hoped would take a more active role in the war. However, this declaration was a bitter betrayal for the Arabs.

Despite initially being kept secret, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was eventually publicized by the Bolsheviks in late November 1917 following the Russian Revolution. Leon Trotsky published the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Izvestia newspaper on November 24 1917 to expose the plans which Vladimir Lenin called ‘the agreement of the colonial thieves’. This caused a political scandal for Britain and France and created a strong mistrust between the Entente and Arab nationalists. The British assured their allies in the Middle East that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was merely discussion amongst the Entente powers and that they would stand by the Arab people.

The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, Entente forces (mainly the British) occupied the former Ottoman territories. Whilst the original division of land planned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not materialize during peace negotiations, the borders of the newly created states were similar to those agreed upon in 1916. This was determined in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

Before signing the Treaty of Sèvres, the former Entente powers met at the Conference of San Remo in April 1920 to determine the division of the Ottoman Empire’s territories. Under article 22 of the newly created League of Nations, certain former colonies were classed as ‘mandates’ (ranging from A to C depending on perceived levels of development) if they were deemed unable to govern themselves independently. The former Ottoman territories became Class A mandates, meaning that they had ‘reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such a time as they are able to stand alone’ (as stated in Article 22). As a result, the newly created states in the Middle East became British and French mandates rather than colonies.

Under the Treaty of Sèvres:

· The Ottoman Empire was dismantled

· Turkey had to relinquish claims to territories in North Africa and the Middle East

· Greece gained Smyrna (now called İzmir), Adrianople (now called Edirne), most of the hinterland to Constantinople and the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles

· Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine became British mandates

· Lebanon and Syria became French mandates

· Morocco and Tunisia became French protectorates

· Hejaz became an independent kingdom (it would later unite with Najd and other districts in 1932 to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

· Armenian independence was recognized

· The League of Nations controlled the Turkish straits

· British, French, Italian and Greek troops occupied Turkey

· The Turkish army could have a maximum of 50,700 men, it was forbidden to have an air force, and the navy could have a maximum of thirteen boats

· The Allies were to control Turkish finances

The Treaty of Sèvres was resented in Turkey and popular discontent fueled an uprising against Sultan Mehmed VI. The new nationalist government under Kemal Atatürk drove the Greek and British troops out of Turkey and repudiated the Treaty of Sèvres. Consequently, the Allies agreed to renegotiate the settlement and signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Under the Treaty of Lausanne:

· All the territories given to Greece were returned to Turkey

· All foreign troops were ordered to leave Turkey

· Turkey regained control of the Straits, but they had to remain demilitarized

· Turkey was recognized as the successor to the Ottoman Empire

· The Allies no longer imposed controls over Turkey’s finances or military

· The Allies dropped demands for autonomy for Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia

The Legacies of Sykes-Picot and the post-WW1 settlement in the Middle East

Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never implemented, it set the framework for the modern-day frontiers of the Middle East. This has created a lasting resentment in the region, especially amongst Pan-Arabists who oppose the division of majority Arab-populated territories into separate states and associate Sykes-Picot with European colonial misrule. Sykes-Picot has since been targeted by various groups in the region, including by the so-called Islamic State who declared their intention to remove Sykes-Picot as they bulldozed the border between Iraq and Syria in 2014.

One of the most controversial aspects of the division of former Ottoman territories was the eventual fate of Palestine. As a British mandate, Britain called for the migration of Jews to Palestine, paving the way for region to be declared a Jewish state (known as Israel) once they ended their mandate in 1948. This led to the displacement of the Arab population and the ongoing conflict between Israeli and Palestinian groups.

The post-First World War settlement in the Middle East also lay the groundwork for sectarian conflict elsewhere in the region due to the limited regard for the ethnic, tribal, religious, or linguistic groups of the new states’ inhabitants. Although the British and French eventually withdrew from the region in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been hardly any change to national borders. Crucially, this has left the Kurdish population without a homeland as the Treaty of Lausanne failed to accommodate for Kurdish self-determination.

As sectarian conflict continues in the Middle East, the question remains as to whether the national borders created by the Treaty of Sèvres can survive into the future, or if all traces of Sykes-Picot need to be removed to ensure peace in the region.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References:

Al Jazeera. ‘A Century on: Why Arabs Resent Sykes-Picot’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/sykes-picot-100-years-middle-east-map/index.html.

Al Tahhan, Zena . ‘More than a Century on: The Balfour Declaration Explained’. Al Jazeera, 2 November 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/11/2/more-than-a-century-on-the-balfour-declaration-explained.

Britannica. ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement.

Britannica. ‘Treaty of Lausanne’, 17 July 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Lausanne-1923.

Britannica. ‘Why Was the Ottoman Empire Called “the Sick Man of Europe”? ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/question/Why-was-the-Ottoman-Empire-called-the-sick-man-of-Europe.

Kearey, Kat. International Relations and Global Conflict C1890-1941. Oxford AQA History Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Muir , Jim. ‘Sykes-Picot: The Map That Spawned a Century of Resentment’. BBC News, 16 May 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36300224.

Oxford Reference. ‘Sykes–Picot Agreement’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100546581.

Oxford Reference. ‘Treaty of Sèvres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100457377.

Rabinovich, Itamar, Robbie Sabel, and Oded Eran. ‘A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Current Challenges’. Institute for National Security Studies, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep08741.

The Avalon Project. ‘The Sykes-Picot Agreement : 1916’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp.

The Economist. ‘Unintended Consequences’, 12 May 2016. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2016/05/12/unintended-consequences.

‘The Treaty of Sevres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://historylearning.com/modern-world-history/treaty-of-sevres/.

United Nations Digital Library. ‘Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/829695.

Young, George. ‘Deceit in the Desert: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire’. Hohonu 17 (2019): 37–40. https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/DeceitintheDesertThePartitionoftheOttomanEmpire.pdf.

View Details

In the long centuries when superstition held sway and the lines between humans and animals were more fluid than a flagon of ale, a most peculiar legal practice emerged across medieval Europe - the prosecution of animals. From pigs and pigeons to rats, bulls, and even the lowliest of flies, no creature was exempt from facing judicial scrutiny for alleged crimes against man or God. This bizarre legal tradition spanned over five centuries, indicting and often executing animals found guilty of trespassing, property destruction, or perpetrating violence against humans.

Richard Clements explains.

*Trial of a sow and pigs at Lavegny.*

The Rationale Behind the Madness

The notion of arraigning a barn swallow or bovine may seem utterly ludicrous today, but to medieval minds steeped in religious doctrine and folklore, it was a perfectly reasonable concept. The theological underpinning was that animals, having been granted a place in Biblical scripture and the Christian faith through stories like Noah's Ark, possessed souls and a degree of moral agency. As such, they could be held accountable for their misdeeds just like humans were.

Furthermore, canon law, which governed religious jurisdictions at the time, made little distinction between human and animal personhood. This blurring of boundaries, combined with widespread beliefs in sorcery, evil spirits taking animal form, and anthropomorphic folklore from Aesop's fables to Reynard the Fox, set the stage for animal prosecutions to take root across medieval society.

Farcical Yet Grim Proceedings

Despite their inherent absurdity, these trials followed strict court protocols with a sadistic kind of rigour. Animals were afforded legal counsel, permitted to testify in their own defence (through interpreters, of course!), and endured the same torturous punishments as convicted human criminals if found guilty.

One particularly infamous example of these trials is depicted in the 1995 film, "The Hour of the Pig," which dramatizes the trial of a pig accused of murder in 15th-century France. While the film offers a dramatic interpretation, it highlights the bizarre reality of these proceedings.

Less extreme but no less farcical was the 1519 case of a group of canine delinquents indicted in the Swiss municipality of Basing for persistently disrupting church services with their barking and unpriestly habit of nipping at parishioners' legs. Found guilty of "blasphemous barking" and "unchristian conduct," they were excommunicated from the parish, a punishment likely of little consequence to the canine culprits.

Insect Eradications and Rat Trials

Of course, easier targets for the courts were the ubiquitous pests that plagued medieval life - insects and rodents. In 1478, a plague of locusts descended upon Berry, France, like a biblical hailstorm. After ecclesiastical appeals to get them to leave went unheeded, the insects were taken to court and found guilty of an array of charges, from trespassing to violence against the citizens. An edict of banishment was ordered and carried out through ritual burnings and exorcisms, a farcical attempt to control the uncontrollable.

In 1508, the curious case of Autun, France, saw the appointment of the curiously named "Attorneys for the Defence of the Rats." These brave (or perhaps foolhardy) souls argued valiantly on behalf of their rodent clients accused of ravaging the region's grain supplies. Ultimately, the rats lost the case, and professional rat catchers were hired to round them up and execute the court's sentence of death.

Last Rites at the Gallows

No case better exemplifies the intersection of legal propriety and deranged superstition than the trial of a Rouen pig in 1386. Dressed in a jacket and trousers (one can only imagine the indignity!), the condemned sow was tried, found guilty of killing and eating a human infant, confessed through an interpreter (though the details of this confession remain shrouded in mystery), and was promptly hanged in the public square while receiving its last rites from a priestly executioner. The scene, though documented in a woodcut from the era, defies logic and leaves one shuddering at the extremes of medieval justice.

These bizarre proceedings dragged on until the 18th century, finally fading out amid the Age of Enlightenment and humanity's tentative re-embrace of reason over hysteria and dogma. While manifestly ludicrous by modern standards, the tradition of prosecuting animals serves as an eerie window into a time when logic and hysteria shared an uneasy bedfellowship.

Conclusion

Absurd, merciless, yet strangely meticulous, the practice of indicting animals placed society's extremes on full display - the coexistence of elaborate legal systems, religious fervour, superstitious fear, and utter disregard for reason. With humans now firmly at the apex of the hierarchy of consciousness, such trials are rightly resigned to history's most astonishing legal curiosities. Though the very notion defies modern secular sensibilities, for centuries it was a grim reality when animals had their judgement day in court. Their stories, however, serve as a reminder of the strange and fascinating ways humanity has grappled with the natural world and our place within it.

References

Evans, E.P. "The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals." London: Heinemann, 1906.

Hyland, Paul. "Animal Trials of the Middle Ages: An Overview." The Medieval Review, 2017.

BBC News. "When Animals Were Put on Trial." Available at: www.bbc.com/news

The Guardian. "The curious history of animal trials." Available at: www.theguardian.com

Barber, Malcolm. "Superstition and the Law in Medieval Europe." European History Quarterly, 1993.

View Details

The Siege of Syracuse (213–212 BCE) was a pivotal event during the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE), marking one of the most famous confrontations between the Roman Republic and the Kingdom of Syracuse in Sicily. This siege is notable not only for the Roman military efforts but also for the significant role that the famed Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes played in the city's defense. The strategic importance of Syracuse and the unique defensive technologies invented by Archimedes made this a defining moment in history.

Terry Bailey explains.

*Hiero of Syracuse calls Archimedes to fortify the city.* By Sebastiano Ricci.

The Context of the Siege

By 213 BCE, the Second Punic War was raging, and Rome was embroiled in a life-or-death struggle with the Carthaginian general Hannibal, who had invaded Italy. Syracuse, a wealthy and strategically important city-state, had been a Roman ally but shifted its allegiance to Carthage after the death of its ruler, King Hiero II. His grandson, Hieronymus, had initially taken the throne and allied Syracuse with Carthage. However, after a brief reign, Hieronymus was assassinated, leading to a power struggle and the eventual rise of a pro-Carthaginian faction within the city.

Rome, determined to bring Syracuse back into its fold, sent a large force under the command of Marcus Claudius Marcellus in 213 BCE. Marcellus' goal was to lay siege to the city, retake it for Rome, and neutralize its potential as a Carthaginian stronghold in the Mediterranean.

Archimedes, widely considered one of the greatest scientific minds of antiquity, played a crucial role in the defense of Syracuse. Although his reputation today rests largely on his contributions to mathematics and physics, during the siege, he demonstrated his genius in military engineering. According to historical accounts, most notably from the Roman historian Livy and the Greek historian Polybius, Archimedes designed a series of war machines that helped defend the city against the Roman attacks.

The Roman forces initially underestimated the difficulty of capturing Syracuse. They planned to use a combination of a naval blockade and a land assault to breach the city's formidable defenses. However, Archimedes' inventions dramatically hindered these efforts.

Archimedes' War Machines

The Claw of Archimedes ("The Iron Hand"), one of the most famous of Archimedes' inventions was a massive crane-like device known as the "Claw of Archimedes" or the "Iron Hand." It was designed to defend the city against naval attacks. The Claw consisted of a long arm attached to a series of ropes and pulleys, which extended over the city walls. When Roman ships approached the city, the Claw could be lowered into the water to grasp the hull of the ship. Once securely attached, the mechanism would lift the ship out of the water and violently shake or drop it, often capsizing the vessel. This machine struck fear into the Roman sailors, as ships were unexpectedly lifted and destroyed by an invisible force.
Catapults and Ballistae, Archimedes also designed advanced versions of traditional siege weapons like catapults and ballistae. These machines were used to launch massive stones and projectiles at Roman ships and troops from a great distance. What made these weapons especially effective was their accuracy and the ability to fire at varying ranges, depending on the size of the projectile. Archimedes reportedly calculated the optimal angles and trajectories for launching these missiles, maximizing their impact.
The Burning Mirrors (Archimedes' Heat Ray) perhapsthe most legendary of Archimedes' supposed inventions was a device designed to set Roman ships ablaze using concentrated sunlight. Ancient sources, particularly later accounts from writers like Galen and Anthemius of Tralles, describe Archimedes using large, polished bronze or copper mirrors to focus sunlight onto the sails of Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. Although this story has long been debated among historians and scientists—some suggesting it was more myth than reality—it has endured as part of the lore surrounding Archimedes' genius. Modern experiments have attempted to recreate the "heat ray" with varying degrees of success. While it is unlikely that Archimedes' mirrors were responsible for destroying entire ships, they may have played a psychological role in the defense by intimidating Roman forces, even if simply projecting concentrated sunlight onto the Roman ships.
Defensive Walls and Siege Countermeasures, Beyondhis more dramatic inventions, Archimedes also contributed to the reinforcement of Syracuse's defensive walls and the city's overall preparedness for siege warfare. He designed mechanisms for rapidly reinforcing weak points in the walls and designed traps that could be triggered when Roman forces attempted to scale or breach them. These countermeasures significantly delayed Roman progress and prevented the besieging army from quickly overwhelming the city's defenses.

The Roman Response and the Fall of Syracuse

Despite the effectiveness of Archimedes' war machines, the siege dragged on for two years. Marcellus and his legions were frustrated by their inability to break through the city's defenses. Over time, the Roman commander recognized that a direct assault would continue to be costly, so he shifted his tactics. He tightened the naval blockade and waited for a moment of opportunity.

In 212 BCE, that opportunity came. The Roman forces exploited a lapse in vigilance among the defenders. During a festival honoring the goddess Artemis, part of the Roman army managed to scale the city walls under cover of night and opened the gates from within. Roman soldiers poured into the city, and Syracuse fell to the invaders.

Tragically, Archimedes' life ended during the sacking of Syracuse. According to historical accounts, Marcellus had given explicit orders that the scientist was to be captured alive, likely due to his immense knowledge and the potential value he held for Rome. However, during the chaos of the city's capture, a Roman soldier encountered Archimedes, who was reportedly engrossed in a mathematical problem. When the soldier ordered Archimedes to follow him, the mathematician allegedly responded, "Do not disturb my circles," referring to the geometric figures he was drawing in the sand. The soldier, either misunderstanding or ignoring the orders, killed Archimedes on the spot.

Marcellus was reportedly dismayed upon learning of Archimedes' death, and he ensured that the scientist received full funeral honors.

Aftermath and Legacy

The fall of Syracuse was a significant victory for Rome during the Second Punic War. It removed a major ally of Carthage in the Mediterranean and secured Sicily as a Roman province. Marcellus' triumph over the city earned him the nickname "The Sword of Rome." However, the legacy of the siege is forever intertwined with the genius of Archimedes. His war machines, whether fully real or partially mythologized have captured the imagination of generations.

Archimedes' contributions to science, engineering, and mathematics continue to be studied to this day. His work in mechanics, particularly the understanding of levers and pulleys, laid the foundation for centuries of technological development. The siege of Syracuse demonstrates not only the practical applications of his genius but also the tragic loss of knowledge that sometimes accompanies war.

In the centuries following the siege, Archimedes became a symbol of the intersection between science and warfare, showing how intellect could alter the course of battle. The inventions attributed to him are part of the broader history of ancient military engineering, influencing Roman and later Byzantine defensive technologies.

In conclusion, the Siege of Syracuse stands as a testament to both the military prowess of Rome and the extraordinary intellect of Archimedes. While the Roman victory secured Syracuse and furthered their dominance in the Second Punic War, it was Archimedes' remarkable contributions to the city's defense that left an indelible mark on history.

His innovative war machines not only delayed the inevitable fall of Syracuse but also showcased the power of scientific ingenuity in warfare. The ultimate capture of Syracuse by Rome marked a turning point in the Second Punic War, weakening Carthaginian influence and securing Sicily as a critical province for the Roman Republic.

However, the siege also highlights the tragedy of war, symbolized by the death of Archimedes, one of antiquity's greatest minds. His mathematical and engineering brilliance, demonstrated during the siege, became a source of fascination for later generations, blending fact and legend.

Archimedes' inventions—whether fully realized or part of myth—illustrate the potential for scientific thought to shape the course of history.

His understanding of mechanics, optics, and physics laid the groundwork for future developments in science and engineering, while his role in the defense of Syracuse remains a symbol of how intellect can influence the outcomes of even the most formidable military struggles. Ultimately, the Siege of Syracuse serves as a reminder of the enduring legacy of Archimedes and the often bittersweet intersection of science, war, and human endeavor.

Notes

Sicily was originally taken from Carthaginian control during the First Punic War (264–241 BCE) and became the first province of the Roman Republic. The Kingdom of Syracuse was an allied independent region in the southeast of the island and a close ally of Rome during the long reign of King Hiero II

Point of interest:

One of the most interesting anecdotes concerning Archimedes and the King of Syracuse is the story of him running down the street naked shouting Eureka, (Greek: εὕρηκα, I have found).

Archimedes noticed while taking a bath that the level of the water in the tub rose as he got in, thus realizing that this effect could be used to determine the golden crown's volume, which was a problem the king had set him to discover if the metal worker who had made the crown was cheating the king out of gold by mixing fewer precious metals.

The water is incompressible, therefore when the crown was submerged it would displace an amount of water equal to its volume, thereby, dividing the mass of the crown by the volume of water displaced, and its density could be obtained.

Needless to say, if less precise and less dense metals had been added, the density would be lower than that of gold. This is what Archimedes discovered thus proving that silver had been mixed in with the gold and the metal worker was indeed cheating the king out of gold.

View Details

During the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate States had their constitution. Here, Jeb Smith considers the constitution. He includes consideration of Confederate state sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and anti-discrimination.

This is part 4 in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, and part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here.

*Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, in 1862.*

"When the dogmas of a sectional party...threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established."

Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address, Richmond, Virginia, 1862

"It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholder's reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party."

Robert Divine, T.H Bren, George Fredrickson, and R Williams, America Past and Present, HarperCollins, 1995

The original states that left the Union did so as separate and sovereign republics but soon entered into a confederacy.[1] Their capital was located in Montgomery, Alabama. Delegates from the seceding states joined together and formed the Confederate Constitution on March 11, 1861. The South sought to restore the Constitution as the founders originally intended it to be.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, "The constitution framed by our founders is that of these confederate states." When the state legislators of Texas joined the Confederacy, they informed the crowd gathered in Austin on April 1, 1861, that "The people will see that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is copied almost entirely from the Constitution of the United States. The few changes made are admitted by all to be improvements. Let every man compare the new with the old and see for himself that we still cling to the old Constitution made by our fathers." As historian Marshall DeRosa summarized in Redeeming American Democracy, "The confederate revolution of 1861 was a reactionary revolution aimed at the restoration of an American democracy as embodied in the Constitution of 1789."

While the Confederate constitution was in many ways nearly identical to that of the old Union, the North had taught the South how a majority could eradicate constitutional liberty. Consequently, the Southern statesmen sought to prevent tyranny in their Confederacy. The Confederate Constitution differs from the United States constitution in various areas as the South sought to preserve self-government via diverse self-governing states. To accomplish this end, they strictly limited central powers. As a result, the differences between the documents can tell us about the causes that led to the Southern withdrawal.

Confederate State Sovereignty

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Confederate Constitution Preamble

The creators of the southern Constitution made it clear that the states were sovereign. In the Confederacy, no one would be able to claim that authority rested with the central government as Republicans had in the old Union. The United States Constitution reads, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." the Confederate version reads, "We the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character ..."

As sovereign confederated states, they could exercise nullification or secession to protect their citizens from federal coercion. We will discuss nullification and secession in more detail in a later chapter, but they were the two antebellum modes of dealing with the federal government when it stepped past its delegated powers. In The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote, "It was not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession, because it...was an attribute of sovereignty, and the states had reserved all which they had not delegated." The southern states that ratified the Confederate Constitution kept the right to secession in their state constitutions. For example, the Alabama state constitution reads:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

According to a well-known secession document we call The Declaration of Independence, it is an inalienable right to have a government that represents you and not a distant majority or a powerful national party. Southerners believed this was no less true in 1861.

In response to claims made by Lincoln, the Confederate Constitution also declared that the people of the states had sovereignty and not the entirety of people. Each state was separate from the others and sovereign within its jurisdiction. Decentralization, or "states' rights," allowed multiple diverse sets of governments to coexist; it preserved self-governance and benefited "we the people." Decentralization, or localism, is based on populations creating laws organically for their benefit. To get a sense of what decentralization provides, imagine your preferred political party (not just your party, but your brand of the party) winning every election at every level. Not only that, you would not have to spend time and money fighting the other party to prevent men from gaining power that you don't want them to have. You could create unified blocs of society and live with like-minded people.

On the other hand, centralization occurs when forces far from these self-governing localities impose their ways on numerous smaller localities because of their power and influence. In such a situation, the former free individuals, over time, lose their self-governance and ability to choose from a diverse set of customs. Instead, they become tools to benefit those in power in distant lands under the increasingly conformist policy. The only people decentralization harms are the powerful bureaucrats and politicians. They seek to plunder our wealth to redistribute it to friends and interest groups and purchase a voting bloc to maintain power.

The Southern move towards decentralization is well known and widely accepted. For example, in Redeeming American Democracy, Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa wrote, "The confederate framers placed the government firmly under the heads of the states." In The Confederate States of America, Southern historian E Merton Colter stated, "States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy." In his book Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E Lee, Michael Korda said the South's "first concern was states' rights." In Ken Burn's Civil War documentary, the narrator states, "The Confederacy was founded upon decentralization." Southern writer Lochlainn Seabrook, in his book The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, explained that the Confederacy put "emphasis on small government and states’ rights." Professor Marshall DeRosa quotes Judge Robertson of Confederate Virginia Supreme Court Case Burroughs v Peyton in 1864 as stating, "{The Confederate} Congress can have no such power over state officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states, the foundation of the Confederacy rests."

The South removed the term "general welfare" from the preamble since Republicans used the term to claim the federal government had powers for their federally funded internal improvements. In the Confederate Constitution, the states had the right to recall powers delegated, not granted to Congress. The CSA's 10th amendment gave the state authority over the federal government. Due to the fact the states were sovereign, the Confederacy never even organized a supreme court.[2] When discussion in the South arose over a supreme court, William Yancy of Alabama said, "When we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this court, we have sapped the main pillars of this confederacy." In The State Courts and the Confederate Constitution Journal of Southern History, J G DeRoulhac Hamilton wrote, "The fear of centralizing tendencies, past experiences under the federal supreme court, and a desire to protect states' rights led to the failure to establish a confederate supreme court."

Further, the states, not Congress, had the power to amend the Constitution, and a state convention could occur to modify the Constitution without federal involvement. Just three states were needed to call a convention, so a minority section, as the South had been under the old Union, could prevent bullying by concentration of power within the Confederacy.

The state officials elected senators to represent their states and appointed them to protect against federal officials, they were truly representing their states. They were not just another number to be counted in national party voting wars.[3] Confederate officials working in a state were subject to impeachment by that state. Even the country's capital would not be permanent but move from state to state to avoid centralizing power.

There were no political parties within the Confederacy. Instead of power being handed over to bureaucrats, big industry, and private interest groups, the people would maintain control. The South, in general, disliked campaigns associated with elections, and the CSA Presidents could not be reelected for this reason. In 1861, Alexander Stephens told Virginians, "One of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices—connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the Constitution, which we have adopted."[4]

Fiscal Responsibility and Anti-Discrimination

"One leading idea runs through the whole—the preservation of that time-honored Constitutional liberty which they inherited from their fathers....the rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully recognized—more fully than under the old Constitution...But all the changes—every one of them—are upon what is called the conservative side take the Constitution and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old Constitution is conservative."

Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

The Confederate constitution was more libertarian economically than the U.S. version. In her article, Cash for Combat, published in the Americas Civil War magazine, Christine Kreiser wrote, "The Confederacy was founded on the proposition that the central government should stay out of its citizen's pockets."

The federal government was extremely limited in its spending. The Constitution required fair trade, a uniform tax code, and omnibus bills to be restricted. Because subsidies and corporate bailouts were excluded, lobbyists and bureaucrats would struggle to advance their agendas. To avoid special favors for supporters and to disrupt the lifeblood of corruption and political parties, Congress would handle each bill separately to guarantee that politicians could not sneak in favors for their supporters. This would help encourage actual statesmen to represent their local communities (states) at the federal level instead of purchasing campaigning politicians working for political parties and capitalists.

The post office had to be self-sufficient within two years of ratification. The CSA President had a line-item veto on spending, and no cost overruns were allowed on any contracts. These changes would help to hold elected officials accountable and keep them honest. Politicians would be forced to give an actual cost to a proposed bill, and if it were to exceed the price, they would be held accountable. A failed project due to cost overruns would not only devastate those who pushed for it, but would turn the voters against any future proposed endeavors. And a greater consensus was needed to pass expenditure bills in the first place.

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving an advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21, 1861

Likewise, politicians could not steal from one section of the country and give to another; they could not set one section of people against another to plunder the despised section, and Congress could not foster any one branch of any industry over another. Speaking to the Virginia

Convention, Vice President Stephens said, "No money shall be appropriated from the common treasury for internal improvement, leaving all such matters for the local and state authorities. The tariff question is also settled." These changes would help stifle any internal hatred and anger caused by setting one section or party of the country against another.

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

[2] Such was provided for in article III of the Confederate Constitution, but was never set up.

[3] Of course this was also true of the United States at this time, the situation changing with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

[4] For more examples of the CSA Constitution moving to decentralization, see Redeeming American Democracy Lessons From the Confederate Constitution by Professor Marshall DeRosa; The Confederate Constitution of 1861 An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism by Marshall DeRosa;; The Constitution of the Confederate States of America Explained, A Clause-by-Clause Study of the South's Magna Carta by Lochlainn Seabrook; and The Confederate States of America, 1861—1865 by E.Merton Coulter.

View Details

Two paleontologists, one goal: to discover more species of dinosaurs than their opponent at all costs. The rivalry between Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope went down in history as the Bone Wars or the Great Dinosaur Rush. These names did not come from anywhere. As the conflict between paleontologists grew, a real hostility arose, which often pushed the rivals into unbecoming tricks for scientists. The ruthless fight for fossils was met with criticism from the American scientific community and fascination from the public opinion of the time. Through their persistence and determination, both scientists led to the discovery of a huge number of new species of dinosaurs, and the spectacle of their conflict made dinosaurs more popular than ever before.

Rafal Guminski explains

*Othniel Charles Marsh & Edward Drinker Cope.*

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope: From friends to enemies

The participants in this unusual conflict came from very different backgrounds and had many differences. Othniel Charles Marsh was born on October 29, 1831, near Lockport, New York. He was the third child of Mary Gaines Peabody and Caleb Marsh, who were struggling with poverty. As a child, he began to show an interest in fossils and extinct species, influenced by the discovery of fossils during the expansion of the Erie Canal. Growing up, Othniel was unsure what career path he wanted to take, and his choices were limited by his family's financial problems.

The uncertain fate of the young man was changed by his uncle George Peabody, a financier and philanthropist, who financed his education at Phillips Academy. After graduation, Marsh enrolled at Yale, where he became deeply interested in vertebrate paleontology and published the first scientific papers on the minerals and fossils he discovered in Nova Scotia. Marsh turned down an offer of a professorship at Yale University and traveled around Europe, where he attended lectures and met eminent specialists in his field of science.

In 1863, while at the University of Berlin, Marsh met another American, Edward Drinker Cope, who was also on a scientific tour of Europe. Cope was born on July 28, 1840. He was the son of wealthy Quakers Alfred and Hannah Cope. He had a family reputation as a child prodigy with a talent for learning. This did not please his father, who would have preferred his son to follow the family tradition of farming. Edward intended to go his own way, which led him to the Academy of Natural Sciences, where he worked part-time cataloging specimens. In January 1859, Cope, barely 19, published his first scientific paper on the research he was developing. Alfred finally realized that there was no way he could have kept his son on the farm and decided to pay for his tuition at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as tutoring in German and French. Armed with a solid educational background, Cope became a member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, which opened the way to publish the results of his research.

Cope set off on a journey through European universities and museums at a similar time to Marsh. The scientists quickly took a liking to each other. They were united by their passion and the fact that they had avoided participation in the U.S. Civil War. Their backgrounds and scientific achievements were different – Cope had no formal education and therefore no academic title. He would have been a paltry figure compared to his older colleague, except that the 25-year-old Cope already had 37 scientific papers to his name, while Marsh had only two. Cope was a violent and unpredictable man. Marsh was calmer and more thoughtful. However, both were equally quarrelsome and stubborn. The Americans spent several days together in Berlin, and after leaving the city, they exchanged letters, sent each other photos, and even found fossils.

The Bone Wars: Elasmosaurus and discoveries in Black Hills

At first, there was no indication that this friendship would turn into a deadly rivalry. After returning from Europe, Marsh convinced his wealthy uncle to fund the Peabody Museum of Natural History, of which he became director. Meanwhile, Cope became a professor of zoology at Haverford College. That all changed when the two scientists met at a dig in New Jersey, where some of the first dinosaur fossils in the United States were discovered. After the official dig was over, Marsh, using the fortune his deceased uncle left him, bribed workers at the marl pits to send him all the fossils they found. Soon the friends began to attack each other in publications, but it was Marsh who dealt the critical blow. He announced that Cope’s reconstruction of the skeleton of Elasmosaurus (a genus of plesiosaurus, a marine dinosaur) had one significant flaw. The head had been placed where the tail should have been and… he was right. Thus began a fierce and not always fair competition over which paleontologist would discover more new prehistoric species and put the other to shame.

