Battered by wind gusts, the Avro Lancaster bucked and lurched as its crew struggled to keep the plane aligned with the signal fires set by the French Resistance fighters two thousand feet below. The “Lanc,” one of the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) workhorse bombers, was a homely beast. It had four noisy propellers, a protruding snout, and a pair of ungainly tail fins. Built to drop bombs four miles above Dusseldorf and Dresden, the Lanc was ill-suited for the stealthy parachute operation it was being asked to perform in the predawn hours over Occupied France.

Timothy Gay explains the story of Stewart Alsop.

A Lancaster like this one deposited Alsop’s Jedburgh team and an SAS unit over Occupied France in August ’44. Source/Attribution: Photo: Cpl Phil Major ABIPP/MOD, available here.

Instead of its usual payload of thousand-pound bombs, the plane was carrying 18 members of two separate cloak-and-dagger outfits. A three-man team – two Americans, one Frenchman – from the ultra-secret Jedburgh program had orders to buttress BERGAMOTTE, a Maquis (Resistance) operation charged with harassing enemy movements on the roads and railways of south-central France.

During their months of training, the Jeds had been taught to mimic the Maqui’s tactical mantra: Surprise! Mitraillage! Evanouissement! (“Surprise! Kill! Vanish!”) Their goal, a Jed team leader mused years later, was to make the enemy believe it was “fighting the Invisible Man.”

After pulling off an ambush with their French partners, the Jeds learned to yell: “Foutez le camp!” Roughly translated, it meant “Scram! Let’s get the hell out of here!”

For weeks, Allied intelligence had worried that the BERGAMOTTE cell was being hounded by the German secret police, the Gestapo. Indeed, the brass feared that the Gestapo had not only seized control of BERGAMOTTE’s radio but had compromised its entire operation. The three Jeds were warned that cutthroat German agents – not to mention turncoat Frenchmen, too – might be lurking to snuff any Allied operative parachuted in from England.

“We had been given to understand,” the Jed team was to observe in its after-action report months later, “that Mission BERGAMOTTE might conceivably turn out to be the Gestapo in sheep’s clothing.”

Trust no “sheep,” the Jeds were instructed. The most innocuous-looking French villager could be a Gestapo stooge; ditto the head of the Maquis cell from the next town over.

Each Jed was given a personal cipher – an idiosyncratic phrase – to be used in emergency wireless transmissions in the all-too-likely event that they became separated, or if the mission went sideways.

Also waiting to leap out of the plane were 15 members of a coup de main (hard-hitting special forces) group, the Third French Parachute Battalion of the British Special Air Services (SAS). Once behind enemy lines, the SAS “rogue warriors,” as British historian Ben McIntyre has tabbed SAS commandos, had their own agenda of mischief and sabotage. Their chief objective was blowing up a bridge along the Route Nationale, the region’s main north-south artery, to hobble the Germans’ capacity to mobilize troops and armor.

Since the Lanc had no benches, the 18 commandos were sprawled on its floor, cramped against the cigar-shaped supply cylinders that would soon be dumped over their drop zone. An eerie blue light from a single bulb suffused the cabin.

   *

Nine full weeks after D-Day and just two days before the start of the “Champagne Campaign,” the Allies’ seaborne invasion of the Riviera, Adolf Hitler’s Wehrmacht had still not been ejected from France. The Lanc’s commandos were about to parachute atop thousands of trigger-happy German grenadiers and panicked Eastern European conscripts (Allied intelligence dismissively called them “Cossacks”), not to mention hundreds of members of the Milice, pro-Nazi Frenchmen who – it was now brutally clear – had backed the losing side.

The Milliciens knew that, if caught, they would pay for their treachery with their lives. They weren’t about to go down without exacting a bloodbath.

*

The Lanc’s unlikely first jumper, the 30-year-old American commander of the Jedburgh squad, had already crawled into position above the square hole carved aft of the plane’s bomb bay. His name was Stewart Johnnof Oliver Alsop. He was the scion of a Connecticut Yankee family whose ancestry could be traced to the Winthrops of Plymouth Plantation.

His facial features mirrored Hollywood matinee idol Robert Taylor’s: roguish blue eyes, an elongated patrician nose, mischievous eyebrows, and a mouth that always seemed to be suppressing a smile or a smirk. Even with a mop of brown hair hacked by military barbers, Alsop still radiated a Fitzgeraldian air of old money.

His mother, Corinne Robinson Alsop, was a niece of Theodore Roosevelt, a first cousin to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and a distant cousin of Eleanor’s husband, Franklin Delano Roosevelt – or as Stewart’s father, a rock-ribbed Republican, called the president, “that crazy jack in the White House!”

A member of the Oyster Bay Roosevelt clan, Corinne had been equally disdainful of her Hudson Valley relation. When the young FDR came to Long Island to court Eleanor, Corinne derided him in her diary as a “feather duster” and hoped Eleanor would have the good sense to dump him.

The Alsops had been Republicans since the Whig Party disintegrated in the 1850s. Stewart’s old man, Joseph Wright Alsop IV, was a perennially frustrated Grand Old Party candidate for the Connecticut governorship. Stewart’s mother, a cofounder of the Connecticut League of Republican Women, had seconded the nomination of Alf Landon, her party’s 1936 presidential nominee. Despite Corinne’s stirring oratory, Landon carried only two states against her fifth cousin. Alas, neither of them was Connecticut.

Dining room debates between the elder Alsops and their more liberal offspring often ended with Pa braying at his kids to “go back to Russia!”

Stewart’s older brother by four years, Joseph Wright Alsop V, was already a respected columnist for the New York Herald Tribune and its national syndicate. With war looming in 1941, Joe volunteered for the U.S. Navy. He was serving in Burma as staff historian for aviator Claire Lee Chenault’s American Volunteer Group (later dubbed the “Flying Tigers”) when he was dispatched, in early December ‘41, to obtain supplies in Hong Kong. He was still in the city on December 7th and 8th, those nightmarish days when the Imperial Japanese military rampaged throughout the Pacific.

Joe shrewdly disposed of his uniform, borrowed civilian clothes, and pretended he was still an active correspondent. His ruse worked, sort of. For six months, the Japanese confined him to a detention camp for foreign noncombatants.

Corinne and Joseph IV, Ma and Pa as Stewart called them in his wartime letters, were never reticent about wielding their powerful connections. They pulled out all the stops to liberate young Joe, including petitioning that crazy jack in the White House. It worked: Joe was released in mid-’42 in a repatriation exchange of prisoners.

The Alsops were unrepentant Anglophiles, not surprising given their ancestral roots in the East Midlands and their allegiance to Endicott Peabody’s thoroughly British Groton School. As journalist Robert W. Merry noted decades later, “[The Alsops] always managed to get in the company of the high and the mighty throughout the world.” If their kin didn’t invent speaking with British affectation and a locked jaw, they helped perfect it.

Being high and mighty didn’t preclude Stewart from misbehaving at Yale. He got into hot water twice, once for pilfering all four hubcaps off a cop car, the other for getting caught with a young lady in his room. The second offense prevented him from graduating with his class.

Stewart had been in uniform prior to Pearl Harbor, but until ten days before his hush-hush mission to France, that khaki had belonged to His Majesty, not Uncle Sam. He had attempted on several occasions to join the U.S. Army but suffered from what his family labeled “white coat syndrome”: whenever a doctor armed with a sphygmomanometer was around, his blood pressure invariably spiked.

High blood pressure notwithstanding, Alsop was, along with a select group of other American Ivy League alums, invited by British bigwigs in the early fall of ‘41 to enlist in the elite King’s Royal Rifle Corps. The KRRC’s North American lineage had begun as the Royal American Regiment during the French and Indian War. When the upstart colonies fought to gain independence from the Crown, the regiment’s base was switched to the Caribbean, then Canada.

Its motto was Celur et Audax (“Swift and Bold”) – watchwords that rallied its riflemen from Waterloo to the Khyber Pass as they fought through the decades to safeguard the British Empire. The King himself served as the unit’s Colonel-in-Chief. KRRC’s “home” was the Hampshire city of Winchester and its fabled 900-year-old cathedral.

Among the other Americans ushered into the KRRC in ‘42 were future political commentator (and author of the memoir Eight is Enough); Tom Braden, a Dartmouth alum; another Dartmouth grad, Ted Ellsworth, who would go on to become a highly decorated infantry officer in both the British Eighth and U.S. First armies and survive a Nazi stalag; and George Thomson, a Harvard man whose service record would end up paralleling Alsop’s: the KRRC, the British Special Air Service (SAS), the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and, ultimately, the Jedburghs.

The very social KRRC didn’t care about such trifling matters as Alsop’s blood pressure. They did care, however, that these sons of American privilege bring their white dinner jackets for evening fêtes and their hunting rifles for England’s grouse season.

It turned out that Alsop didn’t don black or white tie all that often. Having completed more than a year of training in England, he survived Tunisia’s oppressive summer heat as one of General Bernard Montgomery’s Desert Rats after the Axis forces surrendered at Bizerte.