Humiliated, Cope responded by conducting excavations in Kansas and Wyoming, which Marsh considered his territory. Any pretense of camaraderie and professionalism disappeared by 1873. The western United States was of great interest to paleontologists at that time, with reports of numerous finds coming from there. Marsh and Cope also discovered many fossils, but not all could be counted as "new." Many of the fossils were previously discovered specimens that had to be properly identified and classified. In this field, Marsh was the clear leader, who placed many completely unique species of mammals in a new order of mammals, which he called Cinocerea. Outclassed in the field of excavations, Cope decided to take the fight to the arena of nomenclature and proposed his own classification of mammals, which of course rejected his rival's proposal.

Marsh had no intention of accepting Cope's classification and once again took the fight to the excavations. He saw the opportunity for discovery in the Dakota Territory in the Black Hills, where gold had been discovered, which for a paleontologist meant a great chance of accidental finds. However, the tense relations between the government and the Native Americans living in the area proved to be a serious problem. Marsh, however, was determined to get involved in the conflict. He reached an agreement with Red Cloud, the chief of Oglala Lakota, to whom he promised that in return for permission to excavate, he would share with him the profit from the sale of fossils and support the Native American cause in Washington. Marsh obtained many valuable finds. He also fulfilled his part of the agreement and after the excavations were completed in 1875, he represented the Oglala Lakota and Red Cloud's cause to the Interior Department and President Ulysses S. Grant.

Como Bluff: Final showdown of the Bone Wars

Marsh's financial independence gave him a significant advantage over his rival. He could dig wherever and whenever he wanted. He also spared no penny for people who were the first to inform him about new discoveries. This is exactly what happened in 1877 in Wyoming, where during a hike on the Como Bluff ridge, Arthur Lakes, a teacher, noticed giant bones embedded in the rock. The discoverer reported the find to Marsh, who additionally paid him to keep it a secret. The excavations at Como Bluff turned out to be very successful for Marsh. In the December issue of the American Journal of Science, the scientist described, classified and named dinosaurs known to everyone today, such as: Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and Apatosaurus.

Such huge finds could not be kept a secret and eventually Cope also got his chance to discover. A real war broke out between teams of rival paleontologists. Bribery, espionage and theft were commonplace. There were also fights and throwing rocks at each other. Cope and Marsh were so eager to defeat their opponent that they would cover up explored areas to prevent their opponent from exploring them. Less significant or damaged fossils were destroyed just to prevent them from falling into the hands of their rival.

The excavations, carried out on a massive scale and without restraint, led to financial ruin for the rivals. The scientific world, tired of their spite and mockery damaging the reputation of American paleontology, turned its back on them. However, neither money nor the scientific community stopped Marsh and Cope from continuing their rivalry, which only ended with Cope's death in 1897. Even in the face of death, Cope decided to finally prove that he was better than Marsh, so he had his brain preserved and weighed in the hope that it would be larger than his rival's. Surprisingly, Marsh did not accept the challenge. He died two years later.

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope left behind a huge scientific legacy. Although their hostile rivalry was senseless, it was also effective. Paleontologists discovered a total of 136 new species of dinosaurs including: Triceratops, Diplodocus, Camarasaurus and Coelophysis, 80 of which belong to Marsh. From the point of view of numbers, Marsh won the competition, but the contribution to the development and popularization of paleontology of both scientists is difficult to overestimate.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

· Caparas G., The Bone Wars: How a Bitter Rivalry Gave the Spotlight to Paleontology, “Modern Sciences”, https://modernsciences.org/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-gave-the-spotlight-to-paleontology/.

· Colbert E. H., The Great Dinosaur Hunters and Their Discoveries, Dover Publications, Mineola 1984.

· Jaffe M., The Gilded Dinosaur: The Fossil War Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh and the Rise of American Science: Three Rivers Press, New York 2000.

· Penick J., Professor Cope vs. Professor Marsh, “American Heritage” 22 (5), 2010.

· Shor E., The Fossil Feud Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh: Exposition Press, Detroit 1974.

· Switek B., The Bone Wars: how a bitter rivalry drove progress in palaeontology, “Science Focus’, https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-drove-progress-in-palaeontology.

· Wallace D.R., The Bonehunters' Revenge: Dinosaurs, Greed, and the Greatest Scientific Feud of the Gilded Age, Houghton Mifflin Books, Boston 1999.

· Wilford, J. N., The Fossil Wars, “New York Times”, 1999, November 7.

View Details

The Battle of Cape Matapan, fought between March 27 and March 29, 1941, was a pivotal naval engagement during the Second World War. Taking place off the southern coast of Greece, it marked a significant victory for the British Royal Navy against the Italian Regia Marina.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Italian Battleship *Vittorio Veneto* firing her guns in March 1941.

As the Second World War intensified, the Mediterranean became a critical theatre of operations for both the Axis and Allied powers. Control of the sea lanes in this region was vital for the supply lines of the British Empire and the Axis powers, particularly for Italy, which sought to dominate the eastern Mediterranean and secure its holdings in North Africa.

By early 1941, the Italian Navy had suffered several setbacks, including the British raid on Taranto in November 1940, where the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm crippled the Italian battleships Littorio, Conte di Cavour, and Caio Duilio. Despite this, the Regia Marina remained a formidable force, with superior numbers of surface ships compared to the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet.

The immediate catalyst for the Battle of Cape Matapan was the Italian desire to assert control over the eastern Mediterranean and support their forces in North Africa. Admiral Angelo Iachino, commander of the Regia Marina, was tasked with leading a significant operation to intercept British convoys bound for Greece and Crete. Unknown to the Italians, however, the British had a critical advantage: the ability to decode Italian naval communications, thanks to the work of the Bletchley Park codebreakers.

The breaking of codes by British cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park was one of the war's greatest intelligence coups. By early 1941, the British had made significant progress in deciphering German and Italian military communications. This capability allowed them to anticipate Axis movements and prepare accordingly.

In the case of Cape Matapan, Bletchley Park had intercepted and decrypted Italian naval signals, revealing the details of Admiral Iachino's planned operation. This intelligence was swiftly passed on to Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, the commander of the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet.

With this foreknowledge, Cunningham was able to plan a decisive counteraction. Cunningham, a seasoned and aggressive naval commander, quickly assembled a task force to intercept the Italians. His fleet included the battleships HMS Warspite, HMS Valiant, and HMS Barham, the aircraft carrier HMS Formidable, 7 light cruisers, and 17 destroyers. The stage was set for a confrontation that would decisively alter the naval balance in the Mediterranean.

On the 27th of March, 1941, Admiral Iachino set sail with a force that included the battleship Vittorio Veneto, 6 heavy and 2 light cruisers, in addition to, 13 destroyers. His objective was to intercept a supposed British convoy; however, the real target was an opportunity presented by the British Fleet, which had left its base in Alexandria, Egypt.

As the two fleets approached, the British launched air strikes from HMS Formidable. These attacks, though initially unsuccessful inflicted significant damage, forcing the Italians to alter their course and delay their advance. A subsequent air strike on the 28th of March scored a crucial hit on Vittorio Veneto, damaging her propellers and reducing her speed. This allowed Cunningham to close the distance.

The critical phase of the battle occurred on the night of March 28th - 29th. The Royal Navy had honed its night-fighting skills, a domain in which the Italian Navy was significantly less experienced. Using radar technology, which the Italians lacked, Cunningham's forces were able to locate and engage the Italian ships with deadly precision.

The Italian cruisers Zara, Fiume, and Pola, along with several destroyers, found themselves caught in a deadly rain of fire from the British battleships. In a matter of minutes, the British guns tore the Italian ships apart. The Pola, which had been immobilized by an earlier air strike, became an easy target and was finished off at close range. The Zara and Fiume were similarly destroyed, along with two destroyers, Alfieri and Carducci.

Admiral Iachino, realizing the hopelessness of the situation, ordered his remaining ships to retreat. The battle was a devastating defeat for the Regia Marina, with 3 heavy cruisers, and 2 destroyers sunk, in addition to, 1 Battleship and 1 destroyer damaged with over 2,300 Italian sailors killed and 1015 captured. The British, by contrast, suffered minimal losses, 3 killed, 1 aircraft lost and slight damage to 4 light cruisers.

Key Figures

Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham

On the British side, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham was the mastermind behind the victory. His aggressive tactics and willingness to engage the enemy directly, combined with the advantage of intelligence from Bletchley Park, proved decisive. Cunningham's leadership during the battle further solidified his reputation as one of the Royal Navy's most effective commanders.

Admiral Angelo Iachino

Admiral Angelo Iachino, the Italian commander, found himself outmatched despite his competent leadership and the strength of his fleet. The lack of radar and the element of surprise lost due to the deciphering of codes left him in an untenable position. His decision to withdraw the surviving ships likely prevented an even greater disaster, but the loss of so many vessels and men was a severe blow to the Regia Marina.

The Battle of Cape Matapan was a turning point in the naval war in the Mediterranean. The defeat severely weakened the Italian Navy's ability to challenge British control of the Mediterranean sea lanes. The loss of three heavy cruisers and two destroyers, combined with the psychological impact of the defeat, meant that the Regia Marina would be hesitant to engage the Royal Navy in large-scale fleet actions for the remainder of the war.

For the British, the victory at Cape Matapan bolstered morale and reaffirmed the effectiveness of their naval tactics, particularly night-fighting and the use of radar. It also demonstrated the value of intelligence in modern warfare, with the success of the codebreakers playing a crucial role in the outcome.

In the broader context of the war, the battle helped to secure the eastern Mediterranean for the Allies, ensuring the continued flow of supplies to Malta and North Africa. It also contributed to the eventual defeat of Axis forces in the region, as control of the sea allowed the Allies to launch and support offensives in North Africa, later the landing in Sicily and mainland Italy which led to the eventual expulsion of Axis forces from continental occupation.

Legacy of the Battle

The Battle of Cape Matapan is remembered as one of the numerous important Royal Navy victories of the Second World War. It showcased the importance of technological superiority, intelligence, and leadership in naval warfare. For the Italians, it was a bitter lesson in the dangers of underestimating the enemy and the necessity of modernizing naval capabilities.

In the years following the battle, the lessons learned at Cape Matapan would influence naval tactics and strategy. The importance of radar, training ships' companies in the techniques of night-fighting, and the integration of air power into naval operations became increasingly evident, shaping the future of naval warfare.

The defeat also had political ramifications in Italy, contributing to growing dissatisfaction with the war effort and the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The loss at Cape Matapan, combined with other military failures, eroded the confidence of the Italian people and military in their leadership, setting the stage for Italy's eventual capitulation in 1943.

In conclusion, the Battle of Cape Matapan was more than just a clash of fleets; it was a confrontation between two different approaches to naval warfare. The British, with their emphasis on intelligence, technology, and aggressive tactics, emerged victorious against the Italian fleet. The battle's outcome had far-reaching consequences, shaping the course of the war in the Mediterranean and reinforcing the importance of naval power in modern warfare, in particular the use of aircraft.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

Points of interest:

Italian Admiral Iachino wrote that:-

"The battle had the consequence of limiting for some time our operational activities, not for the serious moral effect of the losses, as the British believed, but because the operation revealed our inferiority in effective aero-naval cooperation and the backwardness of our night battle technology".

Admiral Cunningham

Admiral Cunningham retired as Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, KT, GCB, OM, DSO & Two Bars.

Admiral, (at the time of the battle), Cunningham was so grateful for the code breaker's work in respect to his naval victory that a few weeks after the battle he dropped into Bletchley Park to congratulate the team of ladies responsible for providing him with the insightful intelligence that enabled him to execute such a one-sided victory.

View Details

Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency of the United States shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War, following the tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln. His sudden rise to power presented him with the daunting task of determining the fate of the former Confederacy, its people, and its leaders. This unexpected turn of events placed him in the midst of one of the most critical challenges in the nation's history, thrusting him into the spotlight despite his relatively obscure background. His lack of preparation has echoed down through the ages.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

An engraving of President Andrew Johnson.

Rise to the Presidency

Johnson was born into poverty and did not have the opportunity to attend school. Despite this, he apprenticed as a tailor and worked in various frontier towns before settling in Greeneville, Tennessee. Although he never received a formal education, he compensated by hiring others to read to him while he worked and his wife also assisted him in learning. Johnson possessed a remarkable memory and a talent for public speaking, qualities that were highly valued during that time and served as an advantage in his political career. He began his political journey as a town alderman and mayor, eventually moving on to serve in the state house and senate before being elected to Congress.

Johnson's stance during the secession of the Southern slave states, including Tennessee, demonstrated his unwavering loyalty to the Union. Despite the secession, he remained in his position as a senator, distinguishing himself as the only sitting senator from a Confederate state who did not resign upon secession. His commitment to the Union was further solidified when he was appointed as the Military Governor of Tennessee by Lincoln in 1862. Johnson's dedication to national unity was evident when he was chosen as Lincoln's running mate in the 1864 election, becoming vice president after a successful campaign that emphasized the importance of unity in a divided nation.

With the defeat of Lee's and Johnston's armies, along with the capture of Richmond and Jefferson Davis, the Union had prevailed in the war. But now the great question was how to craft a successful peace. The focus shifted to the challenging task of establishing a lasting peace. The tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln added another layer of complexity to the situation, as Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency amidst a nation grappling with grief and uncertainty.

Lincoln’s Concept of Reconstruction

The post-war period presented a multitude of complex issues for Lincoln and other leaders to address. Questions arose regarding the duration of the occupation, the terms for readmitting seceding states, and the division of responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches in shaping the future of the nation. Additionally, the status of newly emancipated Black citizens in the South and across the country posed significant legal and social challenges that demanded careful consideration.

Lincoln's approach emphasized the swift reintegration of the Southern states into the Union, recognizing the importance of jumpstarting the region's economy and avoiding prolonged occupation. While acknowledging the deep-seated racial tensions in the South, Lincoln believed in the potential for southern unionism to facilitate a speedy reconciliation. The abolition of slavery marked a significant moral victory, yet the practical implications of this monumental change required thoughtful deliberation to ensure a stable and just post-war society.

The "10% Plan" served as Lincoln’s initial policy principle, whereby once 10% of the voters in a state had pledged their allegiance to the United States and committed to emancipation, delegates could be elected to draft new state constitutions and establish state governments. This approach, first implemented in Louisiana during the autumn of 1862, granted a full pardon to most Southerners, excluding high-ranking Confederate army officers and government officials. General Benjamin Butler was tasked by Lincoln to oversee elections in New Orleans for the two seats in the US House of Representatives within the occupied territory.

The 10% Plan gained significant popularity due to its political astuteness. Radical Republicans supported it as it ensured emancipation, while conservative Republicans endorsed it for its potential to expedite reunification. As the New York Herald aptly noted, the art of balancing two opposing forces was exemplified: “… the trick of riding two horses wasn’t limited to the circus.”

With Union forces gradually gaining control over Southern regions, Lincoln implemented this wartime measure to reinstate state governments. The plan aimed to incentivize a swift end to the war and advance his emancipation objectives, as it offered protection for private property but not for slaves.

The Wade-Davis Agreement, or Congress's Response to the Ten Percent Plan

Congress felt that Lincoln's measures would allow the South to maintain life as it had before the war. Their measure required a majority – more than 50% not just 10% -- in former Confederate states to take an Ironclad Oath, which essentially said that they had never in the past supported the Confederacy. The bill passed both houses of Congress on July 2, 1864, but Lincoln pocket vetoed it, and it never took effect.

After Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, Congress had the advantage in shaping policy regarding the South. It imposed the tougher requirements for re-admission advocated in the Wade-Davis Bill, resulting in a prolonged and unsuccessful Reconstruction era.

"Restoration": President Johnson's Plan for Reconstruction

Following Abraham Lincoln's death, President Johnson based his reconstruction plan on Lincoln's 10% plan. Johnson implemented his own form of Presidential Reconstruction, a series of proclamations directing the seceded states to hold conventions and elections to reform their civil governments. His plan called for granting amnesty and returning people's property if they pledged to be loyal to the United States. He issued the Amnesty Proclamation on May 29, 1865.

Southern states returned many of their old leaders and passed Black Codes to deprive the freedmen of many civil liberties, but Congressional Republicans refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions. Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congressional Republicans overrode him, setting a pattern for the remainder of his presidency.

Johnson's concept of Reconstruction was characterized by a lenient approach towards the Southern states that had seceded during the Civil War. He aimed to restore the Southern states to the Union as quickly as possible. He believed that the states had never truly left the Union, and thus, their return should be relatively straightforward. He preferred minimal federal intervention in the South’s affairs. He granted widespread pardons to former Confederates who pledged loyalty to the Union, except for high-ranking officials and wealthy planters, although many of these were eventually pardoned as well. He also thought that Southern states should be allowed to manage their own Reconstruction, including the establishment of new governments and the creation of laws and constitutions. This allowed many pre-war political leaders and elites to regain power.

Johnson did not prioritize the protection or expansion of rights for newly freed African Americans. He opposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves, and vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, though Congress overrode his veto. Johnson's opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves, further fueled the conflict with Congress.

Terms of the Amnesty

The Confederate states were required to uphold the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; swear loyalty to the Union; and pay off their war debt. Then they could re-write their state constitutions, hold elections, and begin sending representatives to Washington.

Confederate leaders would have to apply directly to President Johnson in order to request pardon. Johnson issued over 13,000 pardons during his administration, and he passed several amnesty proclamations. The last one, issued Christmas Day 1868, granted sweeping pardons to former Confederates, including former Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

It required that half of all former Confederate states voters swear allegiance to the US and swear that they never supported the Confederacy. It expressly said that “each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside".

There were 14 classes of exemption. These former political and military leaders had to apply to the president for a special pardon.

“The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation:

First – All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers, or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate Government.

Second – All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion.

Third – All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate Government above the rank of Colonel in the army or Lieutenant in the navy.

Fourth – All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion.

Fifth – All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States, to evade duty in resisting the rebellion.

Sixth – All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.

Seventh – All persons who have been or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eighth – All military and naval officers in the rebel service who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point, or the United States Naval Academy.

Ninth – All persons who held the pretended offices of Governors of States in insurrection against the United States.

Tenth – All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the so-called Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eleventh – All parties who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States.

Twelfth – All persons who at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military or naval authorities or agents of the United States, as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind either before or after conviction.

Thirteenth – All persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.

Fourteenth – All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's Proclamation of December 8, A.D., 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States since the dates of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate – provided that special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.”

References:

https://thereconstructionera.com/pres-andrew-johnsons-proclamation-of-amnesty-and-reconstruction-may-1865/

https://www.nps.gov/anjo/andrew-johnson-and-reconstruction.htm

Congressional Reconstruction, or the Military Reconstruction Acts

Johnson's policies brought him into conflict with the Radical Republicans in Congress, who sought harsher measures for Reconstruction and greater protections for freedmen. This opposition eventually led to his impeachment, though he was acquitted by a single vote in the Senate. Johnson's view was that the war had been fought to preserve the Union, as it was ant bellum. With the war over, he planned to rebuild the country as quickly as possible. He formulated a lenient plan, based on Lincoln's earlier 10% plan, to allow the Southern states to begin holding elections and sending representatives back to Washington.

His amnesty proclamations, however, emboldened former Confederate leaders to regain their former seats of power in local and national governments, fueling tensions with freedmen in the South and Republican lawmakers in the North.

Congressional opposition to Johnson’s policies was primarily the Radical Republicans, a faction within the Republican Party. The Radical Republicans were a group of legislators who advocated for a more stringent and transformative approach to Reconstruction compared to Johnson’s lenient policies. Key figures among his congressional opposition included:

· Thaddeus Stevens: A powerful member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, Stevens was one of the leading Radical Republicans. He championed civil rights for freed slaves and was a principal architect of the Reconstruction Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment

· Charles Sumner: A senator from Massachusetts, Sumner was another prominent Radical Republican. He was a strong advocate for equal rights and suffrage for African Americans and played a significant role in pushing for harsher measures against the former Confederate states

· Benjamin Wade: As President pro tempore of the Senate, Wade was next in line for the presidency during Johnson’s impeachment trial. He was a firm supporter of Radical Reconstruction and believed in using federal power to enforce civil rights and rebuild the South

The Radical Republicans held several key principles that aimed to fundamentally reshape Southern society and ensure the rights of freed slaves. Their approach contrasted sharply with President Andrew Johnson’s lenient policies. There was also a desire among Radical Republicans to punish the former Confederacy and prevent its leaders from regaining power. This included disenfranchising many former Confederates and barring them from holding public office.

Republicans believed in securing civil rights for African Americans. This included passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves. They also supported the Fourteenth Amendment, which enshrined these protections in the Constitution. Republicans advocated for the right to vote for African American men. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Republicans sought to reshape Southern state governments to reflect loyalty to the Union and to ensure the participation of African Americans in the political process. This often meant displacing the pre-war Southern elite from power and instituting new state constitutions that guaranteed civil rights and suffrage for African Americans. They aimed to integrate African Americans into the economic and social fabric of the nation. This included support for institutions like the Freedmen’s Bureau, which assisted former slaves in the form of education, healthcare, and employment opportunities.

To enforce these policies and protect the rights of freedmen, Republicans supported the use of federal troops in the South. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into military districts, where the army oversaw the establishment of new state governments and ensured compliance with federal laws. Passed on March 2nd, 1867, the first Military Reconstruction Act divided the ex-Confederate states into five military districts and placed them under martial law with Union Generals governing. The act also directed that former Southern states seeking to reenter the Union must ratify the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be considered for readmission. The 14th Amendment granted individuals born in the United States their citizenship, including nearly 4 million freedmen. The Military Reconstruction Act also protected the voting rights and physical safety of African Americans exercising their rights as citizens of the United States.

The Conflict

Andrew Johnson and Congress failed to reach an agreement on a strategy to rebuild the nation after the devastating Civil War. The disparity between Congressional Reconstruction, as detailed in the Military Reconstruction Acts, and Johnson's Presidential Restoration plan was evident. Johnson pursued his own version of Reconstruction, issuing proclamations instructing the seceded states to organize conventions and elections to establish new civil governments.

The Southern states, under Johnson's administration, reinstated many of their former leaders and enacted Black Codes that restricted the rights of freedmen. However, Congressional Republicans refused to recognize the legislators from these states and passed laws to counteract the Southern measures. Johnson consistently vetoed these bills, only to be overridden by Congress, leading to a contentious relationship between the branches of government throughout his presidency.

His attempts to remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act, resulted in his impeachment by the House of Representatives. Although he narrowly escaped conviction in the Senate, the power struggle between Johnson and Congress continued to shape the Reconstruction era. Additionally, the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau by the War Department played a crucial role in providing relief and support to refugees and freedmen in the aftermath of the war.

The establishment of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, commonly known as the Freedmen's Bureau, took place on March 3rd, 1865, under the War Department's jurisdiction. Its primary responsibilities included overseeing relief efforts and educational initiatives for refugees and freedmen. This encompassed the distribution of essential provisions such as food, clothing, and medicine. Additionally, the Bureau assumed control over confiscated lands and properties in various regions, including the former Confederate States, border states, the District of Columbia, and Indian Territory.

The Outcome

The Radical Republicans prevailed in implementing their vision of Reconstruction for the first few years after the war. They succeeded in passing significant legislation and constitutional amendments that reshaped the South and sought to protect the rights of African Americans. These included The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Reconstruction Acts of 1867, and other laws that aimed to rebuild the South and integrate African Americans into political and social life. Additionally, The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship and equal protection, and protected voting rights for African Americans were passed Military oversight and the Freedmen's Bureau played critical roles in enforcing these changes, and opposing violent groups in the South. The Congressional Plan of Reconstruction was eventually adopted and remained in effect until 1877.

However, in the longer term, the Radical Republicans' achievements were significantly rolled back during the late 1870s. The disputed 1876 presidential election resulted in a compromise in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. This effectively ended Reconstruction. Southern white Democrats, known as "Redeemers," regained control of state governments. They systematically dismantled Reconstruction-era reforms and restored white supremacy through laws, violence, and intimidation. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These laws undid many of the advances made during Reconstruction. In conclusion, while the Radical Republicans initially succeeded in imposing their Reconstruction policies, their gains were largely undone by the end of the 19th century, leading to nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement for African Americans in the South.

A Better Plan?

Extending the period of federal military presence and oversight in the South could have provided more protection for African Americans and ensured the implementation of Reconstruction policies. This would have helped prevent the rise of white supremacist groups and the rollback of civil rights gains.

Providing substantial economic support to freed slaves, such as land redistribution (e.g., the "40 acres and a mule" promise), would have given them a stronger economic foundation. This could have involved breaking up large plantations and distributing land to former slaves, ensuring they had the means to achieve economic independence. Investing more in education and social services for African Americans would have helped integrate them into American society and economy. The Freedmen's Bureau, which provided education and assistance, could have been expanded and extended. Ensuring the protection of African American voting rights through continued federal oversight and enforcement mechanisms would have been crucial. This could have included measures to prevent voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, such as federal oversight of elections and strict penalties for violations. Building broader political coalitions that included poor whites who might have also benefited from economic reforms could have helped sustain Reconstruction efforts. This would involve addressing class issues alongside racial issues to create more progressive change.

Ideally, a comprehensive land reform program should have been implemented, granting freed slaves their own plots of land for agricultural purposes. The planter class should have lost their privileges and influence. However, the Federal government was keen on expediting the recovery of the southern economy, often prioritizing revenue generation over social justice.

What followed the end of Reconstruction led to a regression in the limited progress achieved in terms of equality, and many of the issues surrounding Reconstruction continue to persist in American society today.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

View Details

The legend of the moon eyed people of southern Appalachia has captivated the imaginations of Cherokee Native Americans as well as European settlers, and modern residents of the region alike. The Cherokee legend proclaims that long before the Cherokee people came to the mountains of the southeast, another race of people called the moon eyed people lived in caves and atop the mountains in large forts. Roy Williams explains.

John Sevier.

The moon eyed people were supposedly nocturnal and could not see well during the day, they also supposedly had pale skin due to their lack of exposure to sunlight. Certain stone structures such as the one at Fort Mountain in northwest Georgia are associated with this legend. The Cherokee legend claimed that the moon eyed people and the Cherokee went to war in the past and eventually the Cherokee drove them out from their mountainous territory. This myth captivated the minds of early European settlers who used this myth to claim the ahistorical connection that a previous white race had built the large stone structures in the Appalachian Mountains that the Cherokee claimed the moon eyed people had built.

The legend of the moon eyed people gives us a unique window into the minds of early European settlers in North America. The claim that a previous white race built the stone structures on the mountaintops of southern Appalachia such as the one at fort mountain spread like wildfire as it entered the public consciousness for Euro Americans. The legend was augmented and reconfigured to argue that the moon eyed people were a lost colony of Welsh men who were descendants of the Welsh prince Madoc who supposedly sailed to the Americas long before Christopher Columbus. This legend spread so prolifically that President Thomas Jefferson included correspondence to Lewis and Clarke indicating that they should keep their eyes open for evidence of “Welsh Indians” in their exploration of the territories included in the Louisiana Purchase.

John Sevier

John Sevier was the first governor of Tennessee between 1803 and 1809. Sevier fought in the Cherokee and Chickamauga wars as Euro-American settlers pushed further into Cherokee territory. Sevier supposedly interacted with a Cherokee chief named Ocotosota in the mid-1780s. The source claims that Ocotosota said that he, "told of the fort being built by white men from across the great water." Ocotosota told him that the ruins atop fort mountain were built by white men known as the moon eyed people. This source however is difficult to determine in reliability since chief Ocotosota died in 1783, probably before governor Sevier ever interacted with him.

Benjamin Smith Barton’s book, New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America (1797) is another source for these early interactions between the Cherokee and Euro-Americans settlers in describing the myth of the moon eyed people. Barton citing colonel Leonard Marbury describes the story in which the Cherokee expelled the moon eyed people from the mountains of southern Appalachia. Marbury recounts that, "the Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain 'moon-eyed-people,' who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." While this source has issues in determining its validity due to the separation of experience between Barton and Marbury, it does provide another clue into the legend of the moon eyed people and early Euro-American colonial thought.

Cultural significance

The legend of the moon eyed people should not be doubted when considering the cultural significance it plays to the Cherokee people. However, early Euro-American settlers’ perception of this myth should be scrutinized appropriately. The legend of the moon eyed people bears a striking resemblance to the mound builder myth which proliferated in early colonial America and into the 19th century. Native Americans told Euro-American settlers that they had not built the mounds throughout the United States. Archeological and historical research has proved the Mississippian civilization of North America built these structures hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before contemporary Native Americans came to live in these regions such as the Creek and Cherokee people. Euro-Americans settlers took this to mean that a previous advanced white civilization had constructed these structures. The legend of the moon eyed people follows the same trajectory. Euro-American used these structures to create a narrative, from the mounds built by the Mississippians to the enigmatic structures on Fort Mountain in Northwest Georgia to lay claim over the Americas in establishing their legitimacy as heirs to the lands. The mound builder myth has been refuted by archeological surveys proving that the Mississippian civilization built these structures. The ruins atop fort mountain will probably follow the same fate as a forgotten ceremonial or defensive structure built by Native Americans in the distant past. The legend of the moon eyed people endures as an important element of Cherokee culture, however any pseudohistorical claims about lost Welsh princes or ancient white civilizations in North America must be cast aside as a byproduct of the racial ideology of early European settlers.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

Tibbs, David (2008). "Legends of Fort Mountain: The Moon-Eyed People / Prince Madoc of Wales". Historical Marker Database. Retrieved April 30, 2013.

"Forsyth County News ('Fort Mountain')". Archived from the original on February 4, 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

Barton, Benjamin Smith, M.D. (1797). New views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Bioren for the author. p. xliv. at Internet Archive

Feder, Kenneth L. (2005). "The Myth of the Moundbuilders" (PDF). Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Central Connecticut State Univ: McGraw Hill. pp. 151–155, 159–160, 164–166. ISBN 978-0-07-286948-4. Retrieved May 19, 2012.

View Details

Although America’s history is rife with rags-to-riches stories, American Industrialist Andrew Carnegie is probably the best embodiment of the American Dream. Carnegie first worked for pennies a day only to eventually become one of the richest men in history with a net worth of around $309 billion in today’s money. Additionally, other historic figures like Harland Sanders and Biddy Mason experienced similar entrepreneurial success and accumulated wealth beyond their wildest dreams. Their fascinating life stories highlight the potential for economic mobility in America as even people from the poorest backgrounds successfully can achieve huge success.

Cindy Cummings explains.

Harland Sanders

Harland Sanders was the multi-millionaire founder of international fried chicken restaurant, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). Born in 1890 on an Indiana farm, Sanders became accustomed to hard work at a young age as he helped his parents maintain the farm. But, due to conflict at home, Sanders moved out and left school at age 13. He held numerous local jobs, before moving to Alabama to work for the Southern Railway. As an adult, Sanders had a further slew of odd jobs, none of which lasted for long: attorney, insurance seller, lamp manufacturer, tire seller, and gas station owner. In 1930, Sanders, who had a keen interest in food, converted his gas station into a restaurant and began to sell popular ham and steak dinners.

Finally, in 1952, Sanders developed his “Secret Recipe” (aka KFC) and patented his unique method of pressure frying chicken. The first KFC restaurant was then opened by Sanders’ friend and franchisor Pete Harman in Salt Lake City, Utah. During the early 1960s, 600 KFC restaurants were opened across locations including the UK, Mexico, and Canada. Finally, in 1964, Sanders sold the company for $2 million.

Sanders’ hard work, determination, and success continues to inspire entrepreneurs, of which there are some 30 million in the U.S. today (although estimates vary). Those serious about launching their business should ideally start with LLC (limited liability company) formation. An LLC is a legal structure that separates a business owners’ personal and business assets. So, that means all personal assets (money, home, and car) remain untouchable if the business is sued. In fact, 35% of small businesses are LLCs, which makes it the most popular legal structure. But always keep in mind, the best state for your LLC is usually your home state. In most cases, home state LLCs are the simplest and cheapest to set up and maintain.

Biddy Mason

Bridget “Biddy” Mason was born a slave and died free as America’s first female real estate entrepreneur. Born in 1818, Mason spent the first eighteen years of her life enslaved in Georgia, before she was purchased by a Mississippi slave owner. In 1851, Mason’s owner moved with her and her three daughters to California, a state where slavery was outlawed. It is here that Mason petitioned a court for her and her family’s freedom, which they were promptly granted. This marked a turnaround in Mason’s life. Over the next decade, she worked as a nurse and midwife for a local LA doctor, and safely delivered hundreds of babies.

Mason was financially-savvy and saved her money. She soon purchased a small piece of land for $250, and became one of LA’s first black landowners. She later sold this property for a profit. Mason continued to buy up property, build commercial buildings, and open numerous businesses, including, a daycare center and grocery store — despite the fact she couldn’t read or write. Other business owners purchased properties surrounding hers and this area became Downtown LA. By the time of Mason’s death in 1891, she had around $300,000 to her name, which equates to $8.5 million today.

Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie founded one of the biggest steel businesses in American history. He was born in 1835 into a working class family, who, in an attempt to drag themselves out of extreme poverty, emigrated from Scotland to the U.S. in 1848. Later, Carnegie would become one of the richest men in history. Carnegie got his first job at 13 as a worker in a cotton mill where he was paid $2.50 a week, which he soon left to start at a telegraph company with a better wage ($20 a month). In 1853, he was hired as a telegrapher at Pennsylvania Railroad and used this time to develop professional connections. At age twenty-four, Carnegie was promoted to Western Division superintendent.

After smart financial investments, Carnegie’s total annual income averaged $42,000, and turned his focus to the ironworks trade — a decision which would eventually lead to his huge fortune. In 1892, Carnegie (along with several partners) founded the Carnegie Steel Company. This business became largely responsible for the country’s newfound status as the world’s biggest steel producer. Financier J.P. Morgan purchased Carnegie Steel in 1901 for $480 million, of which Carnegie earned $250 million. This led Carnegie to be worth $309 billion in today’s money.

There’s nothing like a good rags-to-riches story to motivate and inspire. The impact of these historical figures certainly continue to shape the ambitions of entrepreneurially-minded Americans today.

View Details

The Second World War brought about a new dimension of warfare that saw the utilization of vast and often unforgiving terrains as strategic battlegrounds. Among the most inhospitable of these were the deserts of North Africa. The Long Range Desert Group (LRDG), a special operations unit of the British Army, was formed in response to the challenges posed by desert warfare. Established in July 1940, the LRDG was tasked with conducting deep reconnaissance, sabotage, and raids behind enemy lines but reconnaissance was its primary mission.

Terry Bailey explains.

A Long Range Desert Group vehicle in the desert in March 1941.

Concept and founding of the LRDG

The concept of the LRDG was born out of necessity. In 1940, the British Army faced the daunting task of navigating and fighting in the North African desert, a vast and largely unmapped region that stretched across thousands of square miles. Conventional military tactics were rendered ineffective in this environment due to the hostile terrain and extreme temperatures, in addition to, the lack of water, which all presented significant challenges. The British recognized the need for a specialized unit capable of operating in such conditions.

The idea for the LRDG was proposed by Major Ralph Alger Bagnold, OBE, FRS, a British Army officer of the Royal Engineers who had extensive experience in desert exploration. Before the war, Bagnold had spent years studying and surveying large parts of the North African deserts, leading expeditions, and developing techniques for traversing and navigating the desert, moreover, the techniques needed to extract vehicles.

His geographic knowledge of the region, coupled with his understanding of the challenges posed by the desert, made him the ideal candidate to lead the new unit. In June 1940, Bagnold was permitted to form the LRDG. The unit was initially composed of volunteers from commonwealth countries, such as New Zealand, African commonwealth countries and Australia, individuals were chosen for their physical fitness, resourcefulness, self-reliance and ability to endure the harsh conditions of the desert. The LRDG was structured into small, highly mobile patrols, each equipped with modified vehicles capable of carrying large quantities of fuel, water, and supplies.

Training and Equipment

The training of the LRDG was rigorous and focused on survival, navigation, and combat in the desert. Bagnold emphasized the importance of self-reliance, as the patrols would often operate hundreds of miles from the nearest friendly forces. The men were trained in desert navigation using the Sun and stars, in addition to, the maintenance and repair of their vehicles under extreme conditions.

The vehicles used by the LRDG were a critical component of their success. Initially, the unit relied on Chevrolet trucks, which were modified and would carry extra fuel and water, as well as weapons and supplies. The trucks were stripped of unnecessary weight to improve their performance in the sand, and equipped with wide tires to reduce the risk of bogging down. The LRDG also used the iconic Willys Jeep, which proved to be highly effective in the desert environment.

The vehicles of the LRDG were armed with a variety of weapons, including an assortment of machine guns, including the Bren gun, in addition to, the Boys anti-tank rifles. It is worth noting that captured weapons were often utilized by the LRDG, especially the much sought-after Italian Breda 37 or the German MG34 and later the MG42. The personal weapons of patrol members included the Sten submachine guns, Lee-Enfield rifle and later the Thompson submachine gun. Patrols were heavily armed to defend themselves if necessary, but their primary focus as indicated was on reconnaissance, therefore, avoiding direct engagements with the enemy was key to success.

Operational Deployment

The LRDG's first operational deployment took place in September 1940, shortly after the unit's formation. Their initial mission was to gather intelligence on Italian forces in the Libyan Desert. The LRDG's patrols successfully penetrated deep into enemy territory, providing valuable intelligence to the British Army. This intelligence was crucial in planning the early stages of the Western Desert Campaign. The German and Italian forces were nervous about the open desert, allowing the LRDG to penetrate deep into the Axis power's flank often unmolested offering advantageous intelligence-gathering opportunities.

As the war progressed, the LRDG's role expanded. The unit conducted a wide range of missions, including assisting in sabotage, raids on enemy supply lines, and the destruction of airfields and communications infrastructure alongside the SAS and other units. The LRDG's ability to operate virtually undetected in the desert allowed them to carry out these missions with minimal interference from the enemy, however, aircraft were always a concern. Their deep reconnaissance operations were instrumental in gathering information on enemy movements, which was used to plan large-scale offensives.

One of the LRDG's most notable operations was the raid on the Italian airfield at Kufra in early 1941. The LRDG, in collaboration with Free French forces, launched a surprise attack on the airfield, destroying several aircraft and disrupting the Italian supply lines. The success of this operation demonstrated the effectiveness of the LRDG's tactics and their ability to strike deep behind enemy lines.

Close association with L Detachment, SAS, (eventually becoming the SAS regiment)

The LRDG's expertise in desert warfare soon caught the attention of other special forces units, including the newly formed L Detachment, Special Air Service (SAS). The SAS, founded by David Stirling in 1941, was a unit dedicated to carrying out raids and sabotage operations behind enemy lines. The harsh conditions of the North African desert made it an ideal testing ground for the unconventional tactics of the SAS. Recognizing the LRDG's unparalleled knowledge of the desert, Stirling sought their assistance.

The LRDG provided the SAS with vital instruction in desert navigation, survival, and vehicle maintenance. In many ways, the LRDG served as the operational mentor for the fledgling SAS, helping to shape their desert tactics to match Stirling's vision and approach to warfare.

The partnership between the LRDG and SAS soon evolved into joint operations. The LRDG's reconnaissance capabilities and knowledge of the terrain complemented the SAS's focus on direct action and sabotage.

One of the most famous joint operations took place in December 1941, when the LRDG transported a SAS detachment to raid the German airfield at Sirte. The raid destroyed several German aircraft and marked the beginning of a series of successful collaborations between the two units. The LRDG also played a critical role in supporting the SAS during Operation Crusader in November 1941. As part of the British Eighth Army's offensive to relieve the siege of Tobruk, the LRDG assisted the SAS in conducting a series of coordinated raids on enemy airfields and supply lines. These raids disrupted the Axis forces' ability to reinforce their front lines and contributed to the eventual success of the operation.

Evolution and later operations

As the war in North Africa continued, the LRDG adapted to the changing circumstances. The unit's patrols became more specialized, with each patrol focusing on specific types of operations, such as deep reconnaissance, or assistance with sabotage and direct action. The LRDG also began to incorporate elements of psychological warfare, using deception and misinformation to confuse the enemy. These deception operations were coordinated and led from Cairo by A Force under Brigadier Dudley Clarke.

In 1942, the LRDG was involved in one of the most daring operations of the war— a multifaceted large-scale operation. Working in conjunction with the SAS, SIG and the Royal Navy, and other components the LRDG conducted a series of raids on the port's defenses, paving the way for a larger assault by Allied forces. The operation, codenamed "Operation Agreement," was ultimately unsuccessful.

Working as part of the larger force undermined the efforts of the LRDG and SAS, simply because large-scale operations were not part of the modus operandi of these units, thus ignoring the concept of small-unit operations and the requirement for stealth.

The LRDG continued to play a vital role in the North African campaign until the Axis forces were defeated in 1943. Following the end of the campaign, the LRDG was redeployed to other theatres of war, including the Aegean and the Balkans. In these regions, the LRDG initially operated as traditional infantry.

However, in December 1943, the LRDG was re-organized into two squadrons of eight patrols. Patrols were then parachuted north of Rome to obtain information about German troop movements and also carry out raids.

In August 1944, two patrols parachuted into Yugoslavia. One patrol destroyed two 40-foot (12 m) spans of a large railway bridge, which caused widespread disruption to the movement of German troops and supplies.

In September 1944 a team were parachuted into Albania, their mission was to follow the German retreat and assist Albanian resistance groups in attacking them.

In October 1944, two patrols were parachuted into the Florina area of Greece. Here they mined a road used by the retreating Germans, destroying three vehicles and blocking the road. Firing on the stranded convoy from an adjacent hillside, they directed RAF aircraft in to destroy the rest of the convoy.

The Long Range Desert Group's contribution to the Allied war effort in North Africa and other theatres cannot be overstated. Their pioneering tactics in desert warfare, combined with their close collaboration with the SAS, set the standard for special operations units in the years to come. The LRDG's emphasis on self-reliance, mobility, and deep reconnaissance became the hallmark of modern special forces operations.

The LRDG's legacy is also evident in the continued importance of desert warfare training for modern military units. The techniques and strategies developed by the LRDG during the Second World War are still studied and applied by special forces units around the world. The unit's ability to operate in extreme conditions, far from conventional supply lines, remains a key element of special operations doctrine.

Moreover, the LRDG's association with the SAS forged in the Second World War provided a lasting legacy. The SAS, which would go on to become one of the World's elite special forces units, owed much of its early success to the guidance and support provided by the LRDG. This partnership laid the foundation for the development of modern special operations tactics, which continue to evolve and adapt to new challenges.

In conclusion, the Long Range Desert Group was more than just a reconnaissance unit; it was a pioneering force in the development of special operations warfare. From its formation in 1940, the LRDG demonstrated that small, highly mobile units could achieve strategic objectives far behind enemy lines, even in the most inhospitable environments. Their collaboration with the SAS not only enhanced the effectiveness of both units but also set a precedent for future special forces operations.

Reflecting on the LRDG's contributions to the Second World War, it is clear that their legacy extends far beyond the sands of the North African desert. The principles of adaptability, self-reliance, and innovation that defined the LRDG continue to inspire military units around the world. In many ways, the LRDG was a precursor to modern special forces units that play such a critical role in today's conflicts, proving that even in the harshest of environments, a determined and well-prepared force can achieve remarkable success.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

Notes:

Numerous small specialist units existed in the British forces throughout the Second World War. The LRDG and SAS were just two such units. The collective knowledge and experience of all these small specialist units laid the foundation for not only Britain's Special Forces of today but the World. Although each country trains and operates their special forces slightly differently from one another the foundation and concept of all special forces around the world can be traced back to the numerous individual units formed in the early years of the Second World War including the LRDG.

The Special Forces units formed by the USA in the Second World War worked very closely with the British Special Forces units in the latter years of the war, a practice that continues to this day.

In Great Britain today 4 special forces units and 1 special forces support unit operate:

SAS

The Special Air Service, (SAS), an independent unit of the British Army

SBS

The Special Boat Service, (SBS), is a specialization of the Royal Marine Commandos operating under the Admiralty as an independent unit.

MAWC

The Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre, (MAWC), is a specialization of the Royal Marine Commandos operating under Admiralty control.

SRR

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment, (SRR), is a unit dedicated to reconnaissance within the British Forces. It was formed to relieve the SAS and the SBS of that role.

SFSG

The Special Forces Support Group, (SFSG) consists of elite troops operating in Special forces environments alongside other special forces units.

The SFSG's primary role is to support Special Forces operations. It was formed as a Tri-service group, composed of a detachment of Royal Marine Commandos, the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Air Force Regiment.

Point of interest:

Otto Johann Anton Skorzeny a German SS-Obersturmbannführer (Lieutenant Colonel), in the Waffen-SS known for the Gran Sasso raid, 12th September 1943, studied British Special Forces' tactics and operations intending to develop similar German units.

View Details

When it comes to slavery's involvement in secession, most everyone fits comfortably within one of two groups, neither of which is correct. The first argues that slavery had nothing to do with secession; the other claims slavery was the sole cause. Jeb Smith explains.

This is part 3 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, and part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here.

*General John Gordon.*

"Slavery is only one of the minor issues and the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part is the maintenance of the independence of these states....neither tariffs, nor slavery, nor both together, could ever been truly called the cause of the secession.... the sovereign independence of our states. This, indeed, includes both these minor questions, as well as many others even greater and higher."

-Daily Richmond Examiner August 2, 1864, quoted in Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters Shotwell Publishing 2018

"In his message, Mr. Lincoln announced a great political discovery. It was that all former statesmen of America had lived, and written, and labored under a great delusion that the States, instead of having created the Union, were its creatures; that they obtained their sovereignty and independence from it, and never possessed either until the Convention of 1787."

-Edward A Pollard The Lost Cause : A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates E. B. Treat & Co. Publishers NY 1866

Slavery had varying degrees of influence on the Deep South's decision to secede.[1] There is no question that some in the South were willing to leave the Union to preserve slavery if it came to that. Southern slave owners viewed northern abolitionists as foreign invaders dictating their lives. To Southerners, slavery was a constitutional, Biblical, and state right, and no Northern radical was to have greater authority. Thomas Jefferson said that slavery was "The exclusive right of every state."

The Cotton States had great economic importance riding on slavery, Mississippi alone had four billion dollars’ worth of value invested in slaves, and almost the whole economic system of the state depended on slavery. They wished to defend the financial system that had brought them so much prosperity. Yet even in Mississippi, slavery was not the sole cause of secession. James McPherson quotes the Jackson Mississippian, "Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it."

As I have already mentioned, I think that many causes led to the secession of the Deep South. Yet, I would not wholly disagree if someone were to say that slavery was the leading cause of withdrawal in the Deep South. But there is a vast difference between saying that the South left solely to keep slaves in bondage and saying that the federal intrusion on the states' rights over the issue of slavery was the leading cause of separation. Many overstate slavery's involvement in the Deep South secession because slavery was the "occasion" to which the fight over the nature of the Union was fought.

"That institution is not a cause of this war, but simply an occasion of it. It is only the object against which the radicalism of the North has arrayed itself in Abolitionism. Had not this object existed, that Dragon from the bottomless pit, would have discovered some other eminence of Southern life, on which to expend its fury. We are leading the great battle for the sum of modern history--for the regulated liberty and civilization of the age. It is conservative religion against atheism--constitutional law against fanatical higher law--social stability against destructive radicalism."

-Rev. William A. Hall, The Historic Significance of the Southern Revolution Printed by A. F. Crutchfield Petersburg Virginia 1864

The leading cause of separation was not preserving something these states already had legal protection for, that is, slavery. Instead, it was the federal expansion past its constitutional limits and encroachments upon the states' rights. Is the federal government restricted to the powers given in the Constitution? Or was it released to step outside of its delegated powers, thus nullifying the Constitution and limited government? In 1864 Confederate general Patrick Cleburne said, "Between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter. Give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself."

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-10th amendment U.S. Constitution

"The Constitution... contains no grant of power to the Federal Government to interfere with this species of property...slave property rests upon the same basis, and is entitled to the same protection, as every other description of property."

-Isham G. Harris Call for a Referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention January 7, 1861

In 1862 Rose Greenhow wrote, "Slavery, although the occasion, was not the producing cause of dissolution." R.L.Dabney wrote, "Slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people, but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights." Just as decades earlier, John Calhoun had identified the tariff of abominations as "The occasion, rather than the real cause" of dispute. The real issue was over a limited central government.

Where you stand on the "real cause" will necessarily cause disagreement on any issue that arises; a national bank, internal improvements, slavery and so on. If the two sides fundamentally disagreed on the Constitution and the purpose of the central government, they could then never agree on any of these side issues. In Virginia Iliad, H.V Traywick quotes an article in the N.Y. Times on April 8, 1861, saying, "Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting decision...The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a negro slave on American soil."

Since the ratification of the Constitution, a conflict had been fought over whether we were to maintain a federated republic as understood by the states or if we were to become a centralized nation to benefit the most powerful interests and political parties. This debate raged politically on many battlefields before 1860. However, slavery was the chosen battleground of the nationalists in the fight to transform the Union in 1860. Instead of just a political issue, they would transform it into a moral issue.

The Republicans violated the Constitution and the Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 Supreme Court ruling by trying to decide the fate of slavery by federal rather than state and individual control. Democratic plank 9 of the 1852 elections plainly stated that an attack on slavery was an attack on states' rights; you cannot separate the two issues. You cannot have the federal government decide on slavery without it greatly exceeding its original intent and purpose.

That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

Democratic Plank 1 1852

That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences.

Democrat Plank 9 1852

The South viewed slaves the same way they did any other legal property. If the Government interfered with slaves, what would stop them from doing the same with any other property? If this violation by the Federal Government were allowed to happen, no rights would be safe: The Constitution would then be of no value. The Union of states that delegated certain limited powers to the Federal Government would be destroyed. And finally the Government would become limitless in power.

If the government was allowed to abandon any of its limitations, it would begin to dictate all manner of regulations and exert jurisdiction it previously was never considered to have. After a quick look at our lives today, who can say the South was incorrect in their assessment? The effects of the federal government stepping into areas past its jurisdiction delegated by the states are commonplace today. The Constitution is set aside so long as the masses' emotions are stirred over any one topic. Politicians and media provoke the mob, and no Constitution or ideas about limited Government can stop them. We have become an unlimited democracy ruled by a mob; the North destroyed the old Republic and Constitution in 1860. As a result, most outlaws in America today are found among elected officials and judges, and we simply accept their lawlessness because we have grown accustomed to servitude.

Well before the war, on July 4 1854, famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison publicly burned a copy of the Constitution and spoke of it as a "Covenant with Death, an agreement with Hell." Abolitionist John Brown seceded from the Union and created his own anti-slavery provisional Constitution. In the book, The South Vindicated from the Treason and Fanaticism of the Northern Abolitionists 1836; former South Carolinian congressman William Drayton wrote, "The abolitionists in urging their designs against the South, are guilty of infringing the acknowledged rights of those states ...it looks to revolution, it teaches that the constitution "is null and void" when opposed to their schemes." In other words, whatever the issue was, the Constitution could take a back seat if it impeded the political agenda of the day.

An unregulated democracy, such as our Government today, has more power and violates our rights more than when we were under King George; it is not even comparable. In Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists, Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy write, "By focusing upon slavery, the bona fide story of the death of real states’ rights and the beginning of Imperial America is overlooked...we stand naked before the awesome power of our federal master."

Unlike today, antebellum America was a time when the federal government did not spread into the dominion of the states. Through the states, people were allowed self-rule and self-governance. Southerners understood that if the federal government was allowed to infringe on the states' rights on the issue of slavery, it would become an authoritarian body that no longer followed its limitations under the Constitution. These were the costs of the South's defeat in the Civil War; self-governance, and limited government.

To desire a limited government and maintain the Constitution as handed down for generations, one did not need to be pro-slavery. Northerner writer Frederick Law Olmsted opposed slavery but objected to abolishing it "by federal edict." In 1864, Vermont Bishop John Henry Hopkins wrote, A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery, where he supported the South and the compact theory of the Union, arguing for gradual and consensual abolition.

Southerners heeded the warnings of the Founders. In a letter to Charles Hammond on August 18, 1821, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "When all Government domestic and foreign in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one Government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the Government from which we separated."

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries, thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

– Thomas Jefferson, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank" February 15, 1791

A government of unlimited or undefined powers will eventually become totalitarian. This was widely known amongst Southerners. Thomas Jefferson believed that states' rights were the best protection to preserve liberty and a republican form of Government. John Taylor of Caroline warned, "If a government can take some, it may take all." St. George Tucker taught, "Power when undefined, soon becomes unlimited." In the first annals of Congress, James Jackson said, "We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government." James Rosch quotes John Randolph of Roanoke addressing Congress "If they begin with declaring one law of one state unconstitutional, where were they to stop? They might go on until the state governments, stripped of all authority...a great consolidated empire established upon their ruins...in such a contest the states must fall, and when they did fall, there was an end of all republican Government in the country."

In other words, the only method to prevent an unlimited government is to counter all minor steps it takes beyond its authority. To do so, there must be a check from outside the government itself since it will not limit its own powers, only expand them. In our federated Republic, this check was the state governments who were to maintain the Founders’ principles for their peoples. Future president John Adams, a Massachusetts federalist, agreed that arbitrary power could not be left unchecked;

"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterward. The nature of the encroachment upon the American Constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. "

– John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774

The claim that the Deep South left the Union to preserve slavery does not make sense; no one was trying to abolish slavery within those states. In his book, The Yankee Problem, Clyde Wilson quotes Horace Greeley at the 1860 Republican convention saying, "An anti-slavery man per se cannot be elected, but a tariff, river-and -harbor- Pacific Railroad, free homestead man, may succeed although he is anti-slavery." Historian David Donald wrote, "No responsible political body in the north in 1860 proposed to do anything at all about slavery where it actually existed." On Tuesday, March 5, 1861, the N.Y. Times editorial (which celebrated Lincoln's inaugural) said the president’s address was "explicit and emphatic in its guarantees to the alarming interest of the southern states." Lincoln "Disavowed all thought" of "interfering with slavery in any state where it exists."

On September 23, 1862, the N.Y. Times printed the preliminary emancipation proclamation with a headline that read, "the war still to be prosecuted for the restoration of the union." And in a letter to the federal minister in Paris, the secretary of the state William Seward wrote, "The condition of slavery in the several States will remain just the same, whether it succeeds or fails. The rights of the States, and the condition of every human being in them, will remain subject to exactly the same laws and form of administration, whether the revolution shall succeed or whether it shall fail." Union generals such as McClellan and McDowell returned fugitive slaves to their masters during the war.

Since slavery wasn't being threatened where it existed in the Union, it would be hard to accept that Southerners would fight a war and leave the country just to have slavery extended into new territories. In fact, if slavery were extended, it would provide more competition to the southern slave state's monopoly on cotton. In 1843 many wealthy southern planters and men, such as John Calhoun, voted against Texas joining the Union because they said it would reduce the price of cotton. Furthermore, the South forfeited federal protection for their runaway slaves under the fugitive slave laws by leaving the Union. They were also giving up their right to bring slaves into the territories of the United States.

If the South fought only to preserve slavery, with no regard for states' rights, they could have remained in the Union. During the war, Lincoln told southerners if they laid down arms, they could come back into the Union with slavery intact. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to reconcile slave states back in the Union. John Cannan in The Peninsula Campaign writes, "The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1 and still keep its slaves," and the South understood it as such. In July 1863, a Raleigh newspaper stated, "Peace now would save slavery, while a continued war would obliterate the last vestiges of it." Confederate Major General John Gordon wrote, "At any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union" Yet, for other reasons mentioned, the South chose to continue the fight.

Slavery was permitted in the South, but that does not mean it was always celebrated. Today we have legalized abortion, perhaps some view abortion as many southerners viewed slavery, as a necessary evil.

Virginia freed more slaves before the Civil War than New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New England combined. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said that slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a "Great independent country with no slavery." But for the typical Southerner, the issue over slavery was much more profound as it involved states' rights and the nature of the Union.

"When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government."

-Joseph E Brown Georgia Governor to Jefferson Davis over the Conscription act 1862

In antebellum America, the states resisted federal expansion in various ways. The first issue between central and state governments arose over the alien and sedition acts. Later problems involved internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of the militia, fugitive slave laws, etc. No matter the subject, states generally held firm and fought against federal expansions. The South was doing what states had done in antebellum America, resisting national expansion when it went past its constitutional bounds. The outcomes of the Republican victory have resulted in our current overbearing government, which has no regard for its ostensibly limited powers, proving the South correct.

"The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity, the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the Founding Fathers--a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property, including slave property, and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict. The accession of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening future."

-James M. McPherson Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism A New Look at an Old Question Kent State U Press 1983

South Carolina Secession Document

"The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of confederated republics, but of a consolidated Democracy... the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations."

-Address of South Carolina to Slave-Holding States, Convention of South Carolina 1860

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union. If the state declaration of the causes of secession is read in full, it gives an excellent example of slavery as a state's rights issue. In the document, quoting from a resolution of the state convention of 1852, it was declared "That the frequent violations of the constitution by the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union." At that time they had refrained, but their situation had only worsened and they could no longer remain. In their declaration of the causes of independence, the writers wanted it known that state rights were the true motivator of secession. That is why at first glance through the text, you will see "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES," with minor variations in the phrasing, capitalized three times in the document.

The document goes into the history of states' rights in America. It mentions the federal government's failure to uphold the Constitution and the government's interference with the rights of the states. South Carolina stated that if they were to stay in the Union, the "guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost" and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned six times, states' rights, independent states, and state sovereignty are mentioned sixteen times. States' rights are discussed without any connection to slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states' rights. Just as Southern democrats had been saying for decades in their political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states' rights.

"For more than thirty years the people of South Carolina have been contending against the consolidation of the government of the United States...the United States Government has steadily usurped powers not granted- –progressively trenched upon States Rights."

-Charleston Mercury South Carolina April 20, 1861

Slavery in the Territories

"The struggle in our territories...has not been a struggle for the emancipation of slaves. It has been a contest for power...The Northern people, in attempting to preclude the Southern people, by the legislation of Congress...a party hostile both to the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court, have been placed in control of the Government...Whether all the States composing the United States should be slaveholding or non-slaveholding States, neither the Northern nor Southern States ought to have permitted to be a question in the politics of the United States."

-Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs C.S.A 1861- Provided by the Abbeville Institute September 4, 2014

The fight over the expansion of slavery into the new western territories was a political battle. Were the states coming into the Union allowed their state rights as all previous states had been, or was the federal Government allowed to infringe on those rights and command them? Were states sovereign or subject to federal control? The South fought for these new states coming into the Union to be allowed to decide on their own about slavery regardless of the outcome.

Further, was the federal Government allowed to command where slave owners were allowed to go within the Union? Could they prevent their migration to the western territories, thus giving political control to the Republican party? Were Southerners full citizens in their own country with the same rights as non-slave owners? Would the Federal Government be allowed to discriminate against any minority group that lacked the powers to defend themselves?

But the southern objection was more than a fight for seats in Congress, as slavery was very unlikely to extend west. According to David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered, "Slavery did not go into New Mexico or Arizona, Kansas, after having been opened to the peculiar institution for six years, had only two negro slaves." To many Southerners, the fight was to maintain states’ authority in the Union and preserve the Constitution and people's self-government.

That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery. [Emphasis added.]

-Southern Democrat Party Platform 1860

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

View Details

On June 18, 1815, the fields near the small village of Waterloo in modern-day Belgium witnessed one of history's most significant and brutal battles. The conflict, which marked the final defeat of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, left an indelible mark on the landscape and history alike. Yet, despite the staggering death toll, estimates suggest around 50,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or captured, the mass graves expected to hold the remains of these fallen warriors remain conspicuously absent. This mystery has led historians and archaeologists to a grim and unsettling theory: that the bones of Waterloo’s dead were harvested and sold for industrial purposes in the 19th century.

Richard Clements explains.

*The morning after the Battle of Waterloo on June 19, 1815. By* John Heaviside Clark.

The Carnage of Waterloo: A Battlefield of Corpses

The Battle of Waterloo was a clash of titans, with Napoleon's Armée du Nord pitted against the combined forces of the Seventh Coalition, led by the Duke of Wellington and Prussian Field Marshal von Blücher. The battle raged for eight grueling hours, culminating in a decisive victory for the Coalition. In the immediate aftermath, the battlefield was a harrowing sight. Contemporary accounts describe piles of corpses, wounded soldiers left untreated, and the pervasive stench of death.

Major W.E. Frye, who visited the battlefield just days after the fighting ceased, recounted "a sight too horrible to behold" with "heaps of wounded men with mangled limbs" and a multitude of carcasses. These vivid descriptions paint a picture of immense loss and devastation, yet they also underscore a mystery: where are all the bodies now?

The 19th Century Bone Rush: A Macabre Industry

In the decades following the battle, Europe experienced a peculiar and macabre industry boom, the trade of human bones. It was common practice to use bones as a source of phosphate fertilizer, a crucial component for the agricultural revolution of the 19th century. Historical records indicate that bones were collected from battlefields across Europe, ground into bone meal, and transported primarily to Britain, where they were in high demand.