In the fall of ’43, the KRRC moved across the Mediterranean as the Allies slogged their way up Italy’s Tyrrhenian and Adriatic coasts. Alsop served as an infantry platoon leader in the British Eighth Army’s push along Italy’s eastern edge. In October, his KRRC Second Battalion was in Monty’s spearhead south of the River Trigno. At one point the Trigno skirmishing grew so fierce that Alsop and his platoon were forced to take refuge in a farmhouse.

 A month later, the Second Battalion joined elements of the 8th Indian Division in leading Monty’s assault on Casa Casone, a German stronghold atop the River Sangro. It took two attempts and gruesome nighttime fighting before Casa Casone surrendered.

In December, Alsop and his fellow KRRC officer Thomson, then 25, sought transfers to the U.S. Army. But their repeated efforts were rebuffed in Tunisia and Egypt. For a time, the pair was in what Alsop described as “military limbo.”

Thanks to the connections of an English grande dame whose favor Thomson had cultivated in Cairo, the two briefly joined Britain’s hell-for-leather SAS before being transferred back to England in early ’44. Alsop and Thomson soon volunteered for the SOE, the clandestine intelligence service created by Prime Minister Winston Churchill to wreak havoc behind Nazi lines.

On August 3, 1944, Alsop was at long last granted his request to transfer to the U.S. Army. He was immediately assigned to the OSS, SOE’s American counterpart. Together, SOE and OSS had devised the Jedburgh commando program to help Resistance fighters in France and the Low Countries disrupt the Wehrmacht before, during, and after the Allies’ cross-channel invasion. Some four dozen Jedburgh missions had already jumped off to Occupied Europe by the time Alsop’s Lanc went airborne.

Alsop was still getting used to be being called “Loo-tenant” after being addressed as “Leff-tenant” for more than a year. He also had to remind himself that American soldiers saluted their superiors with a straight-edged right hand, as opposed to the British Army custom of a flat-hand-to-the-forehead, part of an elaborate ritual that included stamping both feet and emitting a full-throated “Sir!,” which, given the accents involved, often came out more like “Suh!”

In the pell-mell rush to get ready for the Jedburgh jump, there had not been time for Alsop to requisition a U.S. Army uniform, so he borrowed one from his younger – and considerably shorter and chunkier – brother John, a former military policeman then also in training as a Jedburgh commando. Stewart continued to wear his KRRC insignia, his British marksmanship medals, his Mediterranean campaign ribbons, and his SAS wings on his ill-fitting American garb – a curious decision that, a few weeks later in the wilds of France, caused enough confusion in the mind of an American lieutenant colonel to nearly get Alsop shot as an enemy spy.

The dashing 30-year-old with the impeccable pedigree was about to hit the silk wearing an outfit that made him look like an unkempt schoolboy.

                                                                      *

Little about Stewart Alsop’s breeding hinted that he’d make a kick-ass commando in a war to save the world from fascism. The Alsops may have been longtime fixtures in effete America, with tentacles that seemed to reach everywhere, but they didn’t exactly have a reputation for martial heroics.

In the 1960s, the Saturday Evening Post commissioned Stewart, then its Washington columnist, to research and write about his family heritage. He learned that Joseph Wright Alsop I, his great-great-grandfather, paid for someone to take his place in George Washington’s Continental Army. Eight decades later, that same dodge was repeated by Joseph Wright Alsop III, who managed to evade service in Abraham Lincoln’s Grand Army of the Republic by hiring a surrogate.

Indeed, as far as Stewart could tell, no forebear named Alsop had ever served as a soldier.

“It was not so much that my ancestors were cowards, though no doubt some of them were,” he wrote years later. “They just hated the idea of being in a subordinate and dependent position.”

Perhaps it was that wariness that compelled one John Alsop, a New York delegate to the Second Continental Congress in 1776, to balk at signing a little document known as the Declaration of Independence. John Alsop managed to pull a reverse “John Hancock”; in Alsop family lore, he was known as “John the Non-Signer.”

Past and future Alsops never declined opportunities to fatten their pocketbooks, however. Like so many New England colonial families, the Alsops, then living in the Connecticut seaport Middletown, made their fortune in West Indies trade. Alsop ships carried ice and other commodities south to the Caribbean, then peddled barrels of rum back home. They also dabbled in triangular trade with China and England, bringing back to the colonies coveted plate ware – and perhaps, Stewart coyly hinted in his memoirs, some opium, too.

                                                                          *

One hundred sixty-eight years, one month, and nine days after an Alsop refused to sign Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration, Stewart Alsop found himself enmeshed in a Jedburgh mission bollixed up from the get-go. When the three Jeds arrived the evening of August 12, 1944, at the RAF’s Tempsford Airfield some 50 miles northeast of London, no one was expecting them.

“It soon became apparent,” Alsop wrote in his after-action report, “that no one had the faintest notion who we were or what to do with us, and that furthermore no one was particularly interested.”

He and his Jed mates had to scramble to find their plane, which turned out to be a Lancaster planted on the runway, already revving its engines. It was crewed by Canadian airmen about to take off on their first sortie (ever!) over enemy territory. Moreover, they’d had no training in parachute operations – a pair of disquieting facts probably not shared with the Jeds as they climbed aboard.

Most of the SAS men were already jammed into the cabin. Two other sticks of SAS paratroopers were on different planes warming up at Tempsford. The three planes were supposed to fly together to execute a coordinated drop in the Limoges-Périgeux corridor of central France’s Creuse Department, a hilly region that for weeks had been besieged by a Wehrmacht offensive targeting the Resistance.

“Maquis Creuse kaput!,” German soldiers had bragged to French villagers, dragging their fingers across their throats. Far from kaput, BERGAMOTTE principals had been alerted by London to ignite their signal fires some two hours after midnight on August 13th.

Somehow, the jump master expert at pinpointing when and where special ops paratroops should be released over hostile turf failed to show up. He was replaced by a corporal, a nervous rookie unfamiliar with the RAF methodology for low-altitude drops: a sequence of flashing red and green lights accompanied by a series of commands – “Action Stations! . . . Running In! . . . Number One, Go! . . . Number Two, Go! . . .”

Poised to jump immediately after Alsop were the two other members of his Operation ALEXANDER Jedburgh team: a St. Cyr-trained lieutenant and saboteur named Renè de la Tousche, whose nom de guerre (to protect his family in the event he was captured or killed behind Nazi lines) was Richard Thouville; and a 19-year-old sergeant and radio operator from Montclair, New Jersey, named Norman “Dick” Franklin.

Each was carrying an M-I carbine, a Colt revolver, an entrenching tool to bury his parachute, a large knife, a string of grenades, a canteen, a first aid kit, an E&E (Escape and Evasion) kit with camouflaged silk maps of south-central and southwestern France, a tiny compass, a little knife that looked like a razor, a wire for garroting enemy sentries, a fishing line and hooks in case other food sources failed, a packet of amphetamines to stave off sleep, a chocolate bar, a pack of cigarettes, and a small flask of brandy.

Their pre-mission briefing a few days earlier had taken place in a glass-encased room on the highest floor of a “safe house” in London. They were perched above the surrounding buildings and could glimpse the tops of the trees in Hyde Park. In mid-meeting, Franklin spotted an airborne V-1 buzz bomb. Just after it passed overhead, its motor stopped – then the most ominous sound in London, because it meant an imminent plunge and explosion. Seconds later, the doodlebug detonated in the park.

The three of them had bonded during months of training at Milton Hall, a rambling Cambridgeshire manor that SOE and OSS had taken over for special ops prep. “Milton Hall was a fantastic Elizabethan pile, country seat of an old, aristocratic, and formerly exceedingly rich English family,” Alsop and Braden wrote after the war in their book, Sub Rosa. Among many other arduous tasks, Jed trainees were obligated to make eight practice parachute jumps and do plenty of cardiovascular work.

 On long-distance runs in the East Anglian countryside, Alsop would look around, determine that no superior officers were extant, and declare to Thouville and Franklin, his handpicked charges, that it was time to “relax-ey-vous.”

The trio would slip behind a stonewall or a hedgerow and swap stories and smokes. When Thouville reminded Alsop that “relax-ey” was not a real French verb, the American feigned outrage and snapped something like: “Well, dammit, it ought to be!”

Thouville’s métier in these sessions was an apparently bottomless cache of bawdy jokes about French clerics and their parishioners, delivered in a combination of broken English and snarky French. With each telling, Thouville’s gags got more hilarious, Franklin remembered in his unpublished memoir.

Alsop’s comrades were amused that someone with such a patrician background could be so playful and irreverent. The Connecticut Yankee would readily concede that his upbringing had made him class-conscious – and to a fault. But he took exception if anyone accused him of being pompous.

“Stuffy, yes,” Alsop would admit, impish eyes twinkling. “But pompous? Never!”

Early on, Alsop had made the mistake of telling his American KRRC buddies that his surname was properly pronounced with a soft “a,” as in “ball,” not a hard “a,” as in “pal.” Instantly, of course, he was dubbed “Al,” a screw-you moniker that stuck with him through the war. After that gaffe, he was gun-shy about discussing his famous family: It took him a half-year to own up about being related to the Roosevelts.

The three Jeds had been rehearsing their parachute drop for months, on top of every other move they would need to survive a long stretch behind enemy lines, from learning colloquial French and studying Gaullist vs. Communist Resistance politics to mastering Jiu Jitsu hand-to-hand combat and teaching Maquis fighters how to operate mortars and makeshift radios.