The industrial use of bones extended beyond agriculture. The sugar industry, in particular, utilized bones in a process known as bone black or bone char filtration. This involved burning bones to create a porous, carbon-rich substance that could decolorize sugar during the refining process. The demand for bone char was significant, as it produced a higher quality of refined sugar, which was essential for the growing consumer markets in Europe and America.

Professor Tony Pollard of the University of Glasgow, a leading expert in battlefield archaeology, has extensively studied this phenomenon. Pollard's research, published in the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, suggests that Waterloo, with its high concentration of casualties, was a prime target for this gruesome trade. He points to newspaper articles from the 1820s, such as one from The London Observer, which reported that "more than a million bushels of ‘human and inhuman bones’" were imported from European battlefields into the port of Hull.

These bones likely served dual purposes: providing phosphate fertilizer for agriculture and supplying the bone char needed for sugar refining. This dual use underscores the macabre efficiency of the bone trade and highlights the economic incentives that drove the harvesting of human remains from battlefields like Waterloo.

A Missing Piece of History: The Search for Mass Graves

Pollard’s investigation into the Waterloo battlefield has been driven by a combination of historical accounts, memoirs, and early visitor descriptions. These sources frequently mention the presence of mass graves. For instance, several accounts describe mass burials at Hougoumont, a key location in the battle. Yet, despite these reports, no substantial human remains have been discovered in modern excavations.

In an attempt to uncover the truth, Pollard and his team, through the organization Waterloo Uncovered, have embarked on a multi-year geophysical survey. This initiative aims to locate grave sites that correspond with historical descriptions. The hope is that even if the bones were removed, there would still be archaeological evidence of the pits where they were buried.

Expert Opinions and Alternative Explanations

While Pollard's theory is compelling, it remains a topic of debate among historians and archaeologists. Some experts suggest alternative explanations for the missing bodies. For example, it is possible that many of the dead were buried in shallow graves, which over time, could have been disturbed by agricultural activity or natural decomposition processes. Others argue that some bodies may have been incinerated in the aftermath of the battle, a practice not uncommon in the Napoleonic Wars.

Dr. Dominique Bosquet, an archaeologist with the Walloon Heritage Agency, emphasizes the need for direct evidence. "While the theory of bone collection is plausible given the historical context, we need more concrete archaeological evidence to confirm it definitively," he says. This sentiment is echoed by other scholars who call for continued excavation and analysis.

Conclusion: A Tale Yet Unfinished

The mystery of Waterloo’s missing dead is a poignant reminder of the human cost of war and the complexities of historical research. While the theory that soldiers' bones were collected and sold as fertilizer is supported by compelling circumstantial evidence, definitive proof remains elusive. As Pollard and his team continue their work, the world watches with bated breath, hoping for answers to this macabre historical puzzle.

The investigation into the fate of Waterloo's fallen soldiers underscores the importance of interdisciplinary research, combining historical accounts with modern archaeological techniques. It is a journey into the past that may one day reveal the final resting places of those who gave their lives on that fateful day in June 1815.

Richard Clements in his own words:

I am a dedicated writer with a passion for history and uncovering its mysteries. I specialize in creating engaging and well-researched content that brings historical events and intriguing mysteries to life. With a keen eye for detail and a love for storytelling, I have written on various historical topics, from ancient civilizations to modern history. My work aims to captivate readers and provide them with a deeper understanding of the past and the mysteries that intrigue us. He posts on X/Twitter here.

References

Pollard, Tony. "The Archaeology of Waterloo: Mapping the Missing Mass Graves." Journal of Conflict Archaeology, vol. 6, no. 1, 2022.

Frye, Major W.E. Aftermath of Waterloo: An Eyewitness Account. Historical Press, 1817.

"More than a Million Bushels of Bones Imported into Hull." The London Observer, 1822.

Bosquet, Dominique. "Excavations at Waterloo: An Ongoing Search for Truth." Archaeology Today, vol. 12, no. 4, 2023.

University of Glasgow Press Release, 2015. "New Discoveries at the Waterloo Battlefield."

View Details

Airships, also known as dirigibles, have fascinated humanity for centuries, representing a unique intersection of science, engineering, and exploration. The journey of airships, from their humble beginnings as lighter-than-air balloons to the sophisticated designs of today, is a tale of innovation, ambition, and tragedy.

Terry Bailey explains.

*The 1937 Hindenburg Disaster.*

The birth of lighter-than-air flight

The concept of lighter-than-air flight can be traced back to ancient times, however, with the musings in the Renaissance period by visionaries such as Leonardo da Vinci, we see the drawings and plans of these concepts.

However, the practical realization of this idea began in the 18th century. In 1783, when the Montgolfier brothers, (Joseph and Stephen Montgolfier), and Jacques-Étienne, launched the first successful manned hot air balloon with Francois Pilatrê de Rozier and Francois Laurent, Marquis of Arlanders onboard.

They stood on a circular platform attached to the bottom of the balloon. They hand-fed the fire through openings on either side of the balloon's skirt. The balloon reached an altitude of at least 500 feet and travelled about 5½ miles, (just over 8 kilometers), before landing safely 25 minutes later.

The balloon was made of paper and silk and filled with hot air, providing a historic flight that marked the dawn of lighter-than-air aviation.

Just ten days after the first hot air balloon ride, the first gas balloon was launched by physicists Jacques Alexander Charles and Nicholas Louis Robert. This flight started in Paris, France. The flight lasted 2½ hours and covered a distance of 25 miles, ((approximately 40 KMs). The gas used in the balloon was hydrogen, the lightest element known. The ability to produce gas from hydrogen was developed by an Englishman, Henry Cavendish in 1776, by using a combination of sulphuric acid and iron filings. This achievement opened the door to further experimentation with lighter-than-air flight, laying the groundwork for the development of airships.

The evolution of airships, from balloons to dirigibles

While balloons demonstrated the feasibility of lighter-than-air flight, they were limited by their inability to be steered. This limitation led to the development of the first airships, which could be navigated through the air using engines and rudders. The evolution of airships can be divided into three main categories: non-rigid, semi-rigid, and rigid airships.

Non-rigid airships, early dirigibles

Non-rigid airships, often referred to as blimps, were the first type of dirigible to be developed. These airships relied on a gas envelope to maintain their shape and used internal air-filled bags, or ballonets, to control buoyancy and pressure. The absence of a rigid internal structure made these airships lighter and more maneuverable, but they were also more susceptible to damage.

One of the earliest successful non-rigid airships was designed by French engineer Henri Giffard. In 1852, Giffard built a 144-foot-long airship powered by a 3-horsepower steam engine. His airship could reach speeds of up to 5 Mph, (8 Kph), and demonstrated the potential for controlled flight. Giffard's design laid the foundation for future developments in airship technology.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, non-rigid airships saw significant advancements. The German engineer Ferdinand von Zeppelin, who is often considered the father of the modern airship, experimented with various designs before focusing on rigid airships. However, non-rigid airships continued to be developed and used for various purposes, including military reconnaissance and passenger transport.

Semi-rigid airships, the transitional phase

Semi-rigid airships represented a transitional phase between non-rigid and rigid designs. These airships combined a gas envelope with a partial internal framework, usually made of metal, which provided additional structural support. This design allowed for larger airships with greater lifting capacity and improved durability.

One of the most notable semi-rigid airships was the Italian-built "Norge," which was used by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen in his 1926 expedition to the North Pole. The Norge's successful flight over the Arctic demonstrated the capabilities of semi-rigid airships and marked a significant achievement in polar exploration.

Rigid airships, the zenith of airship design

Rigid airships, often referred to as Zeppelins after their most famous proponent, represented the pinnacle of airship design in the early 20th century. Unlike non-rigid and semi-rigid airships, rigid airships had a sturdy internal framework made of metal, typically aluminium or duralumin, which supported the gas-filled cells inside. This design allowed for the construction of larger and more robust airships capable of carrying significant payloads over long distances.

The first successful rigid airship was the LZ 1, designed by Ferdinand von Zeppelin and launched in 1900. The LZ 1 was 420 feet long and powered by two Daimler engines. Although its initial flights were not entirely successful, Zeppelin continued to refine its designs, leading to the development of the LZ 3 and LZ 4, which demonstrated the practicality and potential of rigid airships.

Airships in warfare, the First World War

The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 marked a turning point in flight including the use of airships. The German military quickly recognized the potential of airships for reconnaissance, bombing, and propaganda purposes. The rigid Zeppelins, with their ability to fly at high altitudes and cover long distances, became a formidable tool in Germany's arsenal.

German Zeppelins conducted numerous bombing raids over Britain, targeting cities such as London and Edinburgh. These raids, while not strategically decisive, had a significant psychological impact on the civilian population and demonstrated the vulnerabilities of traditional defenses against aerial attacks.

However, the use of airships in warfare was not without its challenges. Zeppelins were slow and vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, in addition to, heavier-than-air machines, (fighter planes), which were quickly developing on a separate path. The British developed various countermeasures, including incendiary bullets, which could ignite the hydrogen gas used in Zeppelins, leading to catastrophic explosions. As a result, many German airships were lost during the war, and the effectiveness of airships as a military tool was called into question.

Despite these challenges, the war spurred further advancements in airship technology. Engineers experimented with new materials, propulsion systems, and designs to improve the performance and survivability of airships. Needless to say, by the end of the war, the airplane had emerged as the dominant military force in aviation, relegating airships to a secondary role.

Key designers and pioneers

The development of airships was driven by the ingenuity and determination of several key designers from different countries. These pioneers pushed the boundaries of what was possible and laid the groundwork for the modern era of aviation.

Ferdinand von Zeppelin (Germany)

Ferdinand von Zeppelin is perhaps the most famous name in the history of airships. A former German military officer, Zeppelin was inspired by the possibilities of lighter-than-air flight after observing the use of balloons during the American Civil War. He devoted much of his life to developing rigid airships, founding the Zeppelin Company in 1908. Zeppelin's designs, particularly the LZ series, became synonymous with airships and played a crucial role in the First World War.

Alberto Santos-Dumont (Brazil)

Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian-born aviation pioneer, made significant contributions to the development of non-rigid airships. In the early 1900s, Santos-Dumont designed and flew a series of small, maneuverable airships, including the famous "No. 6," which won the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize for successfully flying from the Parc Saint Cloud to the Eiffel Tower and back. His achievements helped popularize aviation in Europe and inspired future generations of aeronautical engineers.

Barnes Wallis (Great Britain)

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, an English engineer and inventor, is best known for his work in the Second World War on his geodesic aircraft frame and specialist ordinance, (Bouncing bomb of the Dam Buster raid fame). However, it was his earlier work on the R100 airship, a British rigid airship developed in the 1920s, by the commercial company Vickers, utilizing a geodesic airframe which later was the inspiration for the Second World War Wellington bomber.

Wallis' innovative design incorporated the first practical geodesic framework providing increased strength and reduced weight. Although the R100 was successful in its transatlantic flights, the whole airship programme was overshadowed by the crash of the R101 designed and built by the Air Ministry, a design of different specifications. The disaster led to the abandonment of Britain's airship program.

Airship Disasters, triumph and tragedy

The history of airships is punctuated by several high-profile disasters that underscored the inherent risks of lighter-than-air flight. These tragedies had a profound impact on public perception and the future of airship development.

The R101 Tragedy (1930)

The R101 departed from Cardington on the evening of the 4th of October, 1930, and crashed in the early hours of October 5th, 1930. As indicated the R101 was one of two large rigid airships developed by the British government as part of a plan to establish a global airship network. However, the R101 was plagued by design flaws and structural issues, due to the different construction concepts, that were used on the R100. During its maiden long-distance voyage to India, the airship encountered bad weather over France and several gasbags ruptured leading to a loss of lift. The R101 crash-landed safely at the edge of a wood outside Allonne, 4Km, (2.5Miles), southeast of Beauvais, however, within seconds of a successful emergency crash landing, it burst into flames and instantly incinerated 48 of the 54 people on board.

The R101 disaster had a profound impact on Britain's airship program, leading to the cancellation of airship development in favor of heavier-than-air aircraft. The tragedy underscored the inherent risks and technical challenges associated with rigid airships, particularly in adverse weather conditions.

In the aftermath of the R101 disaster, public confidence in airships waned, and the British government redirected its focus and resources toward the development of airplanes. This shift marked the end of Britain's ambitious plans for a global airship network and contributed to the decline of airship travel as a viable means of long-distance transportation. The R101 crash remains a poignant reminder of the limitations of early aviation technology and the high cost of pioneering new forms of air travel.

The Hindenburg Disaster (1937)

The most infamous airship disaster occurred on the 6th of May, 1937, when the German airship LZ 129 Hindenburg caught fire and crashed while attempting to land at Naval Air Station Lakehurst in New Jersey. The Hindenburg, the largest airship ever built, was a symbol of German engineering prowess and luxury travel.

However, the use of highly flammable hydrogen gas and thermite paint combined with a series of unfortunate events, led to a catastrophic fire that claimed the lives of 36 people.

The Hindenburg disaster was widely covered by the media, with dramatic photographs and radio broadcasts capturing the event in real-time. The disaster shocked the world and effectively marked the end of the era of passenger-carrying airships.

Points of interest:

Even though the early years of airships were tenuous and fraught with issues, airships are now making a resurgence today. However, with advancements in technology airships of today are far safer than airships of the 1920s and 1930s. The modern use of airships takes advantage of their unique ability to hover in place, their long endurance, and their ability to carry heavy loads with minimal infrastructure requirements.

Some modern airship deployments

Border security

Some countries' border services utilize airships for border surveillance due to their ability to loiter over a specific area for extended periods. They can be equipped with high-resolution cameras, radar, and other sensors to monitor large areas continuously.

Environmental services

Whereas, environmental services find the same qualities useful and deploy airships to monitor environmental changes, such as deforestation, wildlife movements, and ocean conditions. Their ability to fly at low speeds and altitudes makes them ideal for detailed observation over time.

Advertising

The world of advertising utilize blimps at large events, such as sports games or festivals, where they are used to display advertisements. Their large surface area and slow movement make them highly visible and effective for marketing purposes.

Aerial filming platforms

Needless to say, the use of airships for aerial filming to capture footage is very popular, especially in scenarios where a stable platform is needed for extended periods. They are often preferred over helicopters for this purpose due to their quieter operation and ability to stay airborne longer.

Specialist lift platforms

Airships provide the perfect platform for heavy lift operations with specialist airships designed to transport heavy cargo to remote or difficult-to-access areas. They can carry loads that are too large or heavy for small conventional aircraft where landing facilities are difficult to access.

Humanitarian missions

These same qualities also make airships suitable for humanitarian aid, having the ability to deliver humanitarian aid to disaster-stricken regions, particularly where infrastructure is damaged or non-existent. Their ability to land almost anywhere and carry significant payloads makes them valuable in these scenarios.

Tourism

Furthermore, modern airships are very suitable as tourist platforms for aerial sightseeing that offer a unique and scenic way to experience landscapes, particularly over cities, natural wonders, or historical sites. These tours are popular in regions where the landscape is particularly striking, and the slow, low-altitude flight provides a different perspective compared to airplanes or helicopters.

Scientific research and space exploration

The resurgence of airships also provides stable structures for scientific work such as atmospheric studies and weather patterns. Their ability to hover and move slowly through different atmospheric layers allows scientists to gather detailed data.

Moreover, the use of airships is undergoing serious consideration for future space-related missions with ongoing research into the potential usage of airships as platforms for space observatories or as launch platforms for small satellites. Their stability and high-altitude capabilities make them suitable for such experiments.

Military

In today's world, some countries are going back to airships for specialist military applications, such as reconnaissance missions, taking advantage of their endurance and ability to stay aloft for extended periods. They can carry surveillance equipment, communication relays, and even unmanned systems.

The use of airships not only offers the military but also commercial communication service providers communication platforms, providing coverage in areas where traditional infrastructure is lacking or has been destroyed.

Urban transportation

Furthermore, airships can play a crucial role in urban transportation mobility. Numerous transportation organizations and think tanks are exploring the use of airships for urban mobility, particularly in congested cities. These concepts are still in development but represent a potential future application of airship technology.

Green logistics

Finally, airships offer a Green logistical option as an eco-friendly transportation system, simply because airship platforms consume less fuel than conventional aircraft, especially over long distances, making airships very attractive for green logistics solutions in the future.

Modern airships benefit from advancements in materials, avionics, and propulsion systems, making modern designs safer, more efficient, and much more versatile than the early 1920s and 1930s predecessors. While they may not be as prominent as they were during their golden age, airships continue to serve important and diverse roles in various sectors and assuredly will become far more prominent in the future.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

View Details

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election sees Donald Trump face off against Kamala Harris. But what the Ancient Greeks teach us about truth and the election? In this fascinating piece, we get an explanation from author Daniel W. Lawrence, PhD.

A detail from *The School of Athens* by Raffaello Sanzio, 1509. Plato is on the left and Aristotle on the right.

Weaponized Digital Advertising

With the 2024 United States presidential election around the corner, political parties have already ramped up their advertising spending to attempt to persuade voters to cast their ballot in a particular direction this November. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Trump campaign was spending around $1 million per day on Facebook advertisements through their partner, Cambridge Analytica, who weaponized psychographic data to target who they identified as particularly persuadable voters (a group they internally labelled "The Persuadables").

It's a troubling saga documented well by Professor David Carroll in the very watchable and worthwhile documentary, The Great Hack. In fact, it was Cambridge Analytica who designed the "Lock Her Up" attack campaign against Hillary Clinton for the Trump team--there's more than a little irony looking back on these tactics, as it should be clear to most readers which of the two 2016 presidential candidates has been found guilty by a jury and may be more worthy of being attached to the slogan designed by Cambridge Analytica.

Lest you think I'm being partisan, it was widely reported that Democrats were already outspending Republicans by more than twofold in May 2024, with a total of $72.1 million spent on advertising by both parties in just the short period between March 6, 2024 and May 26, 2024. While parties were spending $1 million a day in 2016, those numbers have increased significantly in the interim, and the sophisticated digital advertising tactics they're employing directly target individuals in specific geographic areas and use troves of user data to hone in on precise demographics.

While many of us like to think we are free-thinking, rational individuals who come to our own conclusions and make our own decisions, it doesn't take much reflection on global history to realize that we can be easily persuaded. Hitler leveraged mass communication technologies and fiery speeches to convince millions of Germans to commit horrific atrocities in the 20th century in a world war that threatened democracy across the planet.

Fortunately for us, we receive from the wisdom of the ancient Greeks the arts of rhetoric and philosophy, which can help inoculate ourselves against the bombardment of messaging we face in our daily lives. With Americans now spending more than 3 1/2 hours on their smartphones every day, with more than three billion new Facebook posts being created daily and more than 100 million users leveraging ChatGPT and similar AI technologies to quickly generate content for social media, we live in a super-charged, super-confusing information environment where it is harder than ever to tell fact from fiction. I believe the lessons on truth and persuasion from the ancient Greeks that we receive from Plato and Aristotle are more important now than ever, as they can help us develop the critical skills needed to sift through the onslaught of information we receive not just from political parties but also from private companies, organizations, and governments.

What is Truth, and Who Can We Trust?

When we’re faced with evaluating the truth of a claim, we can boil down the whole, complex equation to a simple, four-part question: what is the credibility of a source or speaker, what are they trying to make me do or believe, what techniques are they using to make me feel or think that way, and why are they doing it? But no single part of this question is easy to answer. As one team of disinformation researchers wrote in their 2017 study, “Determining who’s behind information and whether it’s worthy of our trust is more complex than a true/false dichotomy.” More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle wrote about ethos and the credibility of speakers, as far back as 350 BCE. Now, we are just as likely to be fooled by a website, social media post, or vlog as we are to be persuaded by a person physically speaking. But we tend to fall into a default position of trust. If an article, post, speaker, or web page looks vaguely well designed and similar to other things we’ve read before, we tend to say, “Sure, that looks legitimate! Why not?” without questioning the purpose, intent, or origin of the information.

Credibility is difficult to assess; when we see a well-groomed man in a sharp suit and shiny tie on a cable network—or even in a YouTube video—we are immediately tricked into thinking the person is credible. It’s something like the Ted Bundy effect. The infamous serial killer dressed well, spoke intelligently, and carried himself like a well-meaning citizen. In this way, he was able to lure unsuspecting people to horrific deaths at his hands. All the time, we are being tricked in the same fashion. Just because someone is wearing fancy clothes and is sitting in front of a green screen doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about. In truth, it doesn’t mean anything other than that they purchased a suit, tie, and green screen, and maybe they know how to use some video-editing software. In the same way, we too easily accept the information we read in online spaces to be valid simply because it’s there. We think, perhaps even at a subconscious level, “Well, this web page looks legitimate enough. It must be true.” But there’s nothing qualifying about the existence of a web page in today’s day and age. Anyone can create a website with a few dollars and an hour of time. Everywhere around us, we must be more sceptical of the credibility of the information that we see, read, and hear.

Too often we see political candidates make speeches on subjects with which they have no formal background. We’ve never elected a person with a PhD in Environmental Science to the presidency of the United States, yet every candidate for the position speaks confidently and unashamedly about environmental policy as though they are an expert in that field. When we ask these questions—what is the credibility of a source? What is it trying to make me do or think? How is it doing that? and Why are they doing it?—we start to engage in a process of rhetorical analysis. That is, we’re taking a critical step to stop messages from spellbinding us and working us over, and we start to assess communication in a more objective way.

Take a video advertisement for example. We see a Subaru commercial showing a car crash, but then the driver and their child safely walk away, saying they are thankful they bought a Subaru. This is trying to work us over through the method of what Aristotle called pathos—an appeal to emotion. The viewer feels something: the fear of losing their child, the trauma of an automobile accident, perhaps a lack of safety in their own vehicle. There might be dramatic, cinematic, swelling music that accompanies the advertisement and plays on our nervous system to increase our heart rates and create a sense of uncomfortable tension, which plays even further into this pathos. Then, the solution: just buy a Subaru. I have nothing against the Subaru automobile company—I drove an old, green, ’98 Subaru Outback for as long as it could possibly last, which was a long time—but I do have something to say about these tactics and how you can be better prepared to spot them, analyze them, and not let them influence your life. This is the power of rhetoric: to ask questions about credibility, intent, and purpose.

The logic of the advertisement is to make you feel fear, and to present you with a solution to that fear: “Buy a Subaru, and all your problems will go away. Protect your children by buying a Subaru.

Buy, buy, buy. If you don’t buy a Subaru, you must not love your children!” Of course that’s their purpose. They’re a car manufacturer. They’re in the business of selling cars by any means necessary. But is it true? Will buying a Subaru protect your family better than their competitor’s vehicle? We don’t know, and it’s too complex of a multi-factorial problem to figure out, even if we had the best data available. The world’s best quantum computer probably couldn’t help you with that one.

What Do We Know? (Spoiler: Not a Lot)

So, who is credible? Should we just trust no one? Credibility is a practical thing to think about. Who are you going to hire to fix your air conditioner, or perform your spinal surgery? You might have to look at several sources. You could read a surgeon’s biography on the hospital’s web page, look up their education, and see where they completed their residency. You could find out where they got their medical degree and how many years’ experience they have performing the surgery. You can ask that question directly to them: how many times have you performed this operation? You can find public data about the hospital to see what the post-operation infection rate is, and how it compares to other hospitals. These are all ways of evaluating the credibility of the institution and its messaging. But you must ask those questions: what is the credibility of a source, what is it trying to make me do or think, how is it doing that, and why are they doing it? Hopefully you come to find out that the hospital has a great surgeon who has years of experience and a great track record that will lead to a positive medical outcome for you. (That was my experience when the brilliant Dr. Craig Coccia performed an L5-S1 microdiscectomy on me when I was still in my twenties.) Skepticism and rhetorical analysis doesn’t always mean we have to end up in a place of negativity or conspiracy theorizing. It’s really the opposite. It just means we’re in search of the truth. We want to find the best solution for our problem.

Yet, we have no perfect institution for discovering truth. Even in the scientific community, for example, data might be faked in a clinical trial to push an Alzheimer’s drug to market in the pursuit of profit, or companies like Uber might hire scientists to publish peer-reviewed research that shows their services in a particular light. Human error and greed are everywhere. And, of course, we can hardly trust politicians and public figures who claim to have the benefit of average citizens on their mind while they use their inside knowledge to trade stocks, gerrymander, lie to the public, and block legislation that would help the average citizen with rapidly rising housing prices, stagnant wages, rising consumer debt, outrageously expensive college education, and a host of other real problems that affect hundreds of millions of Americans. This was precisely what Plato warned about in his dialogue, Phaedrus, when Socrates attacks the Sophists: powerful persuaders who had no sense of philosophy, no sense of ethics.

Politicians, more generally, seem to just kick the can down the road to the next administration, or even the next generation. We have seen administration after administration promise to fix the housing crisis, the global climate catastrophe, job shortages, infrastructure, and to boost the economy. Yet, the planet’s still burning, and people are still homeless and hungry, and it’s hard to say anyone’s listening to public opinion. Aren’t democracies supposed to serve the will of the people? By the people, for the people? If ever there was a group of folks who needed to orient themselves toward truth and read some philosophy, it’s the political class.

While our trust in these large institutions like government, news organizations, universities, and science-at-large is diminishing, the average citizen is also being bombarded by increasingly advanced, technologically sophisticated disinformation and misinformation through complex algorithms, digital media, and social media. Despite our general understanding that big-tech companies don’t have our best interests at heart, North Americans are still using their smartphones, on average, for more than three and a half hours a day and are exposed to thousands of advertisements every day. Marketers and writers have learned to disguise information as opinion pieces—sometimes called advertorials or referred to more generally as “native advertising”—such that it is becoming harder and harder to determine what is organic, natural content in social media and what is an advertisement. And here’s that study again: remember, The Stanford History Education Group (SHEG) found that 96 percent of high school students saw no reason to be suspicious of a web page about global warming “facts” clearly labelled as having been published by a fossil fuel company. We tend to assume that anything we read is credible, and we should be doing the opposite. We should be questioning the credibility of everything we read, see, and hear. Just because a web page looks clean and well-designed doesn’t mean that it is a vessel of truth and facts. It’s easy to build a professional looking website. You can make a whole website in about ten minutes with drag-and-drop web-building tools, which are widely available for anyone to use. If Plato were around today, we'd have to ask him to sit down before he read this study by SHEG.

All of this might seem like an insurmountable and world-ending situation. But it may soften your concerns a bit to know that these are problems humans have been dealing with since the dawn of time. That doesn’t make our present concerns any less species-threatening, but it does go to show something about the nature of human experience and civilization. It’s hard to go anywhere in the world without someone trying to sell you something or lie to your face for their personal gain in the service of their ideology. The short answer to the question of who to trust is: trust no one but yourself. But if you’re going to learn to trust yourself, you must learn to become a better thinker and analyzer of information and credibility, a lesson that we receive from the ancient Greeks, who also struggled with these issues of truth and lies, just as we do today. Because if we are so easily persuaded and deceived, how can we even trust ourselves not to be fooled and not to spread misinformation accidentally? Socrates had insight for this, too: we must humbly admit that we know very little about the world and the universe. Spend two minutes with an inquisitive five year old and you'll see how little you really know:

"Dad, what is water made of?"

"Uh... molecules."

"What are molecules made of?"

"Well, water molecules are made of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, basically: H2O."

"But what are atoms made of?"

"Eh, quarks, maybe? Subatomic particles. No one really knows, yet. They built a big machine called the Large Hadron Collider where they smash the atoms together to see what's inside of them. Strings, maybe."

"Strings?!"

"Yeah, strings, maybe. We're all made up of strings."

Daniel W. Lawrence, PhD is Associate Professor of Writing at the University of Wisconsin - Superior, and author of the new book, Disinformed: The History of Humanity's Search for Truth (Urano World, 2024): Amazon US | Amazon UK

In this gripping narrative, Dr. Dan Lawrence explores humanity’s troubled relationship with truth, from the propaganda tactics of King Sargon of Akkadia to the sophistication of present day hyper-targeted political advertising on social media. Spanning thousands of years of human history, Dr. Lawrence urges us to fight against disinformation and wrest back control of our minds using the critical toolbox of rhetoric: the ancient, lost art of persuasion laid down long ago by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. From the first known author, the High Priestess Enheduanna, to the modern-day developments of social media and algorithmic and procedural communication and targeted advertising, Dr. Lawrence shows how rhetoric is not just a tool to persuade and manipulate, but a toolkit for us all to use to evaluate the onslaught of persuasive messaging that we confront in our everyday lives. The time to take back the truth is now.

View Details

Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) was one of the most dominant politicians of the nineteenth century in Britain. He is well-known for founding the Metropolitan Police Service in 1829 and repealing the unpopular Corn Laws in 1846. These measures were certainly instrumental in providing a degree of stability since they began the process of making streets safer and making bread cheaper for the people, respectively. Yet, Peel is also controversial. Whilst he has been widely accredited with bringing social and political stability to Victorian England for ordinary people, Peel had initially opposed some of the most progressive measures of his day. Furthermore, recent reappraisals of Peel have suggested that his efforts have been exaggerated. It is worth considering the extent to which Peel truly helped create mid-Victorian social and political stability.

Beth Ross explains.

Sir Robert Peel. Portrait by Thomas Lawrence.

Metropolitan Police, Corn Laws, and Social StabilityDuring his time as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, Peel brought in a series of reforms that intended to improve the condition of England. First and foremost was the 1829 Metropolitan Police Act. Prior to the Act’s passing, there was no organised police force in England. The only forces were the Manchester Police and Bow Street runners, who were considered corrupt or unable to prevent crime.[1] In London, the situation was worse; parishes reserved the right to manage their watches independently, and there were generally no police on patrol during the night.[2] An indication of the system’s incompetence before Peel lies in the fact that crime rates in London were increasing. At its peak, one in every 383 people was a criminal.[3] Riots, too, were becoming common. Imminent reform was evidently needed, prompting Peel to respond with a scheme that began in London. A new police force was set up, headed by two magistrates. To increase the morality and efficiency of this force, Peel ensured that the two senior magistrates were “of the highest capacity and character.”[4] It did not take long for their success to become apparent. During the mounting political unrest of the 1830s and 1840s, only London had any hope of maintaining a modicum of peace.[5]This was largely thanks to the establishment of the new police force, whereas other local authorities struggled. Furthermore, the police created by Peel also set a precedent for becoming the model other developing forces would follow over the next quarter of the century.[6] The new force was also instrumental in maintaining order. In 1848, with the Chartists marching on London, the upshot was astonishingly orderly and had a relatively low level of violence.[7] It was said that one of the main reasons for this outcome was the existence of Peel’s police.