Alsop’s codename was “Rona.” Franklin’s was “Cork.” Thouville’s was “Leix.”

On three previous occasions in early August, Rona, Cork, and Leix had been called to an East Anglian airfield and told their operation would launch that night. Each time, the mission had, for one reason or another, been scrubbed. But the fourth time, despite the logistical challenges, they went wheels-up just after 10 p.m.

Some 90 minutes into the flight, somewhere over southern Normandy, the Lanc began to rear “like a startled horse,” Alsop remembered. “Le flak!” Thouville shouted into Alsop’s ear.

While on the front lines in Italy, Alsop had been shot attacked by rifles, machine guns, mortars, aerial bombs, and 88’s, the Germans’ deadly artillery weapon. But this was his first experience with an ack-ack assault. It felt, Alsop recalled, like a violent thunderstorm – except a lot more dangerous. Franklin, the radioman, likened flak to “someone beating a large tin pan with a wood spoon.”

Bloodred tracers appeared out of nowhere, followed by deafening explosions that seemed to happen beneath both wings. Just when they thought the Lanc was out of range, another fusillade would erupt. Amid one barrage, Alsop looked around at his fellow commandos: To a man, they were protecting their crotches.

Once the plane cleared Normandy, the flak began to recede. By then, the other two planes in the formation had scattered. The neophyte Canadians were flying solo.

A half-hour or so later, the Lanc’s airmen thought they had zeroed in on the correct Resistance bonfires in the fields southwest of the Creuse Department’s Monts de Guéret, the Drop Zone (or “Dee Zed,” in British military parlance) for both Team ALEXANDER and the SAS squad. But turbulence kept knocking the Lanc off course.

One minute the crew would have the L-shaped fires in sight; the next they would disappear. Wrestling with the controls, the pilots took a couple of passes over what they surmised was the Dee Zed.

The rookie jump master got more nervous with each pass. Before leaving British airspace, the Jeds had tried to teach the “Action Stations!” progression to him. But now it seemed too complicated.

“Look, chaps,” Alsop remembered the corporal yelling above the din. “I’ve never done this before, and I don’t want to get it wrong!”

The dispatcher hollered to Alsop that he would flash a single red light – and that as soon as Alsop saw it, he should drop through the hole. Alsop nodded and shouted for Thouville and Franklin to get ready.

Thouville bleated, “J’ai une trouille noire,” into Alsop’s ear. Yeah, I’m a little black hole, too, Alsop chuckled.

Alsop tried hard to remember what he’d learned in those eight practice jumps: “Hold straight, head on chest, legs together, pull the webs, don’t reach out for the ground. . .”

As they’d been taught, Thouville wrapped his legs around Alsop’s neck and shoulders; Franklin did the same to Thouville’s. The SAS guys crept closer to the hole.

*

His legs dangling out of the Lanc, Alsop’s thoughts surely drifted to the bride he’d left behind in London. He had been married, for all of 54 days, to a beguiling Yorkshire lass 12 years his junior named Patricia “Tish” Hankey.

They had met two years earlier, in August 1942, when Alsop and his smooth-talking KRRC pal Thomson had somehow wangled invitations to a soiree being held at the Yorkshire estate of England’s Premier Baron, the nobleman at the top of the peerage pyramid. To their delight, they discovered that real American-style martinis – not the watered-down British imitations – were being served at the party. Even better, a pair of attractive young Englishwomen were swilling the gin-and-vermouth with abandon. Even better yet, the women appeared to be returning the Americans’ glances.

Thomson deftly handled the introductions. The taller of the two girls informed Alsop, whose hair had just been buzzed by a KRRC barber, that he “looked like a criminal,” which Alsop viewed as an encouraging flirtation.

With their lipstick, rouge, and martini-guzzling, the women appeared to be in their early twenties. They weren’t.

The belle Thomson was eyeing turned out to be the baron’s 18-year-old daughter, Bee. Tish, the object of Alsop’s attention, was only 16, an unsettling fact that Alsop discovered only after he finagled a midnight kiss in the garden – or so he claimed in his memoirs. Alas, their embrace was witnessed by the Premier Baron himself, who promptly ratted them out to his wife, who in turn blew the whistle to Tish’s parents.

The baron’s censure got their romance off to a rocky start. Despite her parents’ disapproval and Alsop’s prolonged absence in the Mediterranean, they pined for one another. When Alsop resurfaced in Britain in early ‘44, they were determined to get married.

Still, it took Alsop months to convince Tish’s stodgy father and her devoutly Catholic mother to let their daughter wed a considerably older Protestant Yank. Despite his lofty American relations, Alsop was a man of (relatively) humble means. In prewar New York, he had earned a modest salary editing books for Doubleday.

The deliberations with Tish’s father turned testy, but Alsop was smitten; he refused to take “no” for an answer. Her father relented, but only after making Alsop jump through hoops to guarantee his daughter some measure of financial security should he perish in France. With the cross-Channel invasion then going full throttle, “Alsop, S., Lt., KIA” was a distinct possibility. The Hankeys had already lost a son (by coincidence, he had also served in the KRRC) to Hitler’s Afrika Korpsin Libya; they didn’t want their daughter widowed while still a teen.

Tish and Stewart nevertheless took their vows exactly two weeks after D-Day in a side altar at St. Mary’s Catholic Chapel in Chelsea. The main altar had not recovered from the bomb damage it suffered four years earlier during the Blitz, a blast that killed 19 locals sheltering in its crypt that night.

Both the wedding ceremony and their reception in a top-floor suite at The Ritz (a boozy affair underwritten by Stewart’s brother-in-law, Percy Chubb, of the Connecticut insurance family) were interrupted by V-1 rocket attacks. At one point, the revelers raced up a stairwell to The Ritz’s rooftop to watch buzz bombs zoom over Piccadilly. Fortunately for the Jedburgh program and future Alsop progeny, the doodlebugs missed Mayfair – at least that day.

Allied intelligence, of course, forbade Stewart from sharing details of his mission to France – or even acknowledging the existence of the Jedburgh program. Tish, therefore, knew little of her new husband’s special ops background.

Intrigue and subterfuge, however, cut both ways. For a year-and-a-half prior to their wedding, Tish had worked sub rosa at wartime London’s spy central, the art deco structure at 55 Broadway SW1 in the heart of Westminster. Her building shared secrets with its dingy cousin across the street, 54 Broadway, the headquarters of Britain’s spy chief Stewart Menzies and scores of espionage and sabotage specialists, all plotting the destruction of Hitler’s Reich.

Tish had been, since the day she turned a precocious 17 (!), a naval decoding analyst for MI5, Britain’s counterintelligence agency. In early April 1944, her 13th month on the job, she received a message from the Home Fleet that the methodically planned Operation TUNGSTEN had succeeded: in a sneak attack off the Norwegian coast, Germany’s über-battleship Tirpitz had been decimated by British carrier planes.

The news triggered jubilation on both sides of Broadway, at 10 Downing Street, at Whitehall’s cabinet offices, at Bletchley Park’s codebreaking station, and at the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) in South London’s Bushy Park.

When Tish, then barely 18, raced up several flights of stairs to share the news with her friend Bee, a fellow MI5 decoder, the two of them jumped up and down, then danced a little jig.

Tish and her new husband didn’t completely fess up about their respective derring-do until after the war. No wonder their daughter, writer Elizabeth Winthrop Alsop, called her 2022 memoir, Daughter of Spies.

Just days before obtaining his long-awaited commission in the U.S. Army, Alsop had gotten news that he’d earned an elevation to captain in the British Army. The transfer came with a catch: if he wanted to join the Yanks, he’d have to accept a demotion in rank back to lieutenant. But pay in the U.S. Army dwarfed the Brits. Alsop would make a lot more as a Yank lieutenant than as a Tommy captain. He took the transfer.

Tish helped her new spouse pin his American lieutenant’s bars on the shoulder pads of his borrowed uniform. When Franklin saw them, he chortled and informed his boss that the bars were turned the wrong way.

There was another secret that Tish may have been keeping from Stewart in the second week of August 1944: she was already pregnant.

*

More anxious minutes passed inside the Lanc. Alsop remained fixated on reacting to the dispatcher’s signal. The plane continued to fight the wind.

Alsop, Thouville, and Franklin couldn’t be certain, but it felt like the Lanc was flying in aimless circles. They worried that every German soldier and hostile mercenary in a 30-mile radius was now on full alert. If the commandos didn’t jump soon, the crew would have no choice but to head back to England. Given the enemy’s ack-ack guns, flying over the Normandy battlefield after daybreak would have been in Alsop’s reckoning, “suicide.”

Suddenly, a light flashed inside the plane. Alsop didn’t hesitate or double-check with the jump master. He wriggled through the hole and pushed hard with both hands. Off he plummeted into a moonlit French night.

As soon as his chute jolted open, he knew he’d made a mistake; the plane was flying too high and too fast. To avoid detection, Allied commandos had been trained to jump at 800 feet from a stalled-out aircraft; the Lanc, Alsop sensed, was flying at a height at least double the desired altitude. It was traveling so fast, moreover, that Alsop could feel thewhoosh from the prop wash – not the way a jump from a semi-static craft was supposed to feel.

Alsop looked up. The parachutes of Thouville and Franklin were nowhere to be seen.

He later learned that the jump master had flipped on his flashlight to fish out a cigarette. Alsop mistook the corporal’s nicotine fix for the “Go!” signal; the American had leapt out of the plane way too early. The horrified dispatcher restrained Alsop’s comrades from following their commander out the hole.

Hurtling toward the ground, Alsop craned his neck in three directions but couldn’t see the Resistance reception committee signal fires. A mission fraught with danger had suddenly gotten even more perilous.

Alsop could hear dogs barking – probably not the best omen, he remembered thinking. “Even before I hit the ground, I realized that I had been a damn fool,” he was to write.

Seconds later, he thudded into the edge of a wooded area. His chute got tangled in a small tree. It turned out to be fortuitous; he found himself hanging just inches off the ground.

He slithered out of his harness and touched French soil for the first time in the war. While behind German lines over the next three months, Alsop and his men would collude with merciless Maquis leaders; hector enemy convoys; help liberate a host of villages; throttle the Wehrmacht’s capacity to move; bivouac in the woods some nights and bunk in lavish chateaus on others; patch up differences (at least temporarily) between rival Resistance leaders; watch in amazement as French fighters and clerics unearthed rifles that had been hidden months earlier in cemetery graves; hear wild stories about German paratroopers trying to infiltrate Allied and Resistance strongholds while disguised as French priests; uncover a supposed Nazi superweapon unknown to Allied intelligence; and be toasted as heroes almost everywhere they went.

Maquisards came to respect Alsop so much they nicknamed him the “Commandant Americain.” Somehow, the Commandant and his two Jed subordinates lived to tell their tale.

But with his parachute snared in a tree, Alsop’s first moments as a guerilla fighter did not get off to an auspicious start. He frantically tried – and failed – to free his chute from the tree. The mission had barely begun, and he’d already managed to mess up two core Jedburgh rules: Never leave your men behind and never leave your chute exposed.

He snuck behind a big bush, lit a cupped cigarette, took a tug on his brandy, and surveyed the situation. His next moves were not readily apparent; there were no good options.

Squinting through the moonlight, he could make out what he thought was a hamlet not far down a dirt road. His best chance of survival, he decided, would be to sneak into town, knock on a door, and pray that its occupants were friendly to the Allied cause and not peeved about being rousted out of bed in the middle of the night by a Yank officer with an uneven grasp of French.

He stubbed out his cigarette and began inching down the path, his head on a swivel. All the sudden, the dog yapping started up again, but this time louder and more conspicuous.

“Keee-riiist!” he recalled thinking. “How could the German army not hear that?!”

Alsop retreated to the same bush, took a big swig from his flask, and lit another smoke. At this rate, the pack would be gone before sunup. So would his brandy.

Three decades later, he wrote, “I was entirely alone in Occupied France. I was in [an] American army uniform. I had no idea where I was.”

“Face it, Alsop,” he muttered aloud. “You’re in trouble.”

 

Timothy M. Gay is the Pulitzer-nominated author of two books on World War II, two books on baseball history, and a recent biography of golfer Rory McIlroy. He has written previous WWII-related articles for the Daily Beast, USA Today, and many other publications.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The American Civil War still fascinates the public mind for its timeless reminder of when our politics were truly at their nadir. Despite some contemporary warnings about a national separation, fortunately no such moment has come to pass since the cannons ceased and the muskets were put down in 1865. Intense vitriol and hatred over the state of this country is something no specific to the war period. Whether it be 1860, 1828, or the 1800 election that saw friends become bitter rivals in outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson cease communicate for several years, national politics endures as a nasty business.

Yet, in our memory of the Civil War and its causes, we tend to let the latter fall by the wayside, consequently forgetting how unique those divisions were in the 1850s, culminating in southern secession in December 1860 after President Abraham Lincoln’s victory. Slavery was the cause as evidenced by the declarations from the southern states[i], but how many grasp slavery as the sectional issue that it was? Where does sectionalism fit into our memory? Without a more holistic understanding of the war through the sectional crisis that preceded it, we let more simplistic interpretations of why it started take over.

Sam Short explains.

John C. Breckinridge in 1860 by Jules-Émile Saintin


Defining Sectionalism

What is sectionalism and why is the period preceding the war defined as the Sectional Crisis? To answer that question, it is important first to define a section. As Professor Richard Bensel puts it, a section is a, “major geographic region.”[1] In this context, the sections that fought would be the North and South. Sectionalism, then, is the unique culture and economic tendencies emerging in those regions that create a politics of their own. A sectional politics does not have a national vision – one for the country as a whole – in mind, but whatever agenda best serves this cluster of states. The Civil War is a war between North and South, but just as accurately, a war of sections. It was not so simple as to say Republicans  and Democrats fought with the former looking to limit slavery’s spread and the latter seeking to keep it.

 

The Sectionally Divided Democrats

The Democrats themselves were divided over the issue of slavery. In 1860, Southern Democrats did not feel enough assurance was given by candidate and Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas that their institution would be defended. They opted to nominate their own candidate, Vice President John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky. The electoral map speaks to this division with the southern states going for him.[2] When looking at a breakdown of the popular vote, the University of Richmond does not record a single vote for Douglas in the southern state of Texas.[3]

Looking further back, divisions among Democrats over slavery preceded the Sectional Crisis as is exemplified by the Wilmot Proviso. Democratic Pennsylvania Representative David Wilmot introduced a proviso to President James K Polk’s $2 million appropriations bill allocating funds to negotiations with Mexico. This was August 8, 1846 during the Mexican-American War. In that proviso, Wilmot proposed,

as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted.[4]

 

This was effectively Northern Democrats telling their southern colleagues they would not tow a line for slavery only for the sake of party unity.[5] Democrats did not have a pro or anti-slavery platform. They struggled to unify under one position towards the issue.

 

Geography and Politics

To be sure, from its inception, the Republican Party was northern-based. Multiple southern states did not cast a single vote for their candidate John C Fremont in the party’s first national election, the Election of 1856.[6] The North was not entirely Republican, but the Republicans were – almost – entirely in the North. In the modern era, parties have their strongholds. Democrats do better in New England, other coastal areas, and urban centers while Republicans capture the South and Midwest. Geography does correlate to politics on the electoral map and that observation largely holds true in our elections, but the question during the sectional crisis was not one of partisanship, but of sectional allegiances. For Southern Democrats, never mind where their northern brethren were heading, as they assessed the situation, they needed to make their own way.

An emphasis on the sectional dimension of this conflict dispels later assertions that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery. Southern Democrats supported it, but sectional divisions fly in the face of an argument for party unity. Studying sectionalism leaves us with a complex web of geopolitically motivated behaviors and allegiances that historians strive to make sense of in forming a metanarrative for the war’s causes. Studies are made more complicated when considering examples out of the South that push back against the conclusion of consensus being for slavery and against Lincoln. How are we to regard President Andrew Johnson, who, as a congressman from Tennessee – and Democrat –, was the only senator from a seceding state to remain in the Union? This is a man who historians studying his life have admitted it is hard to arrive at any definitive statements about when looking at his character.[7] More broadly, estimates say 100,000 men living in the Confederate states served the Union during the war.[8] Among them, Virginia-born Union General George Thomas, a slave owner before the war, alienated his family who refused to speak to him for fighting against the South.[9]

In history or contemporary politics, neat and tidy conclusions about politics, allegiances, or where one falls of the political spectrum for their views on divisive issues are few and far between. If we are to understand political history, we must understand in our analyses that single-dimension modes of thought with the left against the right or Democrats against Republicans runs the risk of obfuscating more intricate fissures that account for, in the case of the Civil War, sectionalism. In its only through the study sectional divisions that we see the clearer picture.

 

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 


[i] See “Avalon Project - Confederate States of America -   Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union,” n.d. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp.

[1] Richard F. Bensel “Sectional Stress & Ideology in the United States House of Representatives.” Polity 14, no. 4 (1982): 657–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3234469.

[2] “Electing the President,” n.d. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/electingthepresident/popular/map/1860.

[3] “Electing the President,” n.d. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/electingthepresident/popular/map/1860/TX.

[4] “Wilmot Proviso, 1846,” 1846. https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1846WilmotProviso.pdf.

[5] David Wilmot et al., “Wilmot Proviso,” n.d., https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/mex-war/wilmot-proviso.pdf.

[6] “Electing the President,” n.d. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/electingthepresident/popular/map/1856.

[7] Rable, George C. “Anatomy of a Unionist: Andrew Johnson in Tne [sic] Secession Crisis.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1973): 332–54.

[8] Carole E. Scott, “Southerner Vs. Southerner: Union Supporters Below the Mason-Dixon Line - Warfare History Network,” July 12, 2022, https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/southerner-vs-southerner-union-supporters-below-the-mason-dixon-line/.