Peel’s police force undeniably had a positive impact on maintaining social security and stability. What would essentially have been a chaotic situation was diffused by a police force constructed mainly by Peel. Urgent reform had obviously been needed in this area, and it can justifiably be argued that Peel certainly delivered it. The police force, alongside Peel’s criminal laws, have often been hailed for their contributions in creating social stability. So, too, was his repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Although this was a disastrous move for his party, it improved the hardships of ordinary workers. When the Corn Laws were in effect, employees had to pay extra for bread, a challenging burden in the current economic conditions.[8] The repeal of the Laws benefitted the bottom 90% of income earners, making the movement a very “pro-poor policy.”[9] Unsurprisingly, Peel was widely celebrated and fondly remembered by the people after his death, primarily for repealing the Corn Laws. High bread prices had been one of the most debilitating aspects of nineteenth-century England.[10] Peel had, in effect, taken one of the most significant burdens on low-income families and erased it completely, thus improving their standard of living to a degree.

Limitations of his ReformsOn the other hand, it is also possible that undue credit has been given to Peel for the changes his reforms instigated. With his criminal laws, Peel attempted to encourage juries to convict criminals by removing the death penalty for several offences, believing that juries were far less likely to make convictions for fear of condemning someone to death.[11] However, the reduction in death sentences only started after Peel left his office as Home Secretary in 1830, and noticeable law changes did not occur until the Whigs took power.[12] Executions, the very thing that Peel had sought to reduce, only decreased on a larger scale under Russell, the Whig who succeeded Peel as Prime Minister.[13] In another instance, Peel’s 1844 Banking Act created two separate departments within the Bank of England to maintain regulation. In reality, this had the opposite effect. Because the Bank now could issue loans on the market like many other banks, a surfeit of cheap money emerged. This, in turn, worsened over-speculation on the performance of railways, leading to a financial meltdown in 1847 (albeit a brief one).[14] Ultimately, the 1844 Banking Act was temporarily suspended, attesting to its failure. Peel has even been blamed for “the economic ruin of thousands.”[15]Admittedly, the Act would eventually lay the foundations for Britain’s financial policy up until the First World War,[16]but it cannot be denied that it was a failure in the short term. Therefore, it appears that the credit given to Peel for specific innovations has been over-emphasised.

A Progressive Politician?As mentioned above, Peel was a controversial character. Earlier in his career, he had ardently opposed what was considered some of the “most great progressive movements of the age.”[17] These were votes for working men, Catholic Emancipation, and the 1832 Great Reform Bill. Regarding the Bill, Peel felt that it was extremist in nature and would threaten the current constitution.[18] Somewhat arrogantly, he thought it was wrong for the government to concede to public opinion. Although the Bill only had a limited impact, it did increase the electorate and lay the groundwork for further change.[19] Peel essentially opposed the beginnings of progressive change, which would potentially benefit society. Concerning Catholic Emancipation, he refused to support it at first because Catholics did not swear allegiance to the Crown.[20] While he eventually threw his support behind both causes, it is worth noting that he only supported Emancipation for fear of an Irish uprising in 1829.[21] Had this threat not existed, Peel probably would have remained firm in his original views, thus leaving Catholics vulnerable and without any political rights. Moreover, he also refused to support a bill proposing that working days be reduced to ten hours only. Yet when a twelve-hour bill was proposed in 1843, Peel threatened Parliament with his resignation if it did not go through.[22] He even accepted an amendment to the Mines Bill, which suggested that the age of exclusion from work be lowered from thirteen to ten.[23] Taking these instances into account portrays Peel in a new light. Rather than being the engineer of social stability, Peel instead emerges as a less progressive politician than is usually supposed. Technically, his refusal to support a bill that would reduce the hardships of a working day for ordinary people, alongside his initial opposition towards Catholic Emancipation, meant that Peel was working against creating mid-Victorian social stability.

Political InstabilityWhilst it can be said that Peel at least contributed to social stability in part through his creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, it can be argued that he contributed to stability less on a political scale. During his term as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister, relations between Peel and his party were fraught. In fact, the Conservatives had broken up when he resigned in 1846 and were to see limited power for the next thirty years.[24] Most Historians, by all accounts, blame Peel for this outcome, citing his arrogant and aloof nature as the primary cause. Even Norman Gash, a biographer of Peel known for his praise of the man, admitted that Peel demonstrated these qualities.[25] His relationship with his backbenchers was even worse. They usually received his scorn. Then, on the matter of the Corn Laws, Peel refused to discuss anything with them.[26]

His behaviour towards his backbenchers effectively destroyed the party’s loyalty to him after years of tension. 231 voted against Peel on the Corn Laws, whilst only 112 sided with him.[27] Many of the Tories felt deceived by Peel after he had fought the 1841 election by promising to defend agricultural protection.[28] Peel was hardly wrong for repealing the Corn Laws – on a social scale, they had quite a positive impact. However, from a political perspective, it had the opposite effect since his decision cost the Conservative Party its unity and resulted in its split. The repeal was a success for the nation, but Peel can and should still be held accountable for its lasting damage to his party. Had Peel communicated with his party more and showed more respect for his backbenchers, the general tensions and subsequent split of the party in 1846 may have been avoided.

Overall, Peel was indeed the engineer of social stability to an extent. The unrest that England had previously been dealing with gradually transformed into stability.[29] For the next 25 years after 1846, social discontent was far less prevalent than it had initially been.[30] However, Peel’s contribution should not be overstated. Whilst he undoubtedly played a role in ensuring stability in Victorian social life, he also blocked some of the most popular reforms of his time. He rejected the Chartists’ call for democracy in the early 1830s and late 1840s. Of the significant reforms he did enact, not all had as much impact as has previously been accepted. Besides, regarding political stability, it is difficult to argue that he brought much security to that area, if any. Peel was partially to blame for the Conservative Party’s split in 1846. A compromise may have been reached between Peel and the party had he not acted so coldly towards his backbenchers. As his repeal of the Corn Laws showcases, Peel was a Conservative devoted to acting in the nation’s interests above his own party’s. Whilst this helped to bring about a degree of social stability, it is clear that his efforts have previously been exaggerated and were also at the expense of the political stability of the Conservative party.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Bibliography

Adelman, P., Peel and the Conservative Party, 1830-1850 (London: Longman, 1989).

Beales, D., ‘Review: Peel, Russell, and Reform’, The Historical Journal, (1974), 17(4), pp.873-882. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2638561 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Briggs, A., The Age of Improvement, 1783-1867, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2014). Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/2022035?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1 [Accessed 21 July 2024].

Cragoe, M., ‘Sir Robert Peel and the “Moral Authority” of the House of Commons, 1832-41’, The English Historical Review, (2013), 128(530), pp.55-77. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23362289 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Crosby, T. L., Sir Robert Peel’s Administration, 1841-1846 (Devon: David & Charles Ltd., 1976).

Evans, E. J., Sir Robert Peel: Statesmanship, power and party, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2006).

Evans, E. J., The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783-1870, 4th ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2019).

Gash, N., Mr Secretary Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel to 1830 (London: Longmans Green Ltd., 1961).

Gash, N., Sir Robert Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel after 1830 (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 2011).

Gaunt, R. A., Sir Robert Peel: The Life and Legacy (London: I.B. Tauris and Company Ltd., 2010). Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/anglia/detail.action?docID=676745 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hawkins, A., ‘“Parliamentary Government” and Victorian Political Parties, c.1830-c.1880’, The English Historical Review, (1989), 104(412), pp.638-669. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/570379 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hilton, B., A Mad, Bad, Dangerous People?: England, 1783-1846 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Hurd, D., Robert Peel: A Biography (London: Phoenix, 2008).

Irwin, D. A., and Chepeliev, M. G., ‘The Economic Consequences of Sir Robert Peel: A Quantitative Assessment of the Repeal of the Corn Laws’, The Economic Journal, (2021), 131, pp.3322-3337. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab029.

Morrow, J., ‘The Paradox of Peel as a Carlylean Hero’, The Historical Journal, (1997), 40(1), pp.97-110. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3020954 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Ramsay, A. A. W., Sir Robert Peel, ed. by Basil Williams (London: Constable and Company Ltd., 1928).

Read, D., Peel and the Victorians (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1987).

[1] Ramsay, 87

[2] Ramsay, 87; Hurd, 103

[3] Ramsay, 87

[4] Ibid, 88

[5] Read, 103

[6] Gash 1961, 506

[7] Hurd, 106-7

[8] Evans 2006, 71

[9] Irwin and Chepeliev, 3324

[10] Evans 2006, 1

[11] Ibid., 16-17

[12] Beales, 880

[13] Evans 2006, 17

[14] Hilton, 549-550

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gaunt, 56

[17] Evans 2006, 2

[18] Adelman, 8; Hawkins, 652

[19] Cragoe, 56

[20] Evans 2006, 2; Hurd, 41

[21] Evans 2006, 2

[22] Adelman, 41

[23] Ibid., 39

[24] Evans 2006, 3

[25] Evans 2019, 332; Crosby, 148; Gash 2011, 708

[26] Morrow, 105

[27] Briggs, 294

[28] Evans 2019, 329

[29] Gash 2011, 714

[30] Evans 2019, 334

View Details

The Vicksburg campaign was a key series battles from 1862 to 1863 in the US Civil War. The fighting was focused on Vicksburg, Mississippi. In part two of a two-part series, Lloyd W Klein looks at how Grant devised a solution.

See part 1 on the strategic problem of Vicksburg here.

The Battle of Big Black River Bridge, as shown in *Harper’s Weekly* in June 1863.

General Ulysses Grant had surreptitiously moved his army and navy south of Vicksburg and created diversions to keep the Confederate commander Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton from knowing his whereabouts. But now, he had to cross the Mississippi River to be on the same side of the river as Vicksburg. Porter effectively managed to relocate steamships and transport vessels from the northern region of Vicksburg to where Grant's troops were stationed, ready for transportation across the river. Grant's infantry had advanced southward, and with an abundance of supplies and river transports, the Union Army was finally able to cross the Mississippi River. The Federal landing at Bruinsburg, Mississippi, on April 30, 1863, and the ensuing victory at the Battle of Port Gibson the next day were the start of Grant’s movement toward Vicksburg.

However, the crossing did not unfold as smoothly as anticipated.

Grant's initial strategy to land at Grand Gulf was thwarted by a Confederate division that had fortified the area, and even a bombardment by Union ironclads failed to dislodge them. Consequently, Grant instructed Porter and McClernand to facilitate a crossing at Grand Gulf, Mississippi. On the morning of April 29, McClernand embarked his troops on transports at Hard Times, awaiting Porter's gunboats to weaken the Confederate stronghold. Following a five-hour battle, the Confederate forces emerged victorious as Porter's vessels retreated, sustaining casualties in the process. The Battle of Grand Gulf ended in a Confederate victory when Porter's vessels withdrew after losing 19 killed and 56 wounded.

McClernand unloaded his soldiers and marched them south to De Shroon's (or Disharoon) plantation, located about 5 miles north of Bruinsburg on the west bank of the Mississippi River. That night, Porter's gunboats and the transports ran the Grand Gulf batteries and joined McClernand's men at De Shroon's. Grant arrived on April 29 and devised a new plan to disembark his soldiers at Rodney, Mississippi, located around 12 miles downstream. However, a fortuitous encounter with an escaped slave led Grant to Bruinsburg, a port with excellent steamboat facilities and a convenient road leading up the bluffs east of the river. Upon arrival, the soldiers found the port nearly deserted, with only a local farmer as a witness to their invasion.

Battle of Port Gibson

The Battle of Port Gibson began with the landing of 17,000 Union soldiers at Bruinsburg, Grant's army, after successfully crossing the river, proceeded towards their initial target, Port Gibson, located approximately ten miles east of Bruinsburg. This strategic location held control over the local road network, making it a crucial objective for the advancing Union forces. The skirmishes between the Union army and Confederate outposts lasted for three hours on May 1, before escalating into a full-fledged battle at dawn.

The challenging terrain initially favored the Confederate defense, characterized by flat-topped ridges and steep ravines. The ridge-tops were devoid of trees, while the ravines were densely covered with vegetation, making off-road movements arduous. Centers Creek, situated between the Bruinsburg and Rodney roads, posed a significant obstacle due to its near-impassable nature. McClernand, overseeing the attack with Porter's assistance, navigated the challenging terrain to lead the Union forces toward their objective.

Under McClernand's command, the Union forces encountered solid Confederate defense, with Brig Gen Martin Green leading the main brigade. However, the tide turned when Logan managed to flank the Confederate right, compelling the defenders to retreat. The unexpected arrival of Union forces in the evening led to a rare night battle, with Green requesting support from the Rebel right flank. Just as reinforcements arrived from Vicksburg, Osterhaus launched an attack on the Confederate right flank, further destabilizing their defense. The Confederates continued to fall back and establish new defensive positions at different times during the day. Eventually, they conceded and left the field in the early evening. The collapse of the Confederate line following Logan's assault prompted a retreat, ultimately resulting in the fall of Port Gibson and Grant's subsequent advancement inland. Grant was now in control of Port Gibson and Grand Gulf.

Grant’s defeat of the garrison at Port Gibson forced the abandonment of the defenses at Grand Gulf. Pemberton was caught with his army scattered and could only oppose Grant with inferior forces at Port Gibson. The battle allowed control of the entire area where the Union army needed to cross the river and start its movement.

Grant was faced with a critical decision at this stage, as he had multiple options available to him. One possibility was to launch an attack on Vicksburg from both the south and the east. Another option was to collaborate with General Banks, seize Port Hudson, and then proceed to march on Vicksburg as a combined force. However, Grant was well aware of Banks' incompetence and had no intention of allowing him to disrupt their operations. If Grant had chosen to join forces with Banks, he would have been subordinate to him, which he strongly opposed.

Consequently, Grant had to carefully consider his next move. Although his orders, or at least Halleck’s plan, were to rendezvous with General Banks and capture Port Hudson before jointly assaulting Vicksburg, Grant decided to deviate from these instructions. Instead, he sent a message to Halleck, informing him that Banks was currently engaged in his own operations, and that waiting for him to finish would require waiting another month. Instead, Grant made the deliberate choice to advance independently, fully aware that it would take approximately 8 days for his message to be received and a response to be given. By avoiding the collaboration with Banks, Grant was able to pursue his own plans without any hindrance. As a result, he found himself in a favorable position to accept the surrender of Pemberton, while Banks remained stationed at Port Hudson.

The Move Inland

Once the areas on the river crossings were in Union control, Confederate forces situated between the Big Bayou Pierre and the Big Black River found themselves in a compromised position. Recognizing this vulnerability, the Confederate troops swiftly moved towards Hankinson's Ferry across the Big Black River. At this juncture, Grant's original plan was to feign a move north along the same path as a diversion to threaten a direct advance toward Vicksburg. However, reconnaissance revealed that Pemberton had established formidable defensive positions to the south of the city.

Consequently, on May 7th, Grant made a strategic decision that would later be regarded as one of the most brilliant maneuvers of the war. He opted to disrupt the city's supply line by capturing the railroad connecting Jackson to Vicksburg. This route involved a shift towards the east, with the ultimate objective of turning west to launch an assault on Vicksburg. By cutting off the town's supply lines, its strategic advantages were transformed into vulnerabilities.

Rather than taking a direct approach towards Vicksburg from the southern front, Grant led his army in a northeasterly direction, utilizing the protection of the Big Black River on his left flank. The plan was to target the Southern Railroad of Mississippi between Vicksburg and Jackson. Severing this vital transportation link would cut Pemberton's supply chains and communication networks, effectively isolating Vicksburg. As the Union forces advanced inland, each corps was strategically positioned, with McClernand's on the left, Sherman's in the center, and McPherson's on the right. However, the further Grant's army moved inland, the more susceptible they became to potential attacks.

The Supply Line

The crucial question of the whole campaign is how Grant would supply his army. Grant established a base at Grand Gulf on the Mississippi River to support the army's advancement inland. This supply base played a crucial role in sustaining the Union Army's movements in Mississippi. However, it is important to note that Grant did not completely sever his supply line when he reached Vicksburg and reconnected with the fleet on the Yazoo River. It is a misconception, often perpetuated by modern narratives, that Grant was without a supply line. Grant actually established and effectively maintained a main supply route throughout his movement toward Vicksburg.

General Sherman expressed apprehensions regarding Grant's logistical planning, deeming it insufficient and vulnerable to attacks. Grant, in opting for an indirect approach to Vicksburg by targeting the railroad east of the city. necessitated a longer and riskier supply route. This choice prompted Sherman to caution Grant about the potential challenges of maintaining such a large army with limited resources. Grant's response reflected his reliance on utilizing available provisions and sourcing the rest from the surrounding area. Sherman on May 9 warned Grant: "There are over 500 wagons across the river ... Stop all troops till your army is partially supplied with wagons, and then act as quickly as possible, for this road will be jammed as sure as life if you attempt to supply 50,000 men by one single road." Grant replied, "I do not calculate the possibility of supplying the army with full rations from Grand Gulf ... What I do expect, however, is to get up what rations of hard bread, coffee, and salt we can, and make the country furnish the balance."

The myth of Grant's cutting loose from his supply base began when Charles Dana, a former reporter who accompanied Grant's army as an observer for the Secretary of War, wrote back to Washington on May 4, 1863: "As soon as Sherman comes up and the rations on the way arrive, he [Grant] will disregard his base and depend upon the country for meat and even for bread." In 1867 Adam Badeau, a former Grant staff officer, published the first volume of his three-volume Military History of General U. S. Grant. Badeau wrote that "[Grant] at once decided to abandon his base altogether, to plunge into the enemy's country with three days rations, trusting to the region itself for forage and supplies." A year later, in The Personal History of U. S. Grant, Albert Richardson compared Grant's Vicksburg Campaign with "Scott's brilliant campaign from Puebla to Mexico," and wrote that Grant "determined to abandon his base."

However, Grant himself refuted these claims during an interview in 1879 with a New York Herald reporter, clarifying that he did not sever ties with his supply base during the Vicksburg Campaign. Grant said that, as his troops crossed the Mississippi on April 29 and 30, he "had rations in abundance on board the transports, but no transportation for them into the interior." He said he did not abandon his base but "directed the officers to gather all the wagons and teams they could from the plantations as we moved on." He explained that while his troops had ample rations upon crossing the Mississippi, there was a lack of transportation for these supplies. Grant emphasized the importance of maintaining a supply line for essential items that could not be procured from the local environment, such as ammunition, coffee, bread, salt, and sugar.

But, when writing his Personal Memoirs in 1885, more than 22 years after the conclusion of the Vicksburg Campaign, his account of the supply line issue added to the confusion. Grant supported the myth that he had decided to abandon his supply base at Grand Gulf on May 3 by stating, "I determined to move independently of Banks, cut loose from my base, destroy the rebel force in Vicksburg and invest or capture the city." This statement was almost identical to one he had previously written for an article in Century magazine in July of 1884, which was published in 1885 and later included in the four-volume Battles and Leaders of the Civil War in 1887. Grant's use of the phrase "cut loose from my base" at Grand Gulf on May 3, often cited by authors and historians, contradicts his own words eight pages later. Grant recalled that on May 12, at Dillon's farm, he decided to redirect his columns towards Jackson. He wrote, "But by moving against Jackson, I uncovered my own communication. So I finally decided to have none — to cut loose altogether from my base and move my whole force eastward. I then had no fears for my communications, and if I turned quickly enough could turn upon Pemberton before he could attack me in the rear." Therefore, it becomes clear that Grant intended to secure his communications, rather than solely focusing on food supplies.

The Battle of Raymond

Grant devised a new strategy on May 7th, opting for an indirect approach rather than a direct assault on Pemberton's forces south of Vicksburg. Instead of crossing the Big Black River and heading north, Grant planned to reach the railroad east of Vicksburg and approach from that direction. This plan, however, came with its own set of risks and challenges, as it required a longer line of supply. Despite the potential difficulties, Grant's army continued to move northeastward towards the railroad on May 11th, while General McClernand expressed concerns about the enemy isolating the Union army by cutting off their supply line.

Grant intended to first cut off the railroad before launching an attack on Vicksburg. As his forces drew closer to the railroad, Grant discovered that Pemberton had already begun constructing fortifications to protect it. It became evident that Vicksburg had strong defenses in the southern part of the city and a well-established supply line from Jackson via the railroad. Grant believed that the enemy was positioned to the north, defending the railroad.

Pemberton suspected that Grant's primary target was the railroad. In response, he strategically positioned his troops along the entire line from Warrenton to Bovina, constructing fortifications at key points. As Grant's intentions became more apparent, Pemberton extended his line of defense to Edwards Station and fortified that area as well. However, this left the rail centers at Bolton and Clinton vulnerable. To address this, Pemberton ordered reinforcements arriving from the south and east to march to Raymond, where they would form the left wing of his army, guarding the north-south roads that connected the rail line from Jackson to Vicksburg. Pemberton planned to strike Grant in the flank if he attacked Edwards Station or the Big Black Bridge. If Grant turned toward Jackson, Pemberton would strike him in the flank and rear as he passed.

Many renderings of the Battle of Raymond suggest that Johnston was in command in Jackson at this time. In fact, on May 10, he is not present in the vicinity, having just been appointed commander. He was en route; Johnston wasn’t even appointed until May 9 and didn’t arrive until May 13; at that point, McPherson was already positioned between the two Confederate armies.

Pemberton knew that reinforcements were gathering in Jackson. So, on May 10 he ordered them all to a small town called Raymond about 20 miles southwest of Jackson.

General John Gregg led a brigade to Raymond with the intention of ambushing a Union advance party, despite his limited military experience as a Texas politician. However, faulty intelligence led him to believe he would only face a small contingent of Union troops. After an exhausting 200-mile march from Port Hudson, Gregg's 3,000-man brigade arrived in Jackson on May 9th, only to be ordered to march 19 miles to Raymond after a day of rest. Arriving late in the afternoon on May 11th, his men were so fatigued that they dropped to rest where they stood.

Meanwhile, Grant had authorized McPherson to begin his march toward Jackson on the same day. Gregg, under explicit orders to not engage a larger force, was supposed to withdraw slowly toward Jackson while alerting Pemberton for a coordinated strike. However, McPherson's strategic deployment of troops lured Gregg into a pitched battle by concealing his forces and showing only Logan's 2nd Brigade up the road. This tactical maneuver led to Gregg's brigade being drawn into a confrontation, McPherson then had the 1st and 3rd Brigades march through the woods unseen. Once Logan’s entire division was in place, he ordered the men forward.

At approximately 10:30 am, McPherson issued the command to move forward. The 23rd Indiana, known for their skills as skirmishers, defied orders and crossed the creek ahead of the federal line, unknowingly setting off the Confederate ambush. Overwhelmed by the two Confederate regiments, the Hoosiers fled with the Confederates in pursuit. The Confederates, in turn, chased the Indiana troops across the creek only to be met by a hidden federal infantry brigade. A complex and chaotic engagement developed as three Confederate regiments emerged from the woods after chasing away a cavalry picket only to find that the force they had been ordered to encircle was two federal brigades. Although some accounts suggest McPherson sent in his men in waves, perhaps due to weather conditions, others say he was hiding his deployment from Gregg to deceive him.

Gregg found himself in a challenging situation as he attempted to disengage from the fight. By 4 pm, he finally managed to regroup his forces and ordered a retreat. However, amid the chaos, Gregg failed to communicate the unfolding events to Pemberton, leaving a gap in the Confederate command structure and strategic coordination.

As Gregg retreated through Raymond, reinforcements began to arrive to cover his withdrawal, including cavalry regiments, infantry units, and a brigade from Georgia. With approximately 5,000 men on the field, McPherson's forces were consolidating towards the fortifications being constructed in Jackson. The opposing forces clashed at Fourteen Mile Creek, where Gregg attempted to halt the Union army's advance. Despite initial success in causing heavy casualties, the Confederate troops were eventually outmatched by the Union's superior numbers and firepower, leading to a strategic retreat back to Jackson.

General Joseph Johnston and Jackson MS

Grant's strategic plan revolved around disrupting the railway supply route that connected Vicksburg to Jackson. The primary objective was to prevent potential attacks from General Johnston, who was stationed in Jackson, that could have resulted in Grant's forces being trapped between Johnston and Pemberton. To execute this plan, Grant made adjustments by instructing McClernand and Sherman to hold Pemberton in position while McPherson swiftly advanced from the rear to capture the state capital. This tactical maneuver aimed to sever Pemberton's supply line and weaken the defenses of Vicksburg, ultimately allowing McPherson to rejoin Grant's forces.

On May 14, 1863, Grant redirected his army towards the east to force General Johnston's forces away from Jackson. Johnston, with the majority of his army, retreated along the Canton Road. This retreat prevented Johnston from joining forces with Pemberton, who was now isolated in Vicksburg. With Johnston out of the picture, Grant shifted his focus back to Vicksburg. Once the Union forces gained control of the capital, communication between Pemberton and General Johnston was severed, further isolating Pemberton's troops.

In response to Johnston's orders, Pemberton, commanding approximately 23,000 men divided into three divisions, was instructed to leave Edwards Station and launch an attack on the Union troops at Clinton. However, Pemberton and his generals believed that Johnston's plan would likely lead to disaster. Instead, they decided to divert their attention and attack the Union supply trains en route from Grand Gulf to Raymond. On May 16, Pemberton received another message from Johnston reiterating his previous orders. Unfortunately, Pemberton had already set off after the supply trains and found himself on the Raymond-Edwards Road, with his rear positioned at a crossroads just south of the crest of Champion Hill. As a result, when Pemberton obediently ordered a countermarch, his rear, including the supply wagons, inadvertently became the vanguard of his attack.

Battle of Champion Hill

The Battle of Champion Hill, which took place on May 16, 1863, marked a significant turning point in the Vicksburg Campaign. It was a critical moment for Pemberton, as he had one last opportunity to fend off Grant's forces. However, his confusion during this crucial juncture ultimately sealed his fate. With his troops outnumbered 32,000 to 22,000, Pemberton formed a defensive line along a ridge that overlooked Jackson Creek. This defensive position covered the Middle Road and Raymond Road to the south.

In the early morning of May 13, the three divisions of Generals Bowen, Loring, and Stevenson marched out from the Black River fortifications and began their strike toward what Pemberton hoped was the rear supply line of the Federal Army. More importantly, Grant knew Pemberton was coming. One of the messengers between Johnston and Pemberton was actually a Union operative who turned over his messages to General McPherson, who in turn reported the information to Grant. On the morning of May 16, 1863, the rebels met, not Grant’s supply line as expected, but most of his Federal Army at a place known as Champion’s Hill.

The situation became precarious for Pemberton when General Stephen D. Lee, stationed atop Champion Hill, alerted him to a Union column advancing on the Jackson Road. This Union movement threatened to cut off the Southern forces from Edwards Station and the vital route to Vicksburg. In response, Pemberton shifted his troops northward to protect the hill and the Jackson Road.

Grant, on the other hand, ordered attacks by Logan and Hovey, while John A. McClernand's corps launched an assault on Pemberton's left flank, and James B. McPherson's corps attacked from the right. Despite the excellent defense provided by Stephen Lee, the Union forces managed to seize the crest of the hill around 1 PM. McPherson's corps continued to advance, capturing a crucial crossroads and effectively closing off the escape route via the Jackson Road.

Although a counterattack by Bowen's division briefly pushed the Federals back beyond the Champion Hill crest, they were unable to maintain their position due to insufficient numbers. Recognizing the dire situation, Grant launched a counterattack, committing all of his forces. Pemberton's men were unable to withstand this assault, prompting him to order his troops to utilize the only remaining escape route, the Raymond Road crossing of Bakers Creek.

McPherson on the right (north) flank fought the lion’s share of the battle. His casualties constituted the bulk of the Union losses, about 2,500. The Confederates suffered about 3,800 casualties, perhaps half were captured. Grant criticized the lack of fighting spirit of McClernand, his rival for Union Army leadership. McClernand had delayed his attack and then was stopped by a smaller force. McClernand's casualties were low on the Union left flank (south). Sherman and the others wanted to see him gone, but Grant counseled a different course of action.

The decision made by General Pemberton regarding the abandonment of Vicksburg, as ordered by General Johnston, remains a pivotal question in the context of the entire war. This question not only fueled a post-war dispute between Pemberton and Johnston but also subjected Pemberton to enduring criticism. On one hand, General Johnston displayed little confidence in defending Vicksburg and instead advocated for the merging of Pemberton's forces with his own. By uniting their armies, Johnston believed they could confront Grant's troops in an open battle and subsequently allocate their forces to other vulnerable areas of the Confederacy. Conversely, Confederate President Jefferson Davis consistently emphasized the importance of safeguarding Vicksburg at all costs, leaving Pemberton torn between conflicting directives. It is crucial to acknowledge the challenging position Pemberton found himself in, torn between the expectations of his military and civilian superiors.

However, fair criticism can be directed towards Pemberton for his slow response, failure to anticipate Grant's movements and lack of coordination with Johnston. Attempting to appease both his military and civilian superiors proved to be an impossible mission. The complexities of the situation, coupled with the pressure to please conflicting authorities, hindered Pemberton's ability to make swift and strategic decisions. While it is understandable that he could not simply disregard the orders of his president, the consequences of his indecisiveness and lack of proactive measures were significant. Pemberton's retreat from Vicksburg ultimately resulted in continuing censure and placed him at the center of scrutiny for years to come.

Battle of Big Black River Bridge

Pemberton realized that his army was at a numerical disadvantage, prompting him to make the strategic decision to retreat towards the Big Black River Bridge. To buy time for the Confederate army to regroup, he assigned General William W. Loring's division to hold Raymond Road while the rest of the troops moved north. The division under Bowen and the brigade of John C Vaughn were tasked with defending the works at the bridge, with the advantage of natural barriers such as swampy terrain and a bayou in front of them.

On the Union side, Major General John McClernand led the pursuit of the Confederates and engaged Bowen's rear guard. A swift Union charge managed to break the Confederate position, leading to a rout during the retreat and river crossing. Many Confederate soldiers were captured in the process, while the remaining troops sought refuge within the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mississippi, marking the beginning of the siege of Vicksburg the following day.

Grant had initially planned for General Sherman to surprise Bowen and Vaughn at the Big Black River crossing at Bridgeport, seven miles away, where he could reach the west bank of the Big Black River and take Bowen and Vaughn by surprise. Meanwhile, his subordinate Gen. Michael K. Lawler had a different idea.

Martin Green’s Brigade held the Confederate left without any artillery support, while Lawler’s brigade was positioned nearby in the tree line. A scout informed Lawler of a sunken area close to the Rebel line, allowing his men to charge across open ground with minimal risk from artillery fire. Recognizing a strategic opportunity – no one was covering the river – his brigade charged a sunken area that was bisected by a marsh.