[9] Christopher J. Einolf,  “George Thomas,” June 2012, https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/assets/files/pdf/ECWCTOPICThomasGeorgeHEssay.pdf.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain stands as one of the most compelling figures of the American Civil War, not because he was a professional soldier forged in a lifetime of military service, but because he was an intellectual and educator who rose to extraordinary leadership when history demanded it. Born on the 8th of September, 1828 in Brewer, Maine, Chamberlain grew up in a deeply religious and disciplined household. His father, a stern militia officer and shipbuilder, instilled in him a sense of duty and moral responsibility, while his mother encouraged learning and faith. Chamberlain excelled academically, displaying a gift for languages and scholarship that would define his early life. He attended Bowdoin College, where he studied theology and the classics, eventually becoming fluent in multiple ancient and modern languages. By the late 1850s, he was a professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin, seemingly destined for a quiet life of scholarship rather than war.

Terry Bailey explains.

Joshua Chamberlain.

The outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 profoundly unsettled Chamberlain. Though opposed to slavery and deeply committed to the Union, he initially remained at Bowdoin, torn between his academic responsibilities and what he saw as a moral obligation to serve. In 1862, he resolved the conflict decisively. Despite lacking formal military training, he requested a leave of absence to join the army, telling Bowdoin's president that the war represented a struggle for the soul of the nation. He was commissioned as a lieutenant colonel in the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry, a regiment composed largely of lumbermen and farmers, many of whom were older and physically tougher than their scholarly officer. Chamberlain won their respect not through bluster or harsh discipline, but through fairness, shared hardship, and a willingness to listen, qualities that would later prove critical under fire.

By the summer of 1863, Chamberlain had risen to command the 20th Maine, and his regiment found itself marching into history at Gettysburg. On the 2nd of July, 1863, the second day of the battle, the Union Army hastily extended its left flank to anchor on a rocky hill known as Little Round Top. The position was vital; if Confederate forces seized it, they could roll up the Union line and potentially decide the battle in their favor. The 20th Maine was placed at the extreme left of the Union position, with orders that could not have been clearer or more ominous: "Hold this ground at all hazards." There would be no reinforcements. If the regiment broke, the Union flank would collapse.

Throughout the afternoon, Chamberlain's men endured repeated assaults by the 15th Alabama and other Confederate units under Colonel William C. Oates. The fighting was close, chaotic, and brutal, conducted over boulders and through dense woods in sweltering heat. Each Confederate attack pushed closer to breaking the Union line, and Chamberlain was forced to stretch his regiment dangerously thin, bending his line back like a door hinge to prevent being flanked. Ammunition ran dangerously low. Men collapsed from exhaustion and heat. Chamberlain himself was everywhere along the line, steadying his soldiers, issuing calm orders, and absorbing the terror of combat without losing command of the situation.

As the final Confederate assault loomed, Chamberlain faced a grim reality. His regiment was nearly out of ammunition, and another attack would almost certainly overwhelm them. In that moment, he made one of the most audacious tactical decisions of the war. Rather than waiting passively to be overrun, Chamberlain ordered a bayonet charge. With a sweeping wheel to the left, the 20th Maine surged downhill, shouting and driving their bayonets into stunned Confederate troops who expected no such move from an exhausted and depleted enemy. The sudden offensive shattered the momentum of the Confederate attack. Many Southern soldiers were killed, wounded, or captured, and the rest fled. Little Round Top was held, the Union flank was saved, and the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg and arguably the war itself tilted decisively in favor of the Union.

Chamberlain's actions at Gettysburg would later earn him the Congressional Medal of Honor, awarded in 1893. The citation recognized his "daring heroism and great tenacity" in holding Little Round Top against overwhelming odds. Yet the significance of his conduct lay not only in bravery, but in leadership and judgment under extreme pressure. Chamberlain demonstrated an intuitive understanding of morale, terrain, and timing, proving that decisive leadership could compensate for material disadvantage. His conduct became a textbook example of initiative at the tactical level, studied by soldiers long after the war. Chamberlain's wartime service did not end at Gettysburg, and the war would exact a terrible physical toll on him. He was promoted to brigadier general and continued to serve with distinction in the Overland Campaign of 1864. At the Battle of Petersburg, he was shot through the hip and groin, a wound so severe that he was expected to die. Grant promoted him on the battlefield as a final honor, but Chamberlain survived after months of agony and recovery. He returned to duty despite chronic pain and lasting disability, embodying the same determination that had defined his stand on Little Round Top.

In one of the war's most symbolic moments, Chamberlain played a prominent role at its conclusion. On the 12th of April, 1865, he was selected to command the Union troops receiving the formal surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox. In a gesture of reconciliation rather than triumph, Chamberlain ordered his men to salute the defeated Confederates as they laid down their arms. The act reflected his belief that the war had been fought to preserve the Union, not to humiliate the South, and it earned respect from former enemies, including Confederate General John B. Gordon.

After the war, Chamberlain returned to civilian life but never escaped the shadow of his service. He became president of Bowdoin College, guiding the institution through a period of reform and expansion, and later served four terms as governor of Maine. His postwar years were marked by public service, writing, and continued reflection on the meaning of the war. He authored several books and essays, offering thoughtful and often philosophical interpretations of the conflict and its moral dimensions. Though plagued by pain from his wartime wounds for the rest of his life, he remained active and engaged well into old age. Joshua Chamberlain died in 1914, one of the last prominent Civil War generals, and was the final veteran to die from wounds received in that conflict. His legacy endures not merely because of a single dramatic charge, but because his life embodied the idea of citizen-soldiership at its finest. A scholar who became a warrior, a leader who combined compassion with resolve, Chamberlain's stand at Little Round Top remains a powerful reminder of how individual courage and judgment can shape the course of history at its most critical moments.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's life and legacy ultimately transcend the dramatic moments for which he is most famous. His story is not merely one of battlefield heroism, but of moral conviction carried into action, of intellect fused with courage, and of leadership rooted in principle rather than ambition. At Little Round Top, Chamberlain did more than save a tactical position; he exemplified the capacity of an ordinary citizen to rise to extraordinary responsibility when the fate of a nation hung in the balance. His decisions were shaped not by rigid military doctrine, but by empathy for his men, clarity of purpose, and a profound sense of duty to something larger than himself.

What distinguishes Chamberlain from many of his contemporaries is the continuity between his wartime conduct and his postwar life. The values that guided him in combat—discipline tempered by humanity, firmness balanced with reconciliation—were the same values he carried into education, politics, and public service. His salute to the defeated Confederates at Appomattox symbolized his belief that the war's true victory lay not in vengeance, but in the restoration of a fractured nation. This act, quiet yet powerful, reflected a deeper understanding of what lasting peace required and underscored his lifelong commitment to unity and moral responsibility.

Chamberlain's enduring significance lies in the way his life challenges simple definitions of heroism. He was not born a soldier, nor did he seek glory, yet he became one of the war's most respected leaders through resolve, adaptability, and an unwavering ethical compass. His physical suffering after the war, borne without bitterness, further reinforces the depth of his character. Even as his wounds shaped his final decades, he continued to serve, teach, write, and reflect, determined that the sacrifices of the Civil War should be understood and remembered with honesty and purpose.

In the final measure, Joshua Chamberlain represents the highest ideals of citizen leadership. His stand at Little Round Top remains a defining moment in American history, but it gains its full meaning only when viewed within the broader arc of his life, a life devoted to learning, service, reconciliation, and moral courage. Through his actions in war and peace alike, Chamberlain left a legacy that speaks not only to the past, but to the enduring power of individual conscience and leadership in shaping the course of history.

 

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.

 

Notes:

The wounds Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain received during the Civil War had a profound and lasting impact on his health, shaping the remainder of his life and ultimately contributing to his death. On the 18th of June 1864, during the Battle of Petersburg, Chamberlain was struck by a Minie ball that passed through his right hip and groin, exiting near the bladder and urethra. The injury was considered mortal at the time; blood loss was severe, infection was likely, and the medical practices of the era offered little hope of recovery. He survived only through extraordinary resilience and prolonged medical care, but the damage inflicted by the wound could never be fully healed.

In the years that followed, Chamberlain endured chronic pain, recurring infections, and serious urological complications as a direct result of the injury. The wound left him with long-term damage to his urinary system, including fistulas and strictures that caused frequent obstruction, inflammation, and bleeding. These conditions required repeated medical interventions throughout his life and often left him weak, feverish, and exhausted. Periods of relative health were frequently interrupted by painful relapses, making daily activity unpredictable and physically taxing. Despite this, Chamberlain persisted in public life, masking the severity of his condition behind an outward appearance of energy and resolve.

As he aged, the cumulative effects of the wound worsened. Recurrent infections increasingly taxed his immune system, while chronic inflammation and impaired urinary function led to progressive organ stress. By the early twentieth century, his body was less able to recover from the complications that had plagued him since the war. In 1914, nearly fifty years after being wounded, Chamberlain succumbed to complications directly linked to his Petersburg injury, making him the last Civil War veteran to die from wounds sustained in that conflict. His death served as a stark reminder that the suffering of war often extends far beyond the battlefield, lingering silently for decades after the guns have fallen silent.

Chamberlain's long struggle with his wounds adds a deeper dimension to his legacy. His postwar achievements in education, governance, and public life were accomplished not in spite of discomfort, but in the midst of persistent physical suffering. That he continued to serve with dignity and determination, even as his health steadily declined, underscores the extraordinary endurance that defined him as both a soldier and a citizen. His life stands as a testament to the hidden, lifelong costs of war and the resilience required to bear them.

The promise of a better life pledged by advertisements created after mid-1800s events in the United States such as the Homestead Act of 1862 – which offered 160 acres of government-owned land in the Midwest and West for free with the possibility of eventually owning the land outright – did not always become the reality. 

Those who took advantage of the opportunity afforded by the act to head to the largely rural Midwest and West faced multiple, likely unexpected obstacles, making survival much more difficult than many of them probably imagined. How did those who made the trek survive? Janel Miller offers some answers in this short piece. 

American Progress by John Gast, 1872. In the image settlers are moving west, guided and protected by Columbia.

The saying “Necessity is the mother of invention” is attributed to Plato in 380 B.C. However, it was just as relevant after 1862 when many left their homes in the East to pursue the promise of a better life in the West. 

These settlers faced dry and arid conditions that were previously unknown to them. They responded by using newly developed windmills, irrigation systems and drought-resistant crops. Others found ways to enhance existing techniques, such as manufacturing plows with steel and assembling grain into easy-to-transport bundles.  

Still other settlers aggressively sought to have the railroad, then in its infancy, come through their town. Those who succeeded in this endeavor gained easier access to food, animals and other goods necessary to endure.

In addition, many settlers worked with their peers to establish organizations, such as Granges, that succeeded in adding agriculture into school curricula, establishing rural mail delivery and the parcel post system.

 

In Context

The time period covered by this essay has long since passed, but there are still people who desire rural living.  The reasons newer generations cite for leaving urban life for a more rural one include a desire for recreational areas and a more affordable cost of living.

Most parts of the United States today offer their residents luxuries such as cell phones, computers and vehicles that the settlers of the American West could likely never have imagined. All the more reason those living today should be in awe of how settlers found ways to survive when they moved to the Midwest and the West.

 

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

References

Griffin, Sean. Chnm.gmu.edu. “What Brought Settlers to the Midwest?” https://chnm.gmu.edu/tah-loudoun/blog/lessons/what-brought-settlers-to-the-midwest/. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Library of Congress Editors. Loc.gov. “Rural Life in the Late 19th Century | Rise of Industrial America. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/rise-of-industrial-america-1876-1900/rural-life-in-late-19th-century/. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Writing Explained Editors. Writingexplained.com. “Necessity is the Mother of Invention.” https://writingexplained.org/idiom-dictionary/necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Friedman, Jordan. History.com. “The Rugged Trades that Drew Settlers to the American West.” https://www.history.com/articles/settler-jobs-american-west-mining-ranching-trapping. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Slatta, Richard W. Chass.ncsu.edu. “Western Frontier Life in America.” https://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/cowboys/essays/front_life2.htm#. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Friedman, Jordan. History.com. “The Rugged Trades that Drew Settlers to the American West.” https://www.history.com/articles/settler-jobs-american-west-mining-ranching-trapping. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Library of Congress Editors. Loc.gov. “Rural Life in the Late 19th Century | Rise of Industrial America. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/rise-of-industrial-america-1876-1900/rural-life-in-late-19th-century/. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Gulliver, Katrina. Daily.jstor.org. “The Gift of the Grange.” https://daily.jstor.org/the-gift-of-the-grange/. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Cromartie, John. USDA.gov. “Net Migration Spurs Renewed Growth in Rural Areas of the United States.” https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/february/net-migration-spurs-renewed-growth-in-rural-areas-of-the-united-states. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Farberov, Snejana. NYpost.com “Why Young Adults Are Moving to Small Towns at the Highest Rate in a Decade.” https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/real-estate/young-adults-are-moving-to-small-towns-at-the-highest-rate-in-a-decade/. Accessed January 17, 2026.  

Hughes, Keagan. WAVY.com. “Young Adults Leaving Hampton Roads for Rural Areas Amid Rising Costs.” https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/young-adults-leaving-hampton-roads-for-rural-areas-amid-rising-costs/. Accessed January 17, 2026.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

One of the most groundbreaking events of the late nineteenth century was the establishment of the world’s first modern system of social security in Imperial Germany, with the state taking responsibility for safeguarding workers from everyday risks such as incapacity and old age.

Here, Vittorio Trevitt considers the roots of such a social welfare system.

Distributing Alms to the Poor, Abbey of Port-Royal des Champs.

Although the emergence of modern social welfare was product of both altruism and political expediency, with the creation of public entitlements such as retirement pensions, invalidity benefits, and accident and sickness insurance seen partly as a way of drawing support away from the political Left, it nevertheless began a positive trend that continues to the present day. While highly industrialised nation-states for several decades now, including Andorra, Liechtensteinand Monaco, have built up and maintained comprehensive income maintenance systems, many developing nations such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Maldives in Asia, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone in sub-Saharan Africa, and Panama and Suriname in the Americas have relatively recently embarked upon measures to broaden the coverage of and/or introduce new social security benefits. But welfare services in some form or another have existed long before the German reforms of the Nineteenth Century, with both individuals and state organisations offering support to those less able to help themselves. This common act of compassion is one of the more positive aspects of humanity and is a long-established part of the human tradition; one that has existed since the days of antiquity.

 

Byzantine Empire

A notable example of ancient welfare can be found in the Byzantine Empire. For much of its existence, a vast multitudeof social services were provided by the state, church and private citizens, amongst which included homes for the elderly,widows, and those unable to participate in the labour force, institutions for travellers and abandoned children, hostels for sick indigent individuals, orphanages, and (in the imperial capital) the granting of free bread. The emphasis placed on welfare was strongly influenced by the Christian teaching of agape (love) together with the philanthropic traditions of Greek society, with examples of social assistance in ancient Athens such as daily allowances for the handicapped and pensions for war orphans. Although the Byzantine Empire no longer exists, one can argue that its welfarist traditions live on today in the charitable works of Vatican City and Christian churches throughout the world.

 

Religious leaders

Similar initiatives influenced by religious teaching were also carried out by early Islamic leaders, including the creation of social aid for the poor (such as payments to minors and those without work) regardless of their religion, together with the care of abandoned children and assistance during times of famine. A levy was also established known as the Zakat that has helped underprivileged people in many nations like Afghanistan since its inception. Religious doctrine shaped welfare provisions in Cambodia during the reign of King Javarman VII who (influenced by Buddhism) presided over the inauguration of a nationwide system of public health facilities while ensuring that those living in poverty were provided with sustenance. In the Ottoman Empire (which included several modern states such as North Macedonia, Palestine, Montenegro, Albania, and a section of Croatia), prosperous members of different religious groups used their wealth for benevolent purposes such as the building of eating establishments for the impoverished. Morocco under the Merenid dynasty was no exception, with those in need attended to by organised charity. In Judaism, assisting the underprivileged has long been viewed as a religious duty, as characterised by a welfare tradition known as Tzedakah. This not only involves providing direct cash assistance to a deprived individual, but also helping to lift them out of poverty. One scholar from the 12th century drew up a comprehensive code of what forms this aid should take, amongst which includes taking on a person experiencing hardship as a partner or helping them find an occupation.

 

Asia

In Mesopotamia, temples provided succour to the poor, while under the guidance of Khosrow I the Sasanian Empire developed numerous schemes aimed at helping senior and impoverished citizens. In Ancient China, there were many instances of state-sponsored aid being provided such as the granting of food and allowances. In India, the establishment of free health care became a hallmark of the Gupta era, while many welfare programmes were put into operation under the Mauryan state. In pre-colonial Vietnam, direct relief such as medications and tents was granted by government representatives, while in Ancient Mongolia direct food assistance in crisis situations became a duty of the state. In Bhutan, a system has long operated known as Kidu in which the monarch comes to people’s aid to ensure that their needs are met. In pre-industrial Japan, there were many examples of people in authority undertaking philanthropic works such as help for blind persons, lodgings for beggars and for artisans lacking employment, and repairs in dwellings inhabited by people living with leprosy.

 

Americas & Africa

In the Americas, the Aztecs and Incas embarked upon their own welfarist initiatives aimed at uplifting the poor, while in Africa the Mutapa became known for providing public relief to physically handicapped persons. In pre-colonial Zimbabwe, an intriguing system was set up in which chiefs put aside plots of land for community cultivation, with produce kept in granaries for emergencies. Prior to the arrival of colonialism, an altruistic practice was introduced in Rwandaknown as Umuganda in which help was given to less fortunate members of the community (such as the elderly and disabled) including travel to health providers and the construction of dwellings. During the age of the Mali Empire (which included contemporary countries like Gambia, Senegal and Chad), a progressive charter laying out numerous rights and rules was drawn up, one of which was an obligation to assist the impoverished. Additionally, in the Kongo Kingdom (which is believed to have included portions of what became Gabon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo), the provision of welfare is said to have been a responsibility of those in authority.