The following morning, Lawler’s Brigade took the initiative to charge the Confederate lines without explicit orders, disappearing from view after advancing 50 yards. During the charge, both sides engaged in intense artillery exchanges, resulting in General Osterhaus of Grant’s command being wounded by a Confederate shell. Meanwhile, Gen. Eugene Carr’s Division began to assemble opposite the Confederate lines.

By 9 o’clock, Lawler identified an opportune location to strike the Rebel defenses and ordered his men to charge. The Federal troops, who had seemingly vanished from sight, reemerged and swiftly advanced the remaining 50 yards to assault the gap between Martin Green’s Arkansas Brigade and Vaughn’s Tennessee Brigade. Despite facing fire from infantry and artillery as they crossed the bayou, the Federal soldiers managed to breach the Confederate breastworks and engage in close combat. Witnessing the success of Lawler’s charge, the rest of the Union line followed suit and joined the assault. Overwhelmed by the increasing number of Union infantry, the Confederates retreated, leaving behind their cannons and approximately 1,700 men who surrendered.

The significance of this small battle cannot be understated. The Confederates suffered heavy losses, with 1,751 men killed or captured, the majority of which were taken as prisoners. On the other hand, the Union casualties were relatively low, totaling around 235. This defeat at the Big Black River Bridge marked the beginning of the siege of Vicksburg.

Brig. Gen. Lloyd Tilghman was killed in this action. To help save the army, Pemberton tasked Lloyd Tilghman's brigade to provide a rear-guard action that cost Tilghman his life. However, this action allowed Pemberton to retreat from the area.

The general was killed by artillery fire. His teenage son was on the field and hugged his father as he died.

Following their defeat at Champion Hill, General John C. Pemberton's forces retreated to the bridge at Big Black River, just before reaching Vicksburg. During the battle at Champion Hill, General William Loring disobeyed orders to advance, resulting in his separation from the main Confederate troops. Loring attempted to rejoin his comrades at the bridge, but the difficult terrain forced him to abandon most of his supplies and artillery. Local civilians warned Loring that a large Union force stood between him and the rendezvous point at Big Black. Instead of engaging Grant's forces, Loring decided to redirect his path and join the Confederate forces at Canton. Unbeknownst to Pemberton, who was unaware of Loring's change in direction, he ordered John Bowen's Division and John Vaughn's Brigade to defend the works at Big Black River Bridge, to buy time. Had Pemberton been aware of Loring's retreat, he may have reconsidered engaging in battle at that location, as it was intended to serve as a rear guard action for Loring. Loring's strained relationship with Pemberton was well-known, as he had difficulty working with his superiors. Despite this, Loring consistently displayed courage and honor in battle, proving himself time and time again. Instead of retreating to Vicksburg, Loring eventually reached Johnston's army. The feud between Loring and Pemberton over these actions persisted long after the war had ended.

Retreat into Vicksburg

Following the resounding Union victories at the Battle of Champion Hill and the Battle of Big Black River Bridge, Pemberton found himself cornered within the City of Vicksburg. With Sherman's corps threatening to flank him from the north, Pemberton had no choice but to either engage in battle or entrench himself within the city. The siege of Vicksburg commenced on May 18 and lasted about 6 weeks.

As the Confederates retreated, they resorted to burning the railroad bridge over the Big Black River and a steamboat serving as a bridge. By detonating incendiary devices on the bridges, they thwarted Grant's pursuit attempts. Although Vicksburg had not yet fallen to Grant's forces, the city was effectively cut off from the outside world. Pemberton and his troops were trapped within the confines of Vicksburg, buying them time but offering no escape route.

With dwindling troops and no external connections, Pemberton's situation grew increasingly dire. Grant's superior numbers and strategic control over supply lines posed a significant challenge to the Confederate forces. Despite hopes of Johnston launching an attack from the east, the advice to surrender the town and save the troops prevailed. Grant's decision to initiate a prolonged siege, following unsuccessful frontal assaults, marked the beginning of a grueling period of bombardment for Vicksburg.

Grant initially attempted to overpower the Confederate army by leveraging his larger numbers. Despite Grant's efforts to assault the trenches on May 19 and May 22, these two frontal assaults aimed at capturing the city proved unsuccessful. The defensive line surrounding Vicksburg spanned approximately six and a half miles, taking advantage of the varying terrain that included hills and knobs with steep slopes. These natural features posed a challenge for attackers, who would have to ascend them while under enemy fire. The formidable perimeter of the defensive line consisted of numerous gun pits, forts, trenches, redoubts, and lunettes, which perfectly took advantage of the natural features.

The failure to take the Confederate works by assault led Grant to initiate a prolonged siege on May 25. As part of the siege, a significant bombardment was conducted. Union forces constructed their own network of earthworks and trenches that ran parallel to it. These trenches, referred to as ditches, marked the beginning of trench warfare. The situation within the besieged city worsened as the air became polluted by the stench of dead horses and soldiers, while the wounded often lay in the space between the opposing lines. Eventually, Grant agreed to a truce in order to clear the resulting mess. Recognizing that even with 50,000 soldiers, he would be unable to fully encircle Vicksburg due to unguarded roads leading south, Grant sought assistance from Major General Henry W. Halleck. Union troops in the West were subsequently shifted, and the front line was reinforced not only with heavy artillery from massive cannons but also with naval guns that targeted the city from the river.

Grant had expressed his dissatisfaction with McClernand's lack of determination at Champion Hill, as he had failed to eliminate or capture Pemberton's entire force. McClernand's casualties were minimal on the Union's southern flank, suggesting a lack of engagement, Sherman and others believed it was time for him to be removed from his position. Grant firmly believed that if the XIII Corps had launched a vigorous attack, Pemberton's army could have been annihilated and the Siege of Vicksburg could have been avoided. However, Grant advised a different approach from his subordinates. Then, a newspaper article published an order in which McClernand praised his troops despite their unsuccessful assaults on Vicksburg. Grant saw this as an opportunity and seized it. While the order itself was acceptable, it undermined the efforts of others and contradicted both a departmental order and one issued by Grant, which stated that official papers should not be published. Consequently, Grant relieved McClernand of his duties on June 19th.

The Siege of Vicksburg

Daily bombardments began and were devastating. Union gunboats lobbed over 22,000 shells into the town and army artillery fire was even heavier. As the barrages continued, suitable housing in Vicksburg was reduced to a minimum. A ridge, located between the main town and the rebel defense line, provided lodging for the duration. The citizens of the city were unable to walk the streets or live in their houses. All above-ground homes and shelters were unsafe or destroyed.

Over time, Grant moved 77,000 Union soldiers into positions completely encircling Vicksburg, cutting off their supply line. Although surrounded and without access to food, weapons, and ammunition, Vicksburg’s Confederate soldiers and civilians continued their defense.

Confederate troops ate horses, dogs, and vegetables from the gardens of Vicksburg residents. Towards the end, some were eating rats and tree bark. As the siege wore on, fewer and fewer horses, mules, and dogs were seen wandering about Vicksburg. Shoe leather became a last resort of sustenance for many adults.

By the end of June, half of all of the Confederate soldiers were suffering from malnutrition including scurvy, caused by lack of Vitamin C. Others suffered from unsanitary conditions and developed dysentery, diarrhea, dehydration, and malaria. The lack of food, combined with the epidemics of malaria and dysentery, took a heavy toll on the Confederate forces. By the end of June, half were unable to report for duty and were sick or hospitalized. The poor diet was telling on the Confederate soldiers.

The townspeople were forced to build and live in caves. Many of their homes were destroyed by artillery bombardment, and those that remained were targets. Residents and soldiers dug over 500 caves into the hillside to escape the bombardment, hiding in their basements. During the 47-day siege, May 23-July 4, the Union Over 500 caves, known locally as "bombproofs", were dug into the yellow clay hills of Vicksburg. Both soldiers and citizens were boxed in with plentiful munitions but little food.

During the 47-day siege, May 23-July 4, the Union experienced 638 casualties with 94 deaths, vs. the Confederate loss of 3202 casualties with 875 deaths. Additionally, there were 380 deaths at the Battle of Champion Hill on May 16. More than 10,000 of Pemberton’s soldiers were rendered unfit for duty as a consequence of various illnesses, combat wounds, and malnutrition by the end of June. There was essentially no functional army by early July.

The Confederate Army’s struggle with malaria was a significant contributing factor to the outcome of the Vicksburg campaign and hence the war. One of the reasons the Union siege of Vicksburg was successful was because the Confederates were debilitated by an outbreak of malaria, without access to quinine. It has been estimated that 3900-8850 of Pemberton’s 30,000 men were suffering from active cases of malaria, and minimally over 200 died directly from this disease. An illness of this severity experienced in this magnitude would have rendered the Confederate military combat ineffective.

On June 28, Pemberton received a petition from his troops which stated in part, “If you cannot feed us you had better surrender.” On July 1, he queried his division commanders whether they should surrender or attempt an evacuation. All 4 of his corps commanders wrote to him of the need to surrender. The Confederates, after a long siege, beset with malnutrition and disease, were not in a condition to fight. The consensus was that disease and starvation had physically impaired so large a number of the defending army that an attempt to cut through the Union line would be disastrous; the men were too “enfeebled” to attempt an evacuation. On July 4, 1863, after a 47-day siege, Pemberton surrendered to Grant.

General Ulysses S Grant: An Analysis

The fall of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863, just a day after Pickett’s Charge, certainly seems in combination to represent a catastrophic turn of events for the Confederacy that summer after victories that winter and spring seemed to hold so much promise.

General Grant has been demeaned as the worst POTUS in history, a drunkard, a dimwit, and most incorrectly, a butcher. While his reputation has improved lately thanks in large part to Ron Chernow’s biography and Donald Miller’s book about Vicksburg, he is routinely ranked behind Lee, Jackson, and Forrest as a Civil War general by many. Yet the truth is, General Grant did more to win the Civil War than anyone not named Abraham Lincoln. The story of how Grant solved the conundrum that was Vicksburg should convince even the most cynical LCer of his imagination, willpower, and perspicacity. Grant tried myriad strategies before finding the one that worked. The Vicksburg campaign was an unmistakable sign of the man’s steely determination and shrewd mind. Grant failed over and over, but he never gave up.

Practically everything about the campaign was innovative. Practically everything about it. James M. McPherson has called it “the most brilliant and innovative campaign of the Civil War” and T. Harry Williams called it “one of the classic campaigns of the Civil War and, indeed, of military history.” The U.S. Army Field Manual 100-5 (May 1986) describes the Vicksburg campaign as “the most brilliant campaign ever fought on American soil,” one which “exemplifies the qualities of a well-conceived, violently executed offensive plan.” Edwin C. Bearss has said. “Failure in this venture would entail little less than total destruction. If it succeeded, however, the gains would be complete and decisive.”

It was definitely a risky plan. But we can see retrospectively that it makes perfect sense. Grant made the connection that the way to attack Vicksburg was by the train route west from Jackson, which was also the target of his Autumn foray on the Mississippi Central RR route. Then he combined that with the fact that he couldn’t maneuver on the east bank north of the town due to swamps and bayous, and after Arkansas Post, he’s on the west side. So, then it’s “just” a matter of technical procedure: you have to cross someplace and you have to head to Jackson first. When to do it? Well, he knows he’s got ground to cover and will need supplies. He has to calculate river level, rain and muddy roads, and foraging. But before mosquito season. Winter isn’t a good time. Late spring is.

Grant had endured repeated political and military setbacks, watched his soldiers and sailors sicken and die by the thousands in the malarial lower Mississippi Valley, faced two armies at the same time, and solved incredible technical and logistical obstacles. He was now the top Union general, and his self-confidence as well as what others thought would carry him to fame. It’s inconceivable to me that his reputation as a general was denigrated for 120 years.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Further Reading:

· Donald L Miller, Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy. Simon and Schuster, 2019.

· Grant’s Memoirs

· Sherman’s Memoirs

· Grant by Chernow

· https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/vicksburg

· https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-vicksburg

· https://civilwarmonths.com/2023/04/15/vicksburg-grant-and-porter-assemble/amp/

· https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/achenblog/wp/2014/04/25/ulysses-s-grant-hero-or-butcher-great-man-or-doofus/

· https://www.historynet.com/vicksburg-the-campaign-that-confirmed-grants-greatness/

· https://www.vicksburgpost.com/2003/01/27/water-returned-to-citys-doorstep-100-years-ago/?fbclid=IwAR1X5nFZ8F-l_0sbr3Ki1HBygBiPb-GCgxl4aBCznjSOgKAvVdURVJUvJDA

· https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/nature/river-course-changes.htm?fbclid=IwAR3mflQUgR8JaUEIcrm2v_lLlfdGup44_XwzxIcJ1mTAyyCT2h_umfcT2Sc

· https://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-colonel-benjamin-griersons-cavalry-raid-in-1863/

· https://www.historynet.com/griersons-raid-during-the-vicksburg-campaign/

· https://www.thoughtco.com/major-general-benjamin-grierson-2360423

· https://emergingcivilwar.com/2021/04/29/that-other-cavalry-guy-benjamin-h-grierson/

· https://www.historyonthenet.com/grant-vicksburg

· https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/port-gibson

· https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/battle-of-port-gibson/

· https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/battleportgibson.htm

· https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/grants-vicksburg-supply-line

· https://www.historynet.com/mississippi-nightmare/

· https://www.thoughtco.com/battle-of-champion-hill-2360280

· https://www.rebellionresearch.com/battle-of-raymond?fbclid=IwAR1L1PcCwGRCFLg-Bv7neO1tG6cv7RsnmZO8kNvv5XVjUBkM6t3CiPtu96c_aem_th_AaSypV4shWeio-QbLLXIuILea41vtkZsruFEMGykenl_kK8dPEuWWYZiUP44s9G8ws4&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

· Klein LW, Wittenberg EJ. The decisive influence of malaria on the outcome of the Vicksburg campaign. Surgeon’s Call: The Journal of the National Civil War Medicine Museum. 2023; 28(1): 4 – 14.

View Details

The ancient Olympic games were originally a one-day event and the first recorded event was in 776 BCE; however, in 684 BCE, the games were extended to three days, then later to five days. The games were held every four years and are among the most celebrated traditions of ancient Greece.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of the ivory and gold statue of Zeus.

The ancient Olympic games were not merely athletic contests but a festival that honored the Greek god Zeus, (Ζεύς). Through their duration and influence, the Olympics became a cornerstone of Greek culture, fostering unity, showcasing physical prowess, and celebration. In Greek mythology, it is said that Heracles, (Ἡρακλῆς), (Latin, Hercules), the son of Zeus and the mortal woman Alcmene was the founder of the Olympic games.

The ancient Olympics were held in Olympia, (Ὀλυμπία), a sanctuary site in western Peloponnese, a site that honored Zeus, who was the god of the sky and thunder and who ruled as king of the gods on Mount Olympus, (Όλυμπος). The sanctuary housed the magnificent ivory and gold statue of Zeus, designed and created by the sculptor Phidias, (Φειδίας), 480 – 430 BCE. The statue of Zeus was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and served as the central location for these games. The games' religious significance was profound, with numerous rituals and sacrifices performed to seek Zeus's favor and blessing.

Events

The Olympic Games began as a single race, the stade race, (Stadion), a sprint covering roughly 192 meters, (in today's unit of measurement), over time the games expanded to include a variety of events:

Stadion: The original footrace, covering one length of the stadium, approximately 192 meters and the precursor to the modern 200-metre race

Diaulos: A double stade race, twice that of the stadion and the precursor to the modern 400-metre race

Dolichos: A long-distance race, varying from 7 to 24 stades.

Hoplite Race: A race in armor, simulating military readiness.

Pentathlon: A five-event competition including a discus throw, javelin throw, long jump, stadion, and wrestling.

Side note: Athletes when jumping utilized a stone as a weight called halteres to increase the distance of a jump. They held onto the weights until the end of their flight and then jettisoned it backwards. Whereas, the discus was originally made of stone then later it was made of bronze. The technique was very similar to today's freestyle discus throw.

Wrestling (Pale): A grappling event where the objective was to throw the opponent to the ground. This was highly valued as a form of military exercise without weapons. It ended only when one of the contestants admitted defeat.

Boxing (Pyx): Boxers wrapped straps (himantes) around their hands to strengthen their wrists and steady their fingers. Initially, these straps were soft but as time progressed, boxers started using hard leather straps, often causing disfigurement of their opponent's face. Later the Romans adopted boxing into their gladiatorial games, however, in the Roman version the leather straps often had metal studs attached.

Pankration: A no-holds-barred contest combining wrestling and boxing. This was a primitive form of martial arts combining wrestling and boxing and was considered to be one of the toughest sports. Greeks believed that it was founded by Theseus when he defeated the fierce Minotaur in the labyrinth.

Equestrian Events: Including chariot racing and horse racing, held in the hippodromos, (ἱππόδρομος), Latinized to hippodrome from hippos, (ἵππος, horse) and dromos, (δρόμος, road/course), hence race course, race track.

These events tested the athletes' strength, speed, endurance, and skill, reflecting the Greek ideal of athletic excellence. Winning an event at the Olympics brought immense honor and fame, however, it should be noted, unlike the modern games each event had only one victor with no silver or bronze-placed athletes.

Victors, known as Olympionikes, received a wreath made of wild olive leaves, known as a kotinos, from the sacred olive tree near Zeus's temple. Beyond this symbolic prize, winners were often celebrated as heroes in their hometowns and received numerous amphorae of olive oil a very valuable commodity at the time.

Additionally, their hometown often honored the winners with other substantial material rewards, such as money, meals at public expense, or even the erection of a statue in their honor. Poets like Pindar would compose odes celebrating their victories, ensuring their names were immortalized.

Major athletic festivals

However, the Olympics were just part of the larger cycle of Panhellenic Games, which included three other major athletic festivals:

· The Pythian Games were established in 582 BCE and held in Delphi in honor of Apollo, the god of music, arts, and prophecy. These games included musical and artistic competitions alongside athletic events. Victors received a laurel wreath, symbolizing Apollo's sacred tree.

· The Nemean Games were established at the sanctuary of Zeus in Nemea in 573 BCE, and dedicated to Zeus. These Games were held every other year, (2nd and 4th year), in the same years that the Isthmian Games are held and were similar to the Olympics, these games included various athletic contests. Winners were crowned with a wreath of wild celery.

· Isthmian Games, were established near Corinth in 582 BCE the same year as the Pythian Games began in Delphi. They were also held every 2nd and 4th year, like the Nemean Games, but in the spring. These games were held in honor of Poseidon, (Ποσειδῶν), who presided over the sea, storms, earthquakes and horses, and featured athletic and musical competitions, with victors receiving a wreath of pine leaves, later replaced by a wreath of dried celery.

Each of these games shared the common goal of celebrating athletic excellence and honoring the gods, but they also played a crucial role in fostering unity among the often-fragmented Greek city-states.

Conclusion

The ancient Olympic Games continued for nearly 12 centuries until they were suppressed in the late 4th century CE by Emperor Theodosius I, who sought to impose Christianity and suppress pagan traditions. Despite their cessation, the spirit of the ancient Olympics lived on, inspiring the modern Olympic movement that began in 1896.

In conclusion, the ancient Olympic Games were a remarkable fusion of sports, religion, and culture. The games honored Zeus and celebrated human excellence, leaving an indelible mark on history. Alongside other Panhellenic festivals, they exemplified the Greek commitment to both physical prowess and divine reverence, creating a legacy that endures to this day.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Point of interest

The 26.2-mile marathon of today's Olympics can trace its origins back to ancient times, in addition to, the 1908 Olympics.

The modern marathon's distance of 26.2 miles (42.195 kilometers) has its origins in both ancient and modern history. The marathon race commemorates the legendary run of Pheidippides, an ancient Greek messenger who, according to legend ran across the mountain track in full armor from the battlefield of Marathon to Athens in 490 BCE to announce the Greek victory over the Persians. Upon delivering his message, νικῶμεν (nikomen, (We win)), Pheidippides is said to have collapsed and died. It is from the Greek word for (win/victory), that the famous running shoe brand found its name, (Nike).

Originally, the marathon distance was approximately 24.85 miles (40 kilometers), reflecting the distance from Marathon to Athens. However, the distance was standardized at 26.2 miles during the 1908 London Olympics. This change occurred because the course was extended to allow the race to start at Windsor Castle and finish in front of the Royal Box at the Olympic Stadium, making the distance exactly 26 miles and 385 yards, (26.2 miles).

Therefore, the marathon race is named after the Battle of Marathon, a crucial conflict in ancient Greek history. Characters like Pheidippides became symbolic of endurance and heroism, embodying the spirit of the event, which has since evolved into a cornerstone of modern athletic competition.

View Details

The second wave of states to leave the Union were the Upper South states. These included Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and pro-confederate Kentucky and Missouri, who held divided loyalties. The Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas had a more extensive free population than the deep South and made up most of the Confederacy. Here, Jeb Smith looks at the causes for the seccession of these states.

This is part 2 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here.

Henry Massey Rector, Governor of Arkansas at the time of secession.

"If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."

-Alexander Stephens

In general, there was a difference in the causes of secession between the original seven seceding "Cotton States" of the Deep South and the remaining Upper South.[1] When the Cotton States left the Union, the Upper South either turned down voting on withdrawal from the Union or voted against secession. Historian E. Merton Coulter writes, "The Majority sentiment in the Upper South had been unionist until Lincoln's call for troops...Upper South…had cried equally against coercion as secession."

When many historians talk about secession, they almost always ignore the Upper South; they unanimously point instead to the Cotton States. I believe this omission is because connecting slavery as a cause with the Upper South would be much more difficult. Further, looking at their causes of secession exposes the transformation of our Union into a centralized nation under Lincoln.

Lincoln's Call for Volunteers

"The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State."

-Confederate General John B. Gordon Reminiscences of the Civil War New York Charles Scribner's Sons Atlanta The Martin & Hoyt Co.1904

Like the Cotton States, the Upper South saw itself as a collection of sovereign states joined by a contract, the Constitution; if that contract was violated or not upheld, it could and should be discarded. Many believed that peaceful secession would be allowed to occur and that the principles of the Declaration of Independence would be allowed to play out peacefully. DiLorenzo quotes the reactions of multiple northern newspapers as showing substantial support for secession. Many in the North perceived that this war was one of the self-governing states versus a controlling central federal government. In Lincoln Unmasked, DiLorenzo tells us that before being deported by Lincoln, northern politician Clement Vallandigham accurately describes Lincoln's purpose for war.

"Overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead...national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation . . . No more state lines, no more state governments, but a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism."

-Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio

The North's support for secession was strong before it became clear how much of an impact secession would have on government funding, as the South was the North's "piggy bank." Further, free trade policies in the South would dominate the transatlantic trade since the North desired higher tariffs. If the South had been allowed to form their Confederacy, free trade policies in the South would have drawn even more commerce to Southern ports rather than Northern. So the North would lose the primary contributor to their economic plans, and they would lose out further due to their higher tax rates, and Europeans would trade with the free trade Confederacy. Not a good situation when you are looking to expand central spending.

Lincoln's call for volunteers to suppress the "rebellion" of the Cotton States caused the secession of the Upper South. The Cotton States felt that the federal government violated their agreement, and the Upper South believed that they had every right to leave, even if the Upper South disagreed with their reasons for leaving. As R. L. Dabney explained, "However wrongfully any State might resume its Independence without just cause, the only remedy was conciliation, and not force, that therefore the coercion of a sovereign State was unlawful, mischievous, and must be resisted. There Virginia took her stand."

According to many Republican politicians, the Union was not a voluntary contract between sovereign self-governing states governed by a constitution, but rather a centralized nation. Washington D.C., rather than "we the people," was the authority. The states, the people, were subjects, servants, and pupils of the state. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said that the Union predated the Constitution. He referred to the Union as a "national government," and a "government proper," a "national union." Lincoln said, "The Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it." He argued that the Union was not "an association of States in the nature of contract." His opinion was that "No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union."

The choice given to the Upper South was clear. They could either remain under the Republican-ruled coercive national government or join the Confederacy, whose Constitution maintained the Union and a compact of sovereign states. On June 4, 1861, The Western Democrat of Charlotte, North Carolina, said the Confederacy was "The only Republic now existing in America." The old Republic had become a democracy ruled by King Numbers. This was an easy choice for the Upper South.

The Upper South saw Lincoln's call for volunteers as a violation of the Constitution, a metamorphosis in government, and a violation of their states’ sovereignty. In 1863, the Address to Christians Throughout the World by the Clergy of the Confederate States of America suggested that the yankees, "Fight not to recover seceding states, but to subjugate them." This was a war of self-governing sovereign states versus a federal government that was willing to use military force against its own population to keep them under its jurisdiction. The Union was no longer a collection of self-governing bodies based on consent but a nation controlled by a dictatorial oligarchy. Consent of the governed was eliminated. The Upper South could not go along with what they viewed as oppressive actions by Lincoln and this transformation of the Republic.

"Subjection under an arbitrary and military authority, there being no law of Congress authorizing such calling of troops, and no constitutional right to use them....it is the fixed purpose of the government…to wage a cruel war against the seceding states...to reduce its inhabitants to absolute subjection and abject slavery...Lincoln...is now governing by military rule alone ...without any authority of law, having set aside all constitutional and legal restraints, and made all constitutional and legal rights dependent upon his mere pleasure...all his unconstitutional illegal and oppressive acts, all his wicked and diabolical purposes...in his present position of usurper and military dictator, he has been and is encouraged and supported by the great body of the people of the non slave holding States."

-Journal of the Convention of the People of North Carolina May 20, 1861, pp11-12

Professor of History at Longwood University Bevin Alexander wrote in his book, Such Troops as These, "Forced to choose between Lincoln's demand and what they believed to be morally correct and honorable, four Upper South states…seceded as well." The Upper South refused to become slaves to any government of unlimited power. In State Sovereignty and the Doctrine of Cohesion, J. K Spaulding wrote in 1860, "Hapless would be the condition of these states if their only alternative lay between submission to a self-construed government, or, in other words, unlimited powers and the certainty of coercion."

"Virginia...was not willing to secede hastily; but the demand of President Lincoln that she furnish troops to fight her sister States, ended all hesitation...preferring to fight in defence of liberty...to place themselves as barriers in the way of a fanatical Administration, and, if possible, stay the bloody effort to coerce independent states to remain in the Union."

-Address to Christians Throughout the World by the Clergy of the Confederate States of America Assembled at Richmond, VA April 1863

Preserving the Constitutional Republic

"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."

-Gen. Robert E. Lee quoted in The Enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee The Ideological Warfare Underpinning the American Civil War, Marshall DeRosa, Lexington Books 2014

"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

-Confederate General Patrick Cleburne 1864

Lincoln and the Republican party had transformed the Union from a confederation of sovereign states to a centralized nation controlled by the majority. He endeavored to expand the central Government beyond its scope in order to achieve a political agenda. The North had abandoned the Constitution and the Republic and replaced them with a centralized democracy; in other words, a limitless government. The Upper South had no choice but to join the Confederate Constitution, which maintained the "original compact" theory of the Union.

It was believed in the South that it was the North that should secede. Quoting Henry Wise of Virginia, historian James McPherson says, "Logically the union belongs to those who have kept, not those who have broken, its covenants...the North should do the seceding for the South represented more truly the nation which the federal government had set up in 1789." The South saw the growing majority of the North interfering with the culture within their states and violating the Constitution. They observed that democracy and mob rule would take over America. The South wished to restore America to its original Constitution, a Republic of confederated states, in order to preserve liberty and self-government.

"If they [the North] prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God...They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions."

-Dr. James Henley Thornwell of South Carolina, Our Danger and our Duty Columbia, S. C.: Southern Guardian Steam-power Press, 1862

True unreconstructed Southerners carried no blind patriotism for a tyrannical democracy like "America." In a Democracy, not even the Constitution or the Declaration could protect people from the mob. Decades after the war, Major James Randolph wrote the popular southern folk song, "I'm a good old rebel." Here are some of the lyrics.

O I'm a good old rebel,

Now that's just what I am.

For this "fair land of freedom"

I do not care a damn...

I hates the Constitution,

This great republic too,...

I hates the Yankees nation

And everything they do,

I hates the Declaration,

Of Independence, too.

I hates the glorious Union-

'Tis dripping with our blood-

I hates their striped banner,

...

And I don't want no pardon

For what I was and am.

I won't be reconstructed,

And I don't care a damn

That was the old southerner. Propaganda like "land of the free," "home of the brave," meant nothing to a people who had their government toppled, their self-governance eradicated, their former ways of life destroyed.

State Secession Documents

With their actions and words, the states of the Upper South made it clear that Lincoln's call for volunteers, state sovereignty, and self-government were the primary causes of secession.

Arkansas

"If we go to the North we become instruments in the hands of Lincoln to coerce the seceding states. To this a large number of the people will never consent."

-The True Democrat Little Rock Arkansas March 15, 1861

Before Lincoln's call for volunteers, the people of Arkansas voted to stay in the Union by a vote of 23,626 to 17,927. On March 4, 1861, the Arkansas convention, led by a unionist president, voted to remain in the Union. However on March 12, 1861, The True Democrat Little Rock Arkansas warned "If Lincoln attempts to carry out the doctrines of his inauguration and to coerce the seceding states, that forces us at once to take our position by their side."

On May 6, 1861, after Lincoln's call for men, Arkansas officials gathered to revote. This time the result was 65-5 in favor of secession. In response to Lincoln's call for volunteers, Henry Rector, the Governor of Arkansas, said, "The people of this commonwealth are free men, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property, against northern mendacity and usurpation." Arkansans' before and after votes and their declaration for secession demonstrate their motives for joining the Confederacy. The relevant section of the secession ordinance reads:

Whereas…Lincoln…has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention, pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas.

-Arkansas State Convention

Virginia

"Secession placed no State in so embarrassing a position as the great Commonwealth of

Virginia…There is no doubt that the great body of its citizens were opposed to the state’s seceding, but they were equally opposed to the coercion of the States which had already seceded."

-George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864 BiblioBazaar 2008

After the secession of South Carolina, Virginia stayed in the Union working to restore the seceding states back into the Union. However, on January 7, 1861, Virginia passed an anti-coercion resolution, by a vote of 112-5, describing the right of secession and state sovereignty. This declared that Virginia would oppose any attempt at coercion by the federal government. The resolution declares, "We will resist the same by all the means in our power." The state Governor declared, "I will regard an attempt to pass federal troops across the territory of Virginia, for the purpose of coercing a southern seceding state, as an act of invasion, which should be met and repelled." The general assembly "Resolved... that the basis of all just government is the "consent of the governed," and that such consent is the sanction of free, as force is the sanction of despotic, governments. That where this consent exists, there, whatever the form of the government, is liberty, and where it is wanting, there, whatever the form of the government, is tyranny." However, on April 4, 1861, Virginia voted to stay in the Union by a 2-1 margin.

Likewise, decades earlier, during the tariff controversy between South Carolina and the federal government the then Governor of Virginia said if any federal soldiers were to step on the soil of Virginia to coerce South Carolina to obey the federal tariffs they had nullified, it would happen only over his dead body. Such was the conviction of Virginian men against tyranny; it was no different in 1860. By calling for volunteers, Lincoln was ignoring Virginia's stance and resolve.

So when Lincoln called upon Virginia to supply troops to invade the Cotton States, Virginia's decision was predictable. Like most Virginians, Robert E Lee expressed his distaste for coercion when he wrote to his son George Washington Custis Lee in 1861, "A union that can be only maintained by swords and bayonets...has no charm for me." To Virginians, it was a clear distinction between government cohesion and liberty.

"As soon as it was known, that it was the intention of the northern president to usurp war-making powers, and wage war against sovereign states of the confederacy and that Virginia was called on to contribute men and money....no one doubted what her action would be...when the union became an engine for oppression...she could not hesitate to throw herself on the side of freedom."

-Richmond Whig Editorial April 19, 1861, Sic Semper Tyrannis State Independence Quoted in Virginia Iliad H.V Traywick, Jr Dementi Milestone Publishing INC 2016

Virginia voters gathered again after Lincoln's call for troops, and by a vote of 126,000 to 20,400, they left the Union. In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts shows the great impact Lincoln's call for volunteers had on Virginians. Croft reports on the celebration of Virginians in Rockbridge County, who, after Fort Sumter, put up a confederate flag in celebration. In response, pro-unionist Virginians, who were by far the more numerous, erected a new, more enormous flagpole and put an American eagle on it. However, after Lincoln's call for volunteers, those same Unionists who had put the pole up with the American eagle threw it down. Rockbridge County, which had been majority unionist, then voted 1,728 to 1 for secession.

In the book, Three Months in the Southern States, Englishman Lt.-Colonel Arthur J. Fremantle wrote about a conversation he had with a Virginia woman who said that: "She had stuck fast to the Union until Lincoln's proclamation calling out 75,000 men to coerce the South, which converted her and such a number of others into strong Secessionists." Likewise, confederate artilleryman William Thomas Poague wrote, "Had Lincoln not made war upon the south, Virginia would not have left the union."

"Let us consider for a moment the results of a consolidated government, resting on force, as proposed by the dominant party at the north....a consolidated despotism, upheld by the sword and cemented by fear....now it [the union] has been seized upon by a sectional party, it is claimed that its powers are omnipotent, its will absolute, and it must and will maintain its supremacy, in spite of states and people, at the point of the sword."

-Richmond Whig Editorial A Government of Force April 10 1861 Quoted in Virginia Iliad H.V Traywick, Jr Dementi Milestone Publishing INC

Moreover, Governor John Letcher, (who wanted Virginia to abolish slavery) opposed secession before Lincoln's call for volunteers. After Lincoln's call, however, he became a firm secessionist.

"The President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia."

-John Letcher Governor of Virginia

Virginia did not give a lengthy declaration of why it left the Union, just a short ordinance of secession and a mention of Lincoln's call for men.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America…declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."

It was not northern coercion alone that Virginia objected to. When South Carolina and Mississippi were considering passing laws that would negatively affect Virginia financially unless they joined the Confederacy, Governor Letcher said, "I will resist the coercion of Virginia into the adoption of a line of policy, whenever the attempt is made by northern or southern states."

Tennessee

On February 9, Tennessee voters turned down secession by a 4-1 margin. However, things transformed radically after Lincoln's call for volunteers. Governor Isham Harris wrote President Lincoln saying that if the Federal Government would "coerce" the seceded states into returning, Tennessee had no choice but to join its Southern neighbors. He wrote "Tennessee will not furnish a single man for purposes of coercion, but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights, and those of our southern brothers."

Harper’s Weekly quotes the Nashville Dispatch on April 13, saying, "An enthusiastic public meeting was held here tonight. Resolutions were unanimously adopted, condemning the Administration for the present state of affairs, and sympathizing with the South." Harper’s Weekly also quoted a Memphis paper saying, "There are no Union men now here." On May 9, in an address to the people of Tennessee, Governor Harris said, "Force, when attempted, changes the whole character of the Government; making it a military despotism, and those that submit become the abject slaves of power. The people of Tennessee have fully understood this important fact, and hence their anxiety to stay the hand of coercion. They well know that the subjugation of the seceded States involved their own destruction."

Harris and the people of Tennessee realized that cooperating in the subjugation of the Cotton States meant accepting their own future subjugation. Governor Harris recalled the Tennessee legislature on May 6 for another vote; voters would then approve secession on June 8 by a 2-1 margin. Reconciliation with a coercive government was out of the question; the Union was no longer. The founder's republic had vanished.

"If ever thus restored, it must, by the very act, cease to be a Union of free and independent States, such as our fathers established. It will become a consolidated centralized Government, without liberty or equality, in which some will reign and others serve the few tyrannize and the many suffer. It would be the greatest folly to hope for the reconstruction of a peaceful Union…The Federal Union of the States, thus practically dissolved, can never be restored."

-Isham G Harris, Senate Journal of the Second Extra Session of the Thirty-Third General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, which Convened at Nashville on Thursday, the 25th day of April, A.D 1861 Nashville J.O Griffith and Company, Public Printers 1861

North Carolina

"I have to say in reply that I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

-John Ellis, Governor of North Carolina Raleigh April 15, 1861, quoted in Harper's Weekly April 27, 1861

Before Lincoln's call to invade the Cotton States, support for the Union was overwhelming in North Carolina; they did not even vote on secession. However, after Lincoln's call for war, they unanimously adopted a secession ordinance. The same issue of Harper's Weekly quoted a dispatch from Wilmington North Carolina; "The Proclamation is received with perfect contempt and indignation. The Union men openly denounce the Administration. The greatest possible unanimity prevails." The effects were felt across political lines. McPherson writes, "Even the previously unionist mountain counties, seemed to favor secession."

Governor Ellis' proclamation on April 17 clarified why North Carolina stood with the South; "Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South, and for the violent subversion of the liberties of a free people…this high-handed act of tyrannical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law, in utter disregard of every sentiment of humanity and Christian civilization…but is a direct step towards the subjugation of the whole South, and the conversion of a free Republic, inherited from our fathers, into a military despotism."

Missouri

"Sir...Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and can not be complied with. Not one man will, of the State of Missouri, furnish or carry on such an unholy crusade."

-Missouri Governor Claiborne Jackson Jefferson City April 17, 1861 Quote in Harper's Weekly April 27, 1861

Missouri was almost entirely pro-union. When confederates sent delegates to Missouri to convince the state to join the South, they were booed and jeered so loudly that none could hear them. On March 21, 1861, the Missouri convention voted 98-1 against secession, but they, like Kentucky, kept their neutrality.

However, many in the state became outraged that their state sovereignty had been violated during the "Camp Jackson Affair." Union commander Nathaniel Lyon arrested the Missouri State Brigade, whom he feared were planning to seize the arsenal in St. Louis, and federal soldiers killed dozens of citizens during ensuing riots. Since the federal government violated the state's neutral position, support for secession grew within the state. James McPherson wrote, "The events in St Louis pushed many conditional unionists into the ranks of secessionists." Lyon then pushed the Governor and state legislature out of Jefferson City, creating more anti-union sentiment. These events led to the end of neutrality, which resulted in both a pro-confederate and pro-union government within the state. On November 28, the Confederate Congress accepted Missouri as the 12th confederate state. Pro-confederate Missouri's reasons for secession centered around constitutional violations by the Lincoln administration.

Whereas the Government of the United States…has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof.

-Missouri Causes of Secession

Kentucky

By a 3 to 1 margin, Kentucky voted to remain neutral, but after Lincoln's call for volunteers, support for the South began to spread. The Kentucky Governor wrote, "President Lincoln, I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister southern states." On April 16, 1861 Governor B. Magoffin wrote to Simon Cameron, Secretary of War saying "Your dispatch is received. In answer, I say emphatically that Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."

However, the state's neutrality stance was violated by southern troops. In reaction, Kentucky would officially support the Union. Yet a pro-confederate government was established on December 10, 1861, and was accepted into the Confederacy by President Jefferson Davis as the 13th Confederate state. This Confederate government gave its causes of secession centered on limited government, Northern violations of the Constitution, and states’ rights.

Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government.: therefore, be it ordained, that we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States.

-Declaration of Causes of Secession Kentucky

Slavery's Impact on the Secession of the Upper South

"It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against States fighting for their Independence into a war waged against States fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South."

-Woodrow Wilson, "A History of The American People" HardPress Publishing 2013

Slavery's involvement as a cause for secession in the Upper South is overstated. The states of the Upper South had protection for their slave property whether they stayed in the Union or joined the Confederacy. When the Deep South states left the Union, more slave states remained in the Union than joined the Confederacy. Most Upper South state declarations did not even mention slavery; if they did, it was only in passing and usually associated with violations of state's rights or the Constitution. Instead, they heavily spoke on state's rights, state sovereignty, and Lincoln's call for volunteers as the reasons for secession. Those states had previously chosen to stay with the Union before Lincoln's call but could no longer remain under a government of force.

Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy

"Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for its preservation, especially when it seemed to them that it was in no danger.'"

-John G. Barrett, The Civil War in North Carolina U of North Carolina Press 1995

The Union would protect slavery better than a Confederacy. Slavery was constitutionally protected in both the northern and southern states for the entirety of the civil war. Moreover, Lincoln and the North supported the Corwin Amendment, which would permanently enshrine slavery in the U.S. Constitution. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said this of the proposed amendment, "To the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

-Corwin Amendment

The U.S. supreme court supported the fugitive slave laws, allowing federally funded agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. On the other hand, the Confederacy was unable to protect slaveowners when slaves fled to the North. In his inaugural address, Lincoln pointed this out, saying, "while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other."

The 1860 Republican platform Plank 4 said that slavery was a state issue, and they would not interfere with it in states that already had slaves. In his inaugural address, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Likewise, on May 26, 1861, General MClellan said, "Not only will we abstain from all such interference (with slaves), we will, on the contrary, with an iron hand crush any attempt at insurrection on their part." It is no wonder a leader of the Whig Party in Missouri said, "Howard County is true to the Union. Our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property."

Even after the deep South left the Union, the federal government decided it would not end slavery, in the House in February and the Senate on March 2, 1861. On July 22, 1861, Congress declared, "This war is not waged, nor (the) purpose of overthrowing… the rights or established institutions of those states." On October 8, 1861, the Washington D.C. newspaper, The National Intelligencer, said, "The existing war had no direct relation to slavery." On November 7, 1861, Commanding General McClellan said, "The issue for which we are fighting, that issue is the preservation of the Union... I express the feelings and opinions of the president when I say that we are fighting only to preserve the integrity of the Union." On August 15, 1864, long after the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln said, "So long as I am President. It shall be carried on for the sole purpose of restoring the Union."

This is not to say that no one in the Upper South was upset over the Republican's intrusion into the states' rights on this issue in the western territories. There was a minor secession movement within the Upper South on the issue of slavery, especially in Virginia and Arkansas, but they were a minority. In fact, after Lincoln's call for troops, many slave owners in the Upper South argued to stay in the Union since Lincoln was powerless to interfere with slavery.

"Is there any good reason why we should change our position? I believe that so far as the North is concerned, the prospect for the full recognition of Southern rights is better than it was at the time of Lincoln's election, or at any time within several years before. The Governors of several Northern States, including the great States of New York and Pennsylvania, have recommended the faithful observance of all the laws intended for the protection of slave property, and the repeal of all the personal liberty bills... Lincoln's administration is powerless to harm us. Before its close, his party will be scattered into fragments."

-Rep. Thomas N. Crumpler of Ashe County N.C to the House of Commons on January 10, 1861

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

View Details

‘The Man in the High Castle’ was an American television series created for a “parallel universe” where Nazi Germany, and the Empire of Japan, respectively, would rule the world after winning World War II. The series was nominated for over two dozen awards, winning three of them. The author of this piece, Ken Buller, has just finished watching the entire series. I guess it’s always better to be late, then to never have watched it.

Vyacheslav Molotov (left) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (right) at the signing of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

As I was binge watching the series, I couldn’t help but pull out every history book, paper, and lesson I had gone through in school to really dive into what were some of the fatal mistakes that the Axis (particularly Nazi Germany) had made to make it a fictional series, and thankfully, not a reality. The list could probably go on forever, but here’s a list of four of the most important reasons for what I think cost the Nazis and Japanese their empires.

Strategic Blunders

The brain drain. With Hitler’s twisted and demonic ideology, he either drove away or killed millions of high IQ, highly skilled entrepreneurs, manufacturers, scientists, engineers, physicians, financers, etc. I think the quote “Our Germans were better than their Germans,” from the film ‘The Right Stuff’ sums up the incalculable waste of talent he could’ve used.
Declaring War on The United States of America. On December 11, 1941, Nazi Germany declared war on the United States due to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor four days earlier. However, according to the terms of their agreements, Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Japan if a third country attacked Japan, but not if Japan attacked a third country. I think if Germany declared war on America, they had a great opportunity through the Kreigsmarine’s U-boat fleet to knock all of his enemies in Europe out, but particularly Great Britain.
The Invasion of the Soviet Union. Well, if any of you know about Napoleon, enough said, but that won’t fly with my Editor. Through the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, the Nazis had such an advantage that only a maniac could, and eventually, would ruin it. With their allies in the Balkans, Caucasus, and parts of Eastern Europe, they could have acquired the natural resources and material wealth that they desperately needed in order to maintain their dominance for years to come.
Failure to Work with Japan. It seems that throughout the war, Germany and Japan didn’t really work at all and they were more “frenemies” than actual allies. Throughout the war they had some joint operations, but I think they failed to operate on a grand scale. In my previous point, the German forces that were ultimately used on the Eastern Front, could have been used in North Africa, and the Middle East, who could eventually link up with Japanese Forces in India or Central Asia that were pushing in from China and Burma.

In conclusion, I think Adolf Hitler was obviously an evil monster, and because of his horrible ideology, it got in the way of making the right strategic moves at all the right times. I think even if he didn't commit half of the mistakes listed, the war would've gone on for years, and parts of "The Man in The High Castle" we could be living out right now.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

View Details

The Battle of Goose Green stands as one of the most dramatic and significant engagements of the 1982 Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina. This confrontation saw the British Parachute Regiment overcoming a numerically superior Argentine force to capture a strategically vital airfield.

Terry Bailey explains.

What is left of the 1982 Argentinian defensive positions on Darwin Ridge, Darwin, Falkland Islands. Source: Farawayman, available here.

Introduction

In April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory, triggering a military response from Great Britain. The British government, led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was under immense political pressure to reclaim the islands swiftly. The international community, particularly the United States, closely watched Britain's military response. These international overseers added to the urgency of a decisive victory, simply because the international community were pressing for a negotiated settlement. A British task force was en route within 3 days of the Argentine invasion.

It is worth noting that Argentina and Great Britain had spent numerous years talking about the Falkland Islands' future long before the Argentine invasion, including a potential dual sovereignty proposal.

However, now that Argentina had invaded and a British task force had set sail, it looked like war was inevitable. The British forces landed on the Falklands and began their advance. Goose Green, a settlement on East Falkland, became a focal point. The Argentine forces had fortified the area in depth, including the nearby airfield, which was crucial for controlling air operations in the region. Military and political leaders in London and the field recognized that capturing Goose Green would deliver a significant blow to Argentine morale and strengthen the British position.

Brigadier Julian Thompson, the immediate commander of the British land forces, faced considerable pressure from the British government to produce quick results. Although some military advisors suggested bypassing Goose Green to avoid heavy casualties, the political imperative for a visible and symbolic victory prevailed. Consequently, the 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment (2 PARA), under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Herbert "H" Jones, was tasked with the audacious assault.

Strategic Overview

The overall strategy for the British forces involved a multi-pronged advance to recapture key positions on the Falklands. Goose Green, located on a narrow isthmus on East Falkland, was defended by a strong Argentine force commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Ítalo Piaggi, numbering over 1,200 men and were well-entrenched with machine guns, mortars, and artillery support.

In contrast, 2 PARA comprised approximately 600 soldiers, half the strength of the Argentine defenders. Despite this disparity, the British strategy hinged on surprise, speed, and superior training, in addition to the skill of their troops. The plan involved a night march of approximately 21 kilometers to position the battalion for a dawn assault, to use the element of surprise to disorient the defenders and secure key objectives swiftly. However, the media had managed to transmit the story before the assault occurred, thereby, the element of surprise was lost and Argentine forces were substantially reinforced and ready for the assault.

Under cover of darkness on the 27th of May, 2 PARA advanced towards the settlement, navigating difficult terrain and maintaining strict noise discipline aimed at avoiding detection. The plan was to launch a coordinated attack at first light, striking the surrounding Argentine positions with overwhelming force.

The battalion's companies were each assigned specific objectives. 2 Para were unaware that the Argentine forces were expecting an assault and had reinforced the whole Goose Green area.

A Company, under the command of Major Dair Farrar-Hockley, were to take Burntside House as their first objective, B Company, under the command of Major John Crossland, followed in the next phase of the attack and was to secure Burntside Hill and then continue to Boca Hill.

Where A Company had advanced down the left side of the isthmus, B Company were to follow the coast on the right side of the attack. After a significant delay, the advanced initially encountered very little resistance in the forward trenches. Approaching Burntside Hill, they exchanged fire with the Argentine defenders, however, on reaching the top of the hill, they found the first positions empty.

The Coronation Ridge position temporarily halted Major Neame's D Company as they advanced between A and B companies. However, D Company soon encountered heavy fire from an Argentine machine gun which was silenced by two paratroopers, allowing D Company to continue and clear the Argentine position on Coronation Ridge. These early encounters held up the advance for approximately 3 hours.

Then A Company, 2 Paras moved into the gorse line at the bottom of Darwin Hill facing the entrenched Argentines, who looked down on the British and thus were able to pin down the British with heavy machine gun and automatic rifle fire, in addition to, sniper fire, thus holding up the advance for a further hour.

At this point B Company broke off their attack and began to withdraw to the reverse side of Middle Hill and the base of Coronation Point due to being completely exposed to enemy fire, as the whole area was wide open and had no real cover available for the British.

A and B companies utilized this time to prepare temporary defensive positions while a re-organization of the attack was conducted by 2 Para's second-in-command. The British A and B Companies currently were unable to cross the open ground due to Argentine machine guns and sniper fire.

With both A and B Companies' advance halted and the entire attack in jeopardy, the 2 Para Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jones led an unsuccessful charge up a small gully to try to regain the initiative. 3 of his men, his adjutant Captain Wood, A Company's second-in-command Captain Dent, and Corporal Hardman were killed when they followed his charge.

Shortly after that, Jones was seen to run west along the base of Darwin Ridge to a small re-entrant, checking his Sterling submachine gun, then running up the hill towards an Argentine trench. He was seen to be hit once, then fell, got up, and was hit again from the side. He fell meters short of the trench, H Jones was shot in the back and the groin, and died within minutes. Jones was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

After a further 5 hours of fighting and ammunition supplies becoming critical, A Company eventually overcame the Argentine defenders on Darwin Hill, finally reporting it secure at 13:13 hrs local time, and advanced to take Boca Hill. Waving a white T-shirt from a rifle all resistance on the part of the Argentines holding Darwin Ridge ended, securing the outlying areas of Goose Green.

After securing Boca Hill and the battle for Darwin Ridge was over, the interim objectives had taken six hours of fighting, with heavy losses, the commanding officer, the adjutant, A Company's Second-in-Command, and nine non-commissioned officers and soldiers were killed with a further 30 wounded.

C and D Companies began to make their way to the airfield, as well as to Darwin School (to the east of the airfield), while B Company made their way south of Goose Green Settlement.

A Company remained on Darwin Hill. C Company originally held in reserve now advanced to contact and came under effective enemy fire sustaining heavy casualties.

The order to fix bayonets was given and C company continued their advance clearing the enemy positions as they traversed the boggy uneven terrain. The outer defenders fell back into the Darwin-Goose Green track and were able to escape. Sergeant Sergio Ismael Garcia of 25IR single-handedly covered the Argentine withdrawal during the British counterattack. For this, he was posthumously awarded the Argentine Nation to the Valor in Combat Medal.

By last light, A Company was still on Darwin Hill, north of the gorse hedge; B Company had penetrated much further south and had swung in a wide arc from the western shore of the isthmus eastwards towards Goose Green, but were isolated and under fire from Argentine positions and unable to receive mutual support from the other companies.

At this point further Argentine reinforcements were arriving; however, B Company 2 Para managed to bring down artillery fire on these new Argentine reinforcements, forcing them to disperse towards the Goose Green settlement, although some did re-embark and left with the departing helicopters that had deployed them.

At this point, C Company's attack had also stalled, after their battle at the Darwin Schoolhouse, now advancing towards Goose Green airfield they came under intense direct fire from 35 mm anti-aircraft guns from Goose Green.

Whereas, D Company had regrouped just before the last light, and they were deployed to the west of the dairy—exhausted, hungry, low on ammunition, and without water.

Food was redistributed, for A and C Companies with one ration-pack between two men; but B and D Companies could not be reached. At this time, a British helicopter casualty evacuation flight took place, successfully extracting C Company casualties from the forward slope of Darwin Hill, while under fire from Argentine positions.

To Keeble, now in command of 2 Para with the death of Lieutenant Colonel H Jones, the situation looked precarious, the Argentine position had been surrounded but not captured, and his fighting companies were exhausted, cold, and low on water, food, and ammunition.

His concern was that the Argentine reinforcements, dropped by helicopter, would either be used in an early morning counter-attack or used to stiffen the defenses around Goose Green.

He had seen the C Company assault stopped in its tracks by the anti-aircraft fire from Goose Green and had seen the Harrier strikes earlier that afternoon missing their intended targets. In an orders group with the A and C Company commanders, he indicated his preference for calling for an Argentine surrender, rather than facing an ongoing battle the following morning. This train of thought was based on the fact that the Argentine forces were surrounded and all outlying Goose Green Argentine positions were now in British hands.

However, at the same time, he put an alternative plan into action, in case the Argentines decided not to surrender. This plan was to "flatten Goose Green" with all available firepower and then launch an assault with all forces possible, including reinforcements he had requested from Brigadier Thompson.

On Thompson's orders, J Company of 42 Commando, Royal Marines, and the remaining guns of 8 Battery, and additional mortars were helicoptered in to provide the necessary support for a possible assault on the 29th of May.

However, on the morning of the 29th of May 1982, the formal surrender of Goose Green by the Argentine forces took place with 2 PARA securing a decisive victory, although with heavy losses.

Aftermath and Impact

The capture of Goose Green was a pivotal moment in the Falklands War. It demonstrated the resolve and capability of British forces operating far from their native shores of Great Britain in the world of modern combat, boosting morale both for the islanders and the populace in Great Britain. The victory also had a significant psychological impact on the Argentine forces, undermining their confidence and cohesion.

Over 1,200 Argentine soldiers from Goose Green were taken prisoner by the British. In questioning the prisoners it became quite clear that the use of the bayonet by the British was not only a shock to many of the Argentine soldiers but was a decisive factor in the collapse of morale and therefore, the overall collapse of Argentine forces at Goose Green. It should also be noted that the Argentine commander was fully aware that his command was surrounded and the British now could call upon large amounts of fire support.

The political and strategic implications of the battle were profound. Prime Minister Thatcher capitalized on the success, enabling the strengthening of domestic and international support for the British campaign. The victory at Goose Green underscored the effectiveness of British military strategy and tactics, even when facing numerically superior forces, setting the stage for subsequent operations to reclaim all of the Falklands Islands.

Conclusion

The Battle of Goose Green is remembered as a symbol of courage, skill, and determination of the British Parachute Regiment. Despite facing a numerically superior enemy, 2 PARA's audacious assault, tactical superiority and the overwhelming aggressive fighting ability of the British Airborne soldiers secured a crucial victory in the Falklands War, when international pressure was pushing for a negotiated settlement, that may have sided with the Argentine leadership.

The battle not only showcased the effectiveness of British forces but also highlighted the political and strategic dimensions of military decision-making in the heat of conflict. Reflecting on this historic engagement, the legacy of Goose Green endures as a true symbol of bravery and resilience, providing a reminder that extraordinary feats can be achieved when determination and skill combine in the face of adversity.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Note

Battles are often confusing and full of contradictions from either side, and the battle for Goose Green is no exception, however, what is certain is that a smaller numerical force overcame a larger force by closing with the enemy with fixed bayonets and generating enough military violence to overcome the enemy positions.

Point of interest

The English Captain John Strong made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690, and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group. Whereas, Argentina was only founded as a country in 1816 on the 9th of July.

The Argentine sovereignty claim is based upon the inheritance of the islands, known as Las Malvinas in Argentina, from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s. Additionally, the Falkland Islands' proximity to Argentina's mainland appears to be reason enough for the claim by the Argentine government.

Lieutenant Colonel H Jones, Victoria Cross citation

On 28th May 1982 Lieutenant Colonel Jones was commanding the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment on operations on the Falkland Islands. The Battalion was ordered to attack enemy positions in and around the settlements of Darwin and Goose Green. During the attack against an enemy who was well dug in with mutually supporting positions sited in depth, the Battalion was held up just South of Darwin by a particularly well-prepared and resilient enemy position of at least eleven trenches on an important ridge.

A number of casualties were received. In order to read the battle fully and to ensure that the momentum of his attack was not lost, Colonel Jones took forward his reconnaissance party to the foot of a re-entrant which a section of his Battalion had just secured. Despite persistent, heavy and accurate fire the reconnaissance party gained the top of the re-entrant, at approximately the same height as the enemy positions. From here Colonel Jones encouraged the direction of his Battalion mortar fire, in an effort to neutralize the enemy positions.

However, these had been well prepared and continued to pour effective fire onto the Battalion advance, which, by now held up for over an hour and under increasingly heavy artillery fire, was in danger of faltering. In his effort to gain a good viewpoint, Colonel Jones was now at the very front of his Battalion. It was clear to him that desperate measures were needed in order to overcome the enemy position and rekindle the attack, and that unless these measures were taken promptly the Battalion would sustain increasing casualties and the attack perhaps even fail.

It was time for personal leadership and action. Colonel Jones immediately seized a sub-machine gun, and, calling on those around him and with total disregard for his own safety, charged the nearest enemy position. This action exposed him to fire from a number of trenches. As he charged up a short slope at the enemy position he was seen to fall and roll backward downhill. He immediately picked himself up, and again charged the enemy trench, firing his sub-machine gun and seemingly oblivious to the intense fire directed at him. He was hit by fire from another trench which he outflanked, and fell dying only a few feet from the enemy he had assaulted.

A short time later A company of the Battalion attacked the enemy, who quickly surrendered. The display of courage by Colonel Jones had completely undermined their will to fight further.

Thereafter the momentum of the attack was rapidly regained, Darwin and Goose Green were liberated, and the Battalion released the local inhabitants unharmed and forced the surrender of some 1,200 of the enemy.

The achievements of the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment at Darwin and Goose Green set the tone for the subsequent land victory on the Falklands. The British achieved such a moral superiority over the enemy in this first battle that, despite the advantages of numbers and selection of battleground, the Argentinian troops never thereafter doubted either the superior fighting qualities of the British troops or their own inevitable defeat.

This was an action of the utmost gallantry by a Commanding Officer whose dashing leadership and courage throughout the battle were an inspiration to all about him.

His Victoria Cross is displayed at the National Army Museum in Chelsea, London.

Other British awards

The Distinguished Service Order was awarded to Maj. C.B.P. Keeble, the Battalion second in command

The Military Cross Was awarded to:

Maj. J.H. Crossland: OC B Coy

Maj. C.D. Farrar-Hockley: OC A Coy

Lt. C.S. Connor: Recce Pl. Cmdr

Distinguished Conduct Medal was awarded to:

Cpl. D. Abols for his daring charges, which turned the Darwin Hill battle

Sgt. J.C. Meredith, Pl Sgt, 12 Platoon, D Company

Pte S. Illingsworth was posthumously awarded the DCM

View Details

The Mississippi River — trade route, boundary line, and burial ground. According to www.nps.gov the Mississippi River flows 593,003 cubic feet of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. This equates to 4.4 million gallons per second, with each droplet telling a story and holding a memory. Researching currents and flood stages gives us a hint at her moods, but she has long been a crucial player in the history of American. Here, Bethany Bellemin will look at the river’s importance in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

*The Battle of New Orleans.* By Edward Percy Moran, 1910.

Key Players

The testing time for a new American had begun. The British fleet had been confiscating crewmen from United States’ vessels claiming them as deserters of the British navy. While some of them had been deserters looking to start a new life, other sailors taken were simply American citizens going about their lives. After a few years of this injustice, the Americans had finally had enough. War was officially declared against the former mother country on June 18, 1812. It was going to be a conflict with far more significance than either side realized.

For two years war waged bringing the most pivotal battle with it. The beginning of the end started on December 21, 1814. The war had come to New Orleans, Louisiana. The ensuing conflict would prove to be a crucial and defining moment, not just for the war, but also for the entire nation.

December 1, 1814. General Andrew Jackson, the man of the hour had arrived. Robert Tallant, an authority on the Battle of New Orleans called him, “The toughest fighting man in the country.” (The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, 84). Jackson was preparing for the looming battle ahead with an ill-prepared army, and he was running out of time. With his troops low on ammunition and food, Jackson prepared his defense and hoped the supply boats would arrive in time. The British, under the command of Major General Pakenham, was sailing in with a fleet, fully prepared for a quick seizure of the city and the mouth of the Mississippi River. The British army had determined to conquer New Orleans using her access to the interior via the river and put a chokehold on America. It was known that whoever controlled the river controlled the nation. The city of New Orleans knew they were a pawn in the game and the control of the river was the key element to the upcoming events in which they would be participating whether they wished to or not. There was no ignoring the British ships silhouetted against a gulf sky.

The supplies Jackson was waiting for were running late, and his temper was running short. The keelboats hauling the goods had stalled upriver with their captains refusing to deliver the load unless they were paid a higher fee. It was a classic trade monopoly that the river has witnessed time and time again.

Enter Henry Miller Shreve, inventor and entrepreneur of growing renown along the river. With lives and the fate of the nation at stake, he knew what he had to do. In December 1814, he set off down the river in his steamboat the Enterprise which he had loaded with supplies for the small army amassing at the mouth of the Mississippi. Shreve was already tackling the Livingston-Fulton embargo on river trade and was no stranger to opposing injustice in the trade routes. Fighting for his country was just as close to his heart. He also made certain that the three keelboats delivered their load to Jackson: regardless of the captains' complaints against the action. A deal was a deal in Shreve’s mind and was as irrevocable as the flow of the river.