 

Social conscience

Although deeply unequal societies, a social conscience nevertheless existed in the major world powers of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome. In the former, care for the poor was both enshrined in law and put into practice, with assistance given to the aged by way of housing, employment and medical attention. During the age of the latter, multiple social programmes were launched to support underprivileged people, amongst which included aid to widows, financial and educational support for children, free clothing for soldiers, loans to farmers of moderate means, and grants of land to poverty-stricken inhabitants of urban areas. One of the largest of these was the ‘grain dole;’ a dietary allowance that benefited hundreds of thousands during its existence. Recipients were allocated a fixed amount of wheat (believed to be sufficient for the needs of an individual), and in later years the allowance was expanded to include certain other foodstuffs. It was also an integral part of the unofficial platform of the Populares; political figures who presented themselves as representing the interests of ordinary citizens in contrast to their opposite numbers, the Optimates. In addition, workers’ guilds were set up which provided several categories of assistance to their members and relatives.

Not all societies throughout history, however, have had the infrastructure to set up formal networks of welfare. In the African continent, there has long existed a tradition whereby extended families, chiefs and villages have acted as informal safety nets; supporting members of the community when the need arises. In West Africa, this type of welfare found its expression in nations like Togo, Benin, Niger, and Liberia, in East Africa in Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia, to the north in Mauritania, Sudan and South Sudan, and further south in Malawi, Eswatini, Lesotho, and Botswana. In the Pacific, a system has long existed in countries like the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea known as Wantok in which members of a clan or tribe look out for one another’s wellbeing not only through helping members find work, but in granting monetary support as well. A similar system has long operated in Fiji called Kerekere, in which those who need help in different situations seek it from neighbours and extended family members, while the Bubuti system in Kiribati provides that households share what they have with those in straightened circumstances. This kind of indirect support is also seen in neighbouring Samoa as an integral part of that island’s identity, and is an established practice in other Pacific nations such as Palau, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

 

In context

This is not say that informal safety nets are an effective substitute for modern social insurance programmes. Their failure in effectively ameliorating conditions for AIDS orphans in Africa attests to this. Nevertheless, they have been credited for preventing severe hardship in the Pacific, and stand out as a laudable example of kindness and ingenuity. Also, whilst one should not view imperial rule as an ideal form of governance, the emphasis placed on welfare by the aforementioned empires of old was a positive attribute that is commendable.

The provision of social welfare, therefore, is an aspect of human history that has long-established roots. At a time when our world has undergone a tremendous amount of technological progress, social security remains a privilege and not a right for much of humanity. We should learn from the examples of ancient empires, non-industrial societies and the social aspects of religious teaching not only in remembering where social welfare came from, but in shaping its future as well for the betterment of the entire human race.

 

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.

Jack Cornwell was born on the 8th of January, 1900 in Leyton, then part of Essex, into a working-class family for whom life offered few comforts and little security. He grew up in modest surroundings and attended local schools, where he was remembered as a quiet, unassuming boy rather than an exceptional student or natural adventurer. Like many boys of his generation, Cornwell was drawn to the Royal Navy by a mixture of patriotism, the promise of steady pay, and the romance of the sea. At just fifteen years old he enlisted as a Boy Seaman in 1915, undergoing training at HMS Impregnable before being posted to active service at an age when most of his contemporaries were still in school.

Terry Bailey explains.

The image of Jack Cornwell as used by the press at the time of his death. It is now thought to show a younger brother.

In early 1916 Cornwell was assigned to HMS Chester, a newly commissioned light cruiser of the Royal Navy's 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron. As a Boy First Class, his duties included serving as a sight setter and loader on one of the ship's 5.5-inch guns, a demanding role that required discipline, precision, and physical stamina. Despite his youth, Cornwell adapted quickly to the routines of naval life and the responsibilities of combat readiness. By the end of May 1916, Chester was operating in the North Sea as part of the British Grand Fleet, soon to be drawn into the largest naval engagement of the First World War.

The Battle of Jutland, fought between the 31st of May and the 1st of June 1916, was the long-anticipated clash between Britain's Grand Fleet under Admiral Sir John Jellicoe and the German High Seas Fleet commanded by Vice-Admiral Reinhard Scheer. Both sides sought to gain decisive control of the North Sea, a strategic prize that would shape the course of the war. The British aimed to maintain their naval blockade of Germany, while the Germans hoped to weaken British sea power by isolating and destroying portions of the Grand Fleet. The battle unfolded amid confusion, smoke, poor visibility, and rapidly shifting tactical situations, with dozens of capital ships and cruisers exchanging fire over vast distances.

HMS Chester became engaged during the early phases of the battle when she encountered a group of German light cruisers. Outgunned and exposed, Chester came under intense and accurate enemy fire. Several German shells struck the ship, causing heavy casualties among the gun crews. One shell burst close to Cornwell's gun position, killing or disabling nearly the entire crew and inflicting severe wounds on Cornwell himself. He suffered multiple injuries to his chest and legs, wounds that would ultimately prove fatal. Despite his pain and loss of blood, Cornwell refused to leave his post. Standing alone amid the wreckage, he continued to load and aim the gun, awaiting orders and prepared to fire if commanded.

Cornwell remained at his station until the fighting subsided and Chester withdrew from the action. Only then was he discovered by officers, still upright beside the gun, gravely wounded but steadfast in his duty. He was taken to the hospital upon the ship's return to port, but his injuries were too severe. Jack Cornwell died on the 2nd of June 1916, just over a day after the battle, at the age of sixteen. His conduct, marked by extraordinary courage, discipline, and devotion to duty in the face of overwhelming danger, was soon reported to the Admiralty.

In recognition of his actions, Cornwell was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in the British and Commonwealth armed forces. The citation emphasized that he "remained standing alone at a most exposed post, quietly awaiting orders," despite being mortally wounded. His youth made his bravery all the more striking, and his story resonated deeply with a nation exhausted by war and loss. Cornwell was given a hero's funeral in London, attended by thousands, and his grave became a site of public remembrance.

The Battle of Jutland itself remains a subject of debate among historians. Tactically, the German Navy could claim a measure of success, having sunk more British ships and inflicted heavier immediate losses. However, strategically, the battle was a clear victory for Britain. The Royal Navy retained command of the sea, and the German High Seas Fleet, though not destroyed, was effectively contained. After Jutland, the German fleet rarely ventured out in strength again, conceding naval dominance to Britain and ensuring that the blockade of Germany remained intact for the remainder of the war.

Jack Cornwell's legacy endures as one of the most powerful symbols of youthful courage in British military history. He was not a seasoned warrior or a decorated officer, but a teenage sailor who, when tested under the most extreme conditions, displayed unwavering resolve and selflessness. His story embodies the quiet heroism of ordinary individuals caught in extraordinary circumstances. It serves as a reminder that courage is not measured by age or rank, but by the willingness to stand fast in the face of fear and duty.

Jack Cornwell's story endures not because it is dramatic in the conventional sense of battlefield heroics, but because of its profound simplicity. In the chaos and terror of Jutland—the smoke-filled decks, the thunder of naval guns, and the sudden loss of comrades around him, Cornwell did not perform a single spectacular act meant to turn the tide of battle. Instead, he did something far rarer and more revealing: he stayed. Mortally wounded, isolated, and fully aware of the danger, he remained at his post, embodying the quiet discipline and sense of duty instilled in him by the Royal Navy and embraced by him as a personal moral code. His courage was not impulsive or reckless, but calm, steadfast, and deeply human.

In a war often remembered for its industrial scale and impersonal slaughter, Cornwell's actions restore the individual to the center of history. He reminds us that the outcome of great events, whether a vast naval engagement like Jutland or the broader struggle of the First World War is shaped not only by admirals, strategies, and fleets, but by the conduct of ordinary men and boys placed in extraordinary circumstances. His youth, far from diminishing his heroism, underscores it, revealing how responsibility and bravery were borne by those scarcely beyond childhood during the conflict.

More than a century later, Jack Cornwell remains a symbol rather than a statistic, a name that speaks to sacrifice without bitterness and courage without bravado. His Victoria Cross represents not only gallantry under fire, but also the enduring values of duty, resilience, and selflessness in the face of overwhelming odds. In remembering Cornwell, we honor not just one young sailor, but an entire generation whose quiet endurance helped shape the course of history, and whose sacrifices continue to resonate long after the guns of Jutland fell silent.

 

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.

The northernmost land action of the American Civil War did not occur during the Confederacy’s twice ill-fated invasions of the north but rather happened in the small city of St. Albans, Vermont, less than twenty miles from the Canadian border. Perpetrated by a small band of Confederate raiders, this was more reminiscent of a wild west style attack than a tactical cavalry raid.

Brian Hughes explains.

A woodcut illustration of the St. Albans Raid. In the image, at the bank, the raiders forced those present to take an oath to the Confederacy.

Introduction

As 1864 was coming to an end the outlook for the Confederacy appeared bleak. The south was under relentless Union pressure from east and west, on land and at sea. In Georgia, General Sherman was leaving a path of destruction in his wake and had captured Atlanta, the second most important city in the South. Simultaneously in Virginia, General Robert E. Lee was endlessly preoccupied with attempting to stymie Ulysses S. Grant during the Peninsula Campaign, inflicting heavy casualties in cataclysmic battles but unable to effectively achieve any substantial strategic objective. Union forces were also devastating the Shenandoah Valley and tightening the noose around the south with their naval blockade.