Now the spotlight moved to Jean Lafitte, privateer and businessman. He never revealed in his life why he disliked the British so much, but it is a known fact that he opposed them enough to refuse their offers attempting to cajole him into joining the British army, which also seemed to have lit the match that pushed him to offer his influence and abilities in the aid of his new country. He was not American born but he was American made. Jackson is said to have taken an instant liking to him which is recommendation enough from the stern general.

Alongside Henry Shreve, and the temporary ally, Jean Lafitte, Jackson was now ready. Lafitte was able to supply the flints needed to outfit the army Jackson commanded, many volunteers lacking any weapons whatsoever. (The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, 119). Jackson, Shreve, and Lafitte: men that ran in very different circles and yet their decisions had brought them all together in this moment. The three men were perhaps unknowingly cornerstones for this battle, would all carry have a lifelong respect for each other.

Why New Orleans

The battle of New Orleans would forever mark the young country of America. Sometimes called the Second War for Independence, it was proof that the new country was here to stay. It would set the nation apart, a new land with opportunity and justice for all. And everyone from every people group were eager to take part in the battle. Even the Choctaw nation took an interest, making up a small group of eighteen and heading down the river to help defend Louisiana. The United States had an army of 2,131 while the British were known to be marching in with at least 12,000 seasoned soldiers. The odds were not in New Orleans’ favor. Robert Tallant made this empowering statement about Jackson’s troops: “It is doubtful if a braver little army every marched in the history of the world.” (The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, 128-130). It is also to be noted that it is the first recorded time that all different people groups of the country fought united against a common foe. For the first time, the former colonists really felt like Americans.

The Mississippi River was a major deciding factor on the outcome of the war. Even the British were aware that the river would determine the winning side. Controlling the watery trade route could split the nation in half and ensure the ability to deliver ammunition along the waterways to the nation that held the power. It was well known that the majority of news, military orders, and citizen mail for the southern portion of the country went down the waterway as well; trade was not the only thing that was in jeopardy. New Orleans had long known that the war would come to them, it was inevitable. She stood at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico and going by her was the only way the interior could be reached by boat. If she fell, potentially so did the nation.

The first shots fired in defense of New Orleans were from aboard the Carolina, a steamboat merchant vessel that sailed down the Mississippi to the British encampment. Shots were exchanged beginning at 7 p.m. on December 23, 1814. It had started.

It was a long battle, lasting from December 23 to its finale on January 8, 1815. The casualties for the Battle of New Orleans were grossly unbalanced with the British recording over 2,000 casualties among their troops. In contrast, Jackson’s smaller force, with their base camp at the now famous Chalmette Plantation, endured less than 100 casualties. This success in preservation can be attributed to the guerrilla warfare style of the Americans and the fact they knew the lay of the land. Also fighting for one's own country has a higher moral fiber than fighting to conquer another’s homeland. The British soldiers were certainly lessenthusiastic than their commanders about the whole affair.

A Pointless Battle or Something More?

Ironically, the war ended before the famous battle on December 24, 1814, in Ghent, Belgium. But news had to come by ship and that took time. Edith McCall, a historian on Captain Shreve, notes it was seven weeks before the news of the treaty reached New Orleans. She further states that “the Battle of New Orleans soon became known as ‘the needless battle,’ for it was fought two weeks after the war was officially over. However, no one argued that it had been a useless battle, for it won new respect for the American military forces.” (Mississippi Steamboatman: The Story of Henry Miller Shreve, Edith McCall, 29-30). The War of 1812 was considered officially ended by Congress ratifying the treaty on February 16, 1815. The United States finally saw itself as a separate country and not just a singular group of colonies that still reflected Britain. Now she saw herself as a nation that could stand the test of time and make her mark on the world.

All the men that played a part in it, the knowns and the unknowns, showed that the country was built on initiative. Shreve taking his steamboat with munitions; Jackson pushing his troops to march from Pensacola, Florida to New Orleans as quickly as possible; Lafitte relentlessly offering his aid in the conflict from supplying weapons to sharing knowledge of the swamp lands: this was initiative and these are the types of men that laid the foundation for their sons and grandsons and further down to the ones who would enlist in World War Two in the fight to protect their country and stop Nazi Terrorism. This is the backbone of America, and it took a battle that was fought too late after a war to prove it to herself.

Robert Remini, another historian covering the famous battle, remarks that “the Battle of New Orleans was one of the great turning points in American history. The country had gone to war with England in a desperate effort to prove that its independence won in the revolution was no fluke, no accident, no grant by a reluctant mother country…in that one glorious moment the nation had demonstrated that it had the strength, will, and ability to defend its freedom and prove to the world that it was here to stay, that its sovereignty and rights were to be respected by all.” (The Battle of New Orleans: Andrew Jackson and the First Military Victory, Robert V. Remini, 195). The United States was now a player among the powers of the world.

The Mississippi River was the heartbeat of a growing nation at a time when roads were few and railways were fewer. Even for the people that did not live near her shoreline, the river was the line of communication and trade from north to south. For those who were directly influenced by the waterway, the river was their very own to protect and utilize. Fishing, trade, and all manner of livelihood ebbed and flowed with the river's currents. Keeping the waterway in the hands of the Americas ensured she would last as long as the river ran. The people of New Orleans and of the swamplands considered her home, but she also became a symbol: no one will easily lose what he is willing to die to protect. The Battle of New Orleans was a group of people with little connection before the event. In their attempts to protect a river they forged a bond; and in doing so solidified the United States of America. That is one of the things that makes America what it is. And we can can thank a river for that.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

When it comes to history, I always tell people don’t take just one person's word for it. Research it and find your own conclusions based off of the facts that present themselves. That’s what makes us all historians: the curious mind and the searching heart. I found these books to be invaluable in my study of The Battle of New Orleans and hope you find in them a piece of the past to hold onto for yourself as well.

It Happened on the Mississippi River, James A. Crutchfield, Morris Book Publishing, 2009.

The Battle of New Orleans: Andrew Jackson and the First Military Victory, Robert V. Remini, Penguin Books, 1999.

The Story of the Battle of New Orleans, Stanley Clisby Arthur, 1915, republished Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2015.

Mississippi Steamboatman: The Story of Henry Miller Shreve, Edith McCall, Walker Publishing Company, 1986.

Sink or Be Sunk!, Paul Estronza La Violette, Annabelle Publishing, 2002.

The Greatest Fury: The Battle of New Orleans and the Rebirth of America, William C. Davis, Caliber by Penguin Random House, 2019.

Master of the Mississippi, Florence L. Dorsey, Pelican Publishing, 1998.

The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, Pelican Publishing, 1951. (You will notice this was one of my favorite books to quote in this article. A well written and engaging narrative of Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans).

View Details

The Vicksburg campaign was a series battles from 1862 to 1863 in the US Civil War. The fighting was focused on Vicksburg, Mississippi. In part one of a two-part series, Lloyd W Klein looks at the strategic importance of Vicksburg.

The bombarding and capturing of Fort Hindman, Arkansas Post, January 1863. By Currier and Ives.

"See what a lot of land these fellows hold, of which Vicksburg is the key! The war can never be brought to a close until that key is in our pocket.”

-- Abraham Lincoln

“ … the nailhead that holds the South's two halves together."

– Jefferson Davis

The vital importance of controlling the Mississippi River was apparent from the beginning of the Civil War. The river not only served as a crucial supply route but also facilitated the transportation of troops and military provisions, while also aiding in effective communication. By gaining control over the Mississippi River, the Union would effectively cut off the Confederacy's access to this vital thoroughfare, creating a division between the western and eastern southern states. Furthermore, this strategic move would enable Northern traffic to freely navigate the entire length of the river, essentially transforming it into a logistical superhighway that would greatly influence operations in the Western theater.

By June 1862, the Union army and naval forces had captured New Orleans and many other forts and cities along the Mississippi River. However, the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg in Mississippi remained under their control. With General Halleck's transfer to Washington as the commander-in-chief, General Grant assumed command of the Army of Tennessee and was entrusted with capturing Vicksburg. This was no easy task. It had been tried by others without success.

Admiral Farragut had attempted an assault up the river in May 1862 after he captured New Orleans. He demanded surrender but he had insufficient troops to attack. Returning with a flotilla in June 1862, his attempts to bombard the fortress into surrender were unsuccessful. Throughout July, the Navy shelled Vicksburg and engaged in minor battles with Confederate vessels in the area, yet their forces were not enough to attempt a landing, leading to the abandonment of the mission.

Geography

Vicksburg held immense strategic significance due to its geographical location overlooking a sharp 180-degree bend on the Mississippi River, situated atop a towering 200-foot bluff. Because of the horseshoe turn, ships were essentially forced to face toward it, then away from it, and had to maneuver slowly. Perched on high, steep bluffs 200 feet above the river and heavily defended by forts and earthworks, it was heavily defended with formidable forts and earthworks. It was called the "Gibraltar of the Confederacy" for good reason, as it appeared impregnable to any military force of that era.

North and east of Vicksburg, the Mississippi Delta was formed by the convergence of the Yazoo River with the Mississippi River. Spanning over 7000 square miles, this alluvial floodplain boasts an intricate network of streams, rivers, bayous, and swamps. Some of these waterways were navigable, while others were impassable. The Delta is a 7000 square mile alluvial floodplain, with many streams, rivers, bayous, and swamps, some of which were navigable, some of which were entirely unpassable. Its geological origin is that of regular flooding of both rivers over thousands of years, creating a flat, fertile land with swamps and other wetlands. It was a land inhabited by swarms of mosquitoes carrying malaria, poor roads, and untamed wilderness. Additionally, it housed some of the largest, most productive, and isolated cotton plantations. The slave population in this area developed its own unique culture and music, which eventually emerge as Mississippi Delta Blues.

A bayou is a sluggish and narrow river characterized by an ill-defined shoreline, often associated with a marshy lake or wetland. It can also refer to a creek whose direction of flow changes daily due to tidal shifts. Bayous typically contain brackish water and are frequently boggy or stagnant. On the other hand, a swamp or marsh is a low-lying wetland predominantly covered by woody vegetation. These areas experience saturation of water in the ground and are either partially or intermittently submerged. Swamps and marshes serve as transitional zones between land and water. Wetlands encompass not only floodplains but also other areas that are prone to flooding or remain underwater.

The Initial Advance

Ulysses S Grant assumed command of the Army of Tennessee and immediately devised a strategic plan. Departing from Memphis, he aimed to trace the path of the Mississippi Central Railroad towards the south, reaching Holly Springs. Meanwhile, General Sherman was entrusted with leading four divisions, totaling around 32,000 soldiers, down the river. Grant, on the other hand, would continue his advance with the remaining forces, approximately 40,000 strong, along the railroad line towards Oxford. The Confederate forces, under the leadership of Lt. Gen. John C. Pemberton, posed a formidable challenge, with 12,000 troops stationed in Vicksburg and Jackson, Mississippi, while Maj. Gen. Earl Van Dorn commanded around 24,000 soldiers in Grenada.

Grant faced numerous obstacles in his mission, including the Confederate Army's opposition, the demanding terrain and geographical features, the prevalence of diseases, and logistical difficulties in maintaining a steady supply chain. However, his most significant concern came from the political realm. President Lincoln envisioned a two-pronged offensive strategy, with Major General John McClernand authorized to advance down the river, while Nathaniel Banks would move upstream from New Orleans. This political pressure added an additional layer of complexity to Grant's already challenging circumstances.

General Grant's initial strategy to reach Vicksburg by taking the most straightforward overland route, following the train road, proved to be unsuccessful. The problem with this direct approach was that it was too predictable and vulnerable: any threat to the single-lane Mississippi Central Railroad would have disastrous consequences. Unfortunately for Grant, the Confederates had Nathan Bedford Forrest, a skilled commander who posed a significant threat to this route. As a result, Grant's offensive failed as raids by Van Dorn and Forrest disrupted his supply lines and communication networks. The destruction of the supply depot at Holly Springs forced Grant to abandon his original plan.

Chickasaw Bayou

Meanwhile, Sherman moved downriver to Johnson's Plantation and attempted a direct northeast advance toward Vicksburg. However, this strategy required traversing through swamps and facing strong defenses on hills overlooking a bayou. Despite launching attacks for three consecutive days at Chickasaw Bayou (December 26 - 29, 1862), Sherman's forces made no progress. The heavily fortified hills and the challenging terrain hindered their advancement, leaving them unable to break through.

On December 27, the Union army pushed their lines forward through the swamps toward the Walnut Hills, which were strongly defended. On December 28, several futile attempts were made to get around these defenses. On December 29, Sherman ordered a frontal assault, which was repulsed with heavy casualties, and then withdrew.

The problem was that the bayou ended in a wall of hills, the Walnut Hills, which provided a strong defensive advantage. The strategic significance of this attack was in its proximity to Vicksburg, which is exactly what enabled Pemberton to bring sufficient manpower for its defense. Another factor was that Porter’s bombardment failed to have an important effect. Sherman had over 30,000 men of whom 1700 were casualties; Pemberton had about 14,000 with less than 200 casualties.

General McClernand and Arkansas Post

Meanwhile, General McClernand led his Corps to Memphis and proceeded down the Mississippi River, where he instructed Sherman to join forces with him, disregarding Grant's directives. Their target was Arkansas Post, home to Fort Hindman at the junction of the Arkansas River, located 50 miles upstream. With the support of Admiral Porter's ironclads bombarding the fort, they managed to land sufficient numbers of troops to capture the fort and take prisoners despite sustaining heavy losses.

Initially skeptical of the expedition, Grant expressed disapproval in a letter to Halleck. However, the successful outcome compelled Grant to recognize its importance and collaborate with McClernand. The capture of Fort Hindman was crucial in preventing potential threats from the rear, underscoring the necessity of neutralizing such strongholds to secure Grant's position.

Although McClernand incurred over 1000 casualties in a 30,000-man army, he captured 5000 Confederates. Grant would need to win a victory over the rebels and his rival in his army. As a Democratic congressman from Illinois and a close friend of Lincoln, McClernand enjoyed a political alliance with the President. However, his position as a political general had its drawbacks. While serving as second in command at Belmont and later as a division commander at Donelson, Grant knew that if he failed, he would be next in line. Despite this, Grant maintained direct communication with Lincoln, bypassing the chain of command, and freely offered his advice and criticism of others. His ultimate goal was to secure an independent command.

Grant’s Bayou Operations

From January to March 1863, Grant’s basic plan was to get close to Vicksburg with his army so that in the Spring, he could be ready, without being exposed to the town's formidable artillery. Grant sought to create alternative routes that could serve as highways for his troops by preparing waterways in the vicinity,. These operations involved a series of seven initiatives or "experiments" that took place from January to March 1863. Although all of these attempts ultimately failed, Grant's willingness to explore various possibilities demonstrated his fearlessness in the face of potential failure. This mindset, characterized by creativity and thoughtfulness, ultimately led to his success. Grant's relentless pursuit of alternative strategies showcased his determination to find a solution, even if it meant considering unconventional approaches.

Grant’s Canal

One in particular deserves special mention. Grant's Canal was an attempt to create a canal through De Soto Point in Louisiana, across the Mississippi River from Vicksburg, Mississippi. In 1862, Farragut had explored the option of bypassing the fortified cliffs by constructing a canal across the river's bend, the De Soto Peninsula. Brigadier General Thomas Williams was sent to De Soto Point with 3,200 men to dig a canal capable of bypassing the Confederate defenses. Diseases, especially malaria, yellow fever, and dysentery, as well as falling river levels, prevented Williams from successfully constructing the canal, and the project was abandoned. In January 1863, the project regained momentum when General Grant took an interest in its potential.

Encouraged by Grant, who had received favorable feedback from the navy regarding President Lincoln's support, Sherman's troops resumed excavation in late January 1863. Mockingly referred to as "Butler's Ditch" by Sherman, referencing Major General Benjamin Butler, who had initially dispatched Williams for the task, the canal was a mere 6 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Recognizing the extensive engineering challenges, Grant initiated modifications by relocating the entrance upstream to capitalize on a stronger current.

Reports indicated that the water in the canal was stagnant and lacked any current, necessitating the need for a deeper channel for the Union Navy ironclads to navigate through. Grant, recognizing this issue, also gave orders to widen the canal. However, as the month drew to a close, it became evident to Grant that the canal project would not be successful. Union officers who visited later discovered that the water level was only 2 feet and observed the absence of any current, despite earlier reports of depths reaching up to 8 feet and widths up to 12 feet in certain areas. The situation took a turn for the worse when a sudden rise in the river caused the dam at the canal's entrance to break, resulting in flooding in the surrounding area. Consequently, the canal began to fill up with sediment and backwater. In a desperate attempt to salvage the project, two large steam-driven dipper dredges named Hercules and Sampson were deployed to clear the channel. However, their efforts were thwarted by Confederate artillery fire from the bluffs at Vicksburg, forcing them to retreat. By the end of March, all work on the canal was abandoned.

In April 1876, the Mississippi River changed course, forming a channel through De Soto Point. Vicksburg became isolated from the riverfront after the oxbow lake formed by the course change became cut off from the river. It was not until the completion of the Yazoo Diversion Canal in 1903 that Vicksburg regained its connection to the river. Although most of Grant's Canal has been destroyed over time due to agricultural activities, a small section measuring approximately 200 yards in length still remains. It is worth noting that General Grant did manage to alter the course of the Mississippi River, a remarkable feat of engineering. However, this achievement came too late to hold any military significance.

Lake Providence

Brig. Gen. James B. McPherson constructed a canal stretching several hundred yards from the Mississippi River to Lake Providence, enabling access to the Red River via Bayous Baxter and Macon, as well as the Tensas and Black Rivers. This strategic waterway would allow Grant's forces to link up with Banks at Port Hudson. By March 18, the connection was navigable, but the limited number of "ordinary Ohio River boats" provided to Grant for navigating the bayous could only accommodate 8,500 men. Although this was the only one of the bayou expeditions to successfully bypass the Vicksburg defenses, it was not enough for a successful Vicksburg operation. It did allow the possibility of sending reinforcements to Banks.

Yazoo Pass

The Yazoo Pass initiative aimed to reach the elevated terrain above Hayne's Bluff and below Yazoo City by breaching the Mississippi River levee near Moon Lake, approximately 150 miles above Vicksburg, near Helena, Arkansas. This plan involved traversing the Yazoo Pass, an ancient route from Yazoo City to Memphis that had been obstructed by the 1856 levee construction, isolating the Pass from the Mississippi River to Moon Lake. The route would lead through the Coldwater River, then the Tallahatchie River, and finally into the Yazoo River at Greenwood, Mississippi. It may also have been intended as a method to raid the railroad bridge at Grenada.. Despite the Union's efforts to blow up the dikes on February 3, obstacles such as low-hanging trees and deliberate Confederate obstructions hindered progress. These setbacks allowed the Confederates to hastily erect "Fort Pemberton" near the junction of the Tallahatchie and Yalobusha Rivers, effectively repelling the Union naval forces.

Steele’s Bayou

On March 14, Admiral Porter attempted to reach Deer Creek by sailing up the Yazoo Delta through Steele's Bayou, which is located just north of Vicksburg. The purpose of this maneuver was to outflank Fort Pemberton and enable the landing of troops between Vicksburg and Yazoo City. However, the Confederates obstructed their path once again by felling trees and causing the paddlewheels of the boats to become entangled with willow reeds. This situation raised concerns that Confederate troops might seize the boats and sailors, necessitating Sherman to move troops by land to rescue them.

Duckport Canal

Another canal project known as the Duckport Canal was initiated to create a waterway from Duckport Landing to Walnut Bayou, aiming to allow lighter boats to bypass Vicksburg. However, by the time the canal was nearly completed on April 6, the water levels had significantly decreased. As a result, only the lightest flatboats were able to navigate through the canal, rendering it ineffective for larger vessels.

Milliken's Bend

The main challenge Grant faced in dealing with Vicksburg was its formidable position as a fortress situated on elevated bluffs along the river. The city boasted massive batteries that could outmatch any Union ships on the river. Additionally, Vicksburg was surrounded by nine major forts or citadels and protected by 172 guns, which commanded all possible approaches by both water and land. Furthermore, the city housed a garrison of thirty thousand troops, making it a highly fortified and well-defended stronghold.

Moreover, the turn in the river beneath the town ensured that any naval force would face immediate and devastating bombardment, making it a formidable barrier for potential invaders. However, the protected northern invasion route through a maze of swampy bayous posed a significant obstacle for Grant's army. While his troops could camp on the west side of the river, the logistics of launching an attack from that position were complex and uncertain. The necessity of eventually crossing the river to the other side raised questions about how the supply line and reinforcements would be managed during the movement.

Grant wasn’t actually directly across the river, because the large Cypress Swamp comprises the west bank. He was located at Milliken’s Bend, upriver from the 180-degree turn in the river. Despite the seeming disadvantage of being further away, this positioning allowed for a level of strategic ambiguity that Pemberton underestimated. Milliken's Bend, situated in Louisiana about 15 miles upriver from Vicksburg, served as a crucial staging area for Grant's army by 1863. The distance from Pemberton's forces provided Grant with the element of surprise and control over the river traffic, enhancing his strategic advantage.

The construction of bridges, corduroy roads, and the clearing of swamps by McClernand's troops from Milliken's Bend to the proposed river crossing at Hard Times, Louisiana, below Vicksburg, demonstrated the meticulous planning and effort required to overcome the challenging terrain. By filling in the swamps and creating a 70-mile road by April 17, the Union forces were able to establish a vital connection for their movements toward Vicksburg. This logistical feat showcased the determination and resourcefulness of Grant's army in navigating the difficult landscape to achieve their strategic objectives.

April brought receding waters and the emergence of roads from Milliken’s Bend to points downriver on the west bank. Grant planned to march his troops over those roads to a location where he could ferry them to the east bank of the river.

The Plan Emerges

Grant pored over maps and developed a plan requiring naval cooperation by January. Grant expressed that the next step was to get south of the city when he first landed at Young’s Point, in late January. In early February 1863, Grant conveyed to General Halleck and Admiral Porter his conception for the campaign. He later convened a staff meeting to outline his intentions. He expressed his desire to lead his army south of Vicksburg, cross the river, and sever the vital railroad link between Vicksburg and Jackson. However, despite his clear plan, Grant chose to delay the execution of his strategy until Spring. According to Grant's account in his memoirs, he attributed this delay to the high water levels of the river in January, which made it impractical to commence the campaign at that time.

Grant directed his army to march southward along the west bank of the Mississippi River, aiming to position his forces well below Vicksburg. The next step in his plan involved transporting his troops across the river, a task that required navigating past the formidable guns of the city. Once safely on the Mississippi shore south of Vicksburg, Grant intended to strike inland, engaging any Confederate forces encountered along the way, with the ultimate objective of capturing Vicksburg. Grant's meticulous planning involved extensive study of maps and charts, as he single-handedly devised this approach. However, his subordinates, including Sherman, McPherson, and Logan, expressed reservations about the plan, deeming it too risky. By using the new road, and a large Bayou, Grant was capable of reaching Hard Times Landing without being detected. The army marched south on the west side of the Mississippi River and crossed the river south of Vicksburg at a place named Hard Times.

Hard Times is just beyond Big Cypress swamp. At that location, the Mississippi River takes a wide inward turn. Bayou Vidal, which may have once been the main river channel, provided a direct route for Grant's forces. This route was approximately six miles beyond Grand Gulf on the opposite side of the river, where they boarded transports to cross over to Bruinsburg. Grant recognized the significance of this route and understood that he could continue to utilize it for transporting supplies as long as necessary.

Grant had three options for attacking Vicksburg: The first option was to return to Memphis and approach the city from the north and east via an overland route. However, Grant dismissed this option as it would have negatively impacted morale to retreat. The second option involved directly assaulting the city by crossing the Mississippi River. Grant rejected this option, believing it would result in a significant loss of life or even defeat. The third option was to march his troops down the west bank of the Mississippi, cross it, and approach the city from the south and east. Upon hearing Grant's plan, Sherman expressed doubts and suggested that Grant should reconsider option #1 and return to Memphis. Blair after the war also expressed his skepticism at the time.

The Naval Rendezvous

Grant’s particular genius in the war was his brilliant collaborations with the navy. His victories at Forts Donelson and Henry for example were made possible by the combination of ground and water approaches. In that sense, the concept of combined arms forces was an innovation General Grant developed. Vicksburg is the outstanding application of the model.

The Union troops needed to rendezvous with their Navy to cross into Confederate territory, but the success of this operation depended on the ability of the boats to evade the guns defending Vicksburg. It was crucial for there to be an adequate number of gunboats and transport ships positioned south of the city to ensure the plan's success. Once the Union Navy had navigated downstream past Vicksburg, there was no turning back due to the strong river current.

On the evening of April 16, two weeks before the planned river crossing, Admiral David Porter guided the Union fleet past the Confederate batteries at Vicksburg to join forces with Grant. Despite being detected by Confederate lookouts as they rounded De Soto Point, the fleet pressed on and engaged in battle with the Confederate batteries. Despite sustaining damage from enemy fire, the Union fleet successfully fought their way through to rendezvous with Grant.

Porter directed to ensure the concealment and protection of the boilers on the steamships by utilizing barriers made of cotton, hay bales, and bags of grain. This strategic measure would prove beneficial in the future as well. Additionally, to provide an extra layer of defense, coal barges, and surplus vessels were securely fastened to the sides of the critical vessels. Commencing at 10 pm on April 16, Porter assumed command of a fleet consisting of seven ironclad gunboats, four steamers, the tug Ivy, and a variety of towed coal barges, as they embarked on a downstream journey. The Union vessels were illuminated by Confederate bonfires, becoming targets for a relentless two-hour barrage from the Vicksburg guns. Despite the intense fire, the ironclads and supply-laden transports successfully navigated past the Vicksburg guns. The Confederate cannons unleashed a total of 525 rounds, resulting in sixty-eight hits. Remarkably, only one vessel was lost, and there were no casualties among the crew. Additionally, the Confederates had placed ropes strung across the river with explosives attached that could be moved by pulleys.

Grant realized that it would be impossible to provide his army with supplies using the muddy west bank road. As a result, a second convoy was organized to address this issue. On the night of April 22, six transport vessels, without any escorts, were tasked with towing barges loaded with 100,000 rations and other essential supplies, attempting to pass through the Vicksburg batteries. Grant, recognizing the importance of additional supplies, ordered another group of vessels to bring reinforcements one week later on the same night. This time, six protected steamers, under the command of Colonel Clark Lagow from Grant's staff, towed twelve barges filled with rations. Despite facing heavy fire from the Vicksburg batteries, five of the steamers and half of the barges successfully made it through. The vessels were primarily manned by army volunteers from "Black Jack" Logan's division, as the civilian crews were too fearful to navigate through the dangerous Vicksburg gauntlet. Although the run was mostly successful, the leading vessel, a hospital ship, was unfortunately sunk, resulting in the loss of two lives. Meanwhile, by cutting a new road through the swamp, when necessary, McClernand's corps worked its way south and was joined by one of McPherson's divisions.

Diversionary Tactics

To enhance the element of deception during his planned landing, Grant employed diversionary tactics to divert Pemberton's attention away from the south and the river crossing site. These tactics were executed through two well-conceived feints.

Snyder’s Bluff

While he was moving south with McClernand and McPherson on the west (Louisiana) bank, Grant had Sherman’s Fifteenth Corps threaten Vicksburg from the north. On April 27, Grant ordered Sherman to proceed up the Yazoo River and threaten Snyder’s Bluff northeast of Vicksburg. On the 29th, Sherman debarked ten regiments of troops and appeared to be preparing an assault while eight naval gunboats bombarded the Confederate forts at Haines’s Bluff.

Sherman’s division remained north of Vicksburg. General Sherman led a highly successful diversionary attack by utilizing a combined naval and infantry operation. Blair's division, consisting of eight gunboats and ten transports, secretly and quietly moved to the mouth of Chickasaw Bayou the night before the operation. At 9 am, all gunboats, except one, opened fire on the enemy forces in the bayou, while one gunboat and the transports moved upstream.

At the Battle of Snyder’s Bluff, the troops proceeded upstream until approximately 6 pm, crossed Blake’s Levee, and launched an assault on the artillery near Drumgold’s Bluff. This location was significantly north of Vicksburg, diverting focus from the ongoing activities downstream. The attack faced insurmountable challenges due to the strategic positioning of batteries on Drumgold’s and Snyder’s Bluffs, as well as the course of the Yazoo River that General Sherman's forces had to navigate.

At first, heavy casualties were sustained. The next morning more troops were deployed, but the difficult terrain of swamps and marshes posed formidable barriers to any progress. Sherman eventually retreated to Milliken’s Bend, realizing that his contingent, which constituted only a fraction of General Grant's overall command, would likely have failed to capture the bluffs even if a direct attempt was made.

Sherman withdrew on May 1 and hastily followed McPherson down the west bank of the Mississippi. His troops were ferried across the river on May 6 and 7.

This diversionary maneuver effectively drew Pemberton's attention away from Grant's actual landing site. Pemberton sent 3,000 troops that had been marching south to oppose Grant.

Grierson’s Raid

The success of this diversion was remarkable, as it involved a daring cavalry raid that originated from La Grange, TN and penetrated central Mississippi on April 17. This marked the commencement of a relentless 17-day campaign characterized by constant movement, widespread devastation, and frequent clashes. Upon its conclusion, General Grant aptly hailed it as "one of the most remarkable cavalry exploits of the entire war."

Under the leadership of Grierson, a force of 1,700 soldiers from the 6th and 7th Illinois, as well as the 2nd Iowa Cavalry regiments, embarked on this audacious mission from La Grange. Over the course of 17 days, Grierson's troops covered a staggering distance of 800 miles, engaging Confederate forces repeatedly. They successfully disrupted two vital railroads, took numerous prisoners and horses, and inflicted significant damage to enemy property. Their journey culminated in Baton Rouge on May 2, where Grierson joined forces with Nathaniel Banks in the ongoing siege at Port Hudson.

By skillfully diverting attention to the north and east of Mississippi, this raid effectively diverted Confederate focus away from the gathering of troops at Grand Gulf. Through the deployment of small patrols and deceptive maneuvers, Grierson managed to confuse the enemy regarding his true location, intentions, and direction. Operating deep within enemy territory, his forces systematically dismantled rail infrastructure, liberated enslaved individuals, razed Confederate storehouses, disabled locomotives, and obliterated commissary stores, bridges, and trestles. The lack of a viable response from General Pembleton further contributed to the raid's triumph. While Forrest was engaged in Alabama, combating Streight's Raid, other Confederate cavalry units were dispatched but proved unable to catch up with Grierson's swift movements. This strategic diversion ultimately hindered Pemberton's ability to effectively counter Grant's advance from the south, as he found himself inadequately equipped to confront the Union forces due to the distractions caused by Grierson's audacious exploits.