The increasing demoralization of southern troops and populace manifested itself politically. Becoming increasingly distressed, certain figures began to think outside the box for solutions, even if they were only short term. Twenty one year old Kentuckian and Confederate soldier Bennet H. Young came forth with an unorthodox yet bold proposal. Having taken part in several battles in and around the Midwest, Young had fled a Union prison camp where reaching Canada and returning home via a Confederate blockade runner operating out of Halifax. Young believed he could mount a series of forays into the meagerly defended northern New England states from Canada. Despite the small scale nature of the raids, any amount of fiscal gains would be sufficient to assist the cash strapped Confederate government and act as a sort of monetary life support, extending the conflict just long enough until a more ideal political outcome could be agreed upon for the Confederacy. Similarly, Confederate operations in the far north could potentially divert Union troops away from more active fronts, relieving pressure on the hard pressed farms and plantations necessary to sustain the southern war effort.

 

Canada

Although officially neutral in the conflict, Canada, then still a disunited British colony, harbored great sympathy for the Confederate cause. Heavily reliant on southern cotton and historic enmity with neighboring states (mainly New England) contributed to these sentiments. A multitude of Confederate agents, spies, and fundraisers would operate out of cities such as Montreal and St. Johns some of which were aware of the tactical potential Canada offered geographically. Young made extensive use of these contacts which he garnered throughout his time there.

 

Why St. Albans

St. Albans was selected for a variety of reasons. Located a mere fifteen miles from the border with Canada, St. Albans was home to several banks. The city was easily accessible with several roads leading in and out of the downtown area, being just close enough to Vermont’s largest city, Burlington. In addition, the town was meagerly defended with no substantial military force in and around the region.

 

Raid, October 19th, 1864

The original date of the operation was scheduled for the 18th of October, but the Franklin County Farmers Market thwarted these plans with the increase in population and presence of authorities. Delaying the attack by a day or two would similarly ensure the banks were more laden with money following market day.

Young had about twenty men at his disposal, which he split up in subunits of five or six each tasked with striking one of three banks. The raiders dressed in plain civilian clothes and initially disguised their southern accents upon making entry into the city for the purpose of reconnaissance. At around three pm, Young stood on the steps of local hotel unsheathed his pistol and with great braggadocio exclaimed “This city is now in the possession of the Confederate States of America!” This was the signal for the attack as the Confederate operatives sprung forth and furiously rode through the streets toward their objectives.

Their three targets were the St. Albans Bank, The Franklin County Bank, and First National Bank were all situated within a block and a half of one another. The rebels took the locals by complete surprise and quickly rampaged through the three banks, robbing them and forcing civilians with their arms raised to “solemnly swear to obey and respect the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.” Treasury notes and bonds were taken in addition to cash, but the banks were intentionally not thoroughly looted the banks of all their contents given the necessity of the rebels to flee the city swiftly.

Some of the southern raiders took advantage of the ensuing pandemonium to steal horses to better facilitate their escape. The raid was over in less than half an hour but not before the southerners shot one local civilian, Elinus Morrison, mortally wounding him. Morrison attempted to confront the raiders who then shot him in the abdomen. One Southern raider had been wounded during the flight as the Confederates unsuccessfully tried to set fire to the town.

 

Pursuit

The perpetrators set off with stolen horses in addition to their loot from the banks, this incumbered them slightly. A Union army veteran and St. Albans resident Captain George Conger rapidly organized a posse and gave chase. The Confederates again attempted to light fire to several bridges to better ensure their escape but once again the flames were quickly doused by the pursuers. Eventually the marauders parted in to separate groups and continued, northward, Vermont authorities alerted their counter parts in Canada hoping they would apprehend the intruders. The Canadian authorities decided to cooperate with the Vermonters, capturing a handful of the raiders once across the border, they quickly confiscating their weapons and cash, and called on the militia to further patrol the border. The Canadians confiscated eighty seven thousand dollars in money, roughly equivalent to two million in today’s currency. By wars end in April 1865 the banks of St. Albans had been reimbursed and the remaining captives released.

The St. Albans raid was a revealing act of Confederate desperation in the war’s final months. Though militarily insignificant, it displayed how far the southern operatives were willing to go-violating borders and testing neutrality. The raid temporarily shocked the north and exposed geographical vulnerabilities. In the end the raid failed to divert significant resources, thus ensuring the Confederacy’s inevitable collapse.

 

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.

The Kellogg Brothers founded a powerful and impactful cereal company in 1906. They were also innovators in the health and wellness fields and were members of organizations that were ahead of their time - and fought against what was then considered a healthy lifestyle. The Kellogg Brothers left a lasting positive legacy on the health and wellness industry.

Daniel Boustead explains.

John Harvey Kellogg.

William Keith Kellogg.

The Kellogg brothers’ longest-lasting contribution to the Health industry is their product, Kellogg’s Cornflakes.  Dr. John Harvey Kellogg’s (1852-1943) trek towards Kellogg’s Cornflakes began as a search for a breakfast substitute to help treat his patients at the Battle Creek Sanitarium who were suffering from stomach problems.[1]  This was a consistent complaint of his patients. A disabled gastrointestinal system caused the patient’s stomach problems. Dr. Kellogg discovered that the half-baked breakfast mush he had previously been serving patients was causing dyspepsia. He also felt that the replacement should also be “pre-cooked”. The creation of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes involves conflicting accounts, in which, in the end, Dr. Kellogg, his wife, Ella, and Dr. Kellogg’s brother, Will (1860-1951), should receive some credit for its creation.[2]

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg applied to the U.S. Patent Office for his patent on “Flaked Cereal and Process for Preparing the Same”(No.558,399) on May 31st, 1895.[3] The U.S. Patent Office granted Dr. Kellogg this patent on April 14th, 1896.  In the patent itself, Dr. Kellogg included flakes made of oats, corn, barley, and other grains in addition to wheat flakes to protect his patent.

In the summer of 1895, Will and Dr. Kellogg introduced the Corn Flakes at the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventists at the Battle Creek Sanitarium.[4] The dish became a hit with conference attendees, who would add milk, cream, or yogurt to it.

 

Company formed

In 1906, Will Kellogg founded the Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company.[5] In 1907, he changed the company’s name to the Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Company.[6] In the late summer to early fall of 1907, Kellogg’s Cornflakes made its official debut to the American public.[7] It was under Will Kellogg’s leadership that, during the Great Depression in 1933, the Kellogg company made a gross profit of $6 million (about $110 million in today’s money).[8] This was at a time when many companies were going bankrupt or struggling to maintain a profit.  In 1939, Will Kellogg retired as the company's head.

Dr. Kellogg was also a trailblazer in other ways in the field of health and wellness. The Battle Creek Sanitarium began in 1866 as the Health Reform Institute.[9] “Sister” White presented her ideas about Christian biblical healthy living at the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference on May 20th, 1866. The  General Conference approved the creation of an institute for health reform.[10] It was the governing body of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The organization opened its doors for business as The Western Health Reform Institution on September 5th, 1867.[11] On October 1st, 1876, Dr. Kellogg became the medical director of the Western Health Reform Institute.[12] The Western Health Reform Institute became the Battle Creek Sanatorium on September 15th, 1910.[13] On the same date, Dr. Kellogg told this audience how the new institution should be called Sanitarium or San, because he felt it better suited the mission. From 1876 to 1943, Dr. Kellogg was at the head of the Western Health Reform Institute, later known as the Battle Creek Sanitarium.[14] Several years before his death, Dr. Kellogg estimated that his work at the Sanitarium brought him into contact with approximately 250,000 persons.[15]

At the Battle Creek Sanitarium, if a patient were suffering from the “blues,” they would be placed under an electric light cabinet to help them get sunlight. There was not much natural sunlight in southeastern Michigan during the Fall.[16] In this field, Dr. Kellogg was years ahead of his time in terms of medical treatment for seasonal affective disorder or SAD.  

In 1916, at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, patient meals were also served with a card attached that specified the proper ratio of calories, proteins, carbohydrates, and fats to be consumed at the meal.[17] An example of this document is dated from May 19th, 1916. This was unheard of in the field of dieting and nutrition at the time.

Also at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, Dr. Kellogg would lead aerobics and calisthenics with the patients, backed by a brass band.[18] This was so popular that, in 1923, the Columbia Gramophone Company released 10 78-RPM shellac discs of Dr. Kellogg’s class, complete with a booklet. The album was entitled “John Harvey Kellogg’s HEALTH LADDER”.  In the booklet, there were exercises for the back, abdomen, legs, and arms that Dr. Kellogg recommended for his patients at the Battle Creek Sanitarium. This was decades ahead of the exercise craze led by Jack Lalanne, Richard Simmons, and other such international figures.

Although Dr. Kellogg never received credit for this, he encouraged his patients at the Battle Creek Sanitarium,  after surgery, to get up, move, and perform graded, deep-breathing exercises. [19] This was in stark contrast to the standard procedure of the day, which was to have patients confined to hospital beds for several days to weeks at a time. In the present day, medical procedures, early ambulation, and breathing exercises are the backbone of most recovery protocols after surgery.

 

Patents & Pioneers

In 1934, Dr. Kellogg received a patent for his “Soy Acidophilus Milk”.[20]  Dr. Kellogg devised this concoction to deal with babies who couldn’t deal with cow’s milk-based formulae, as well as his patients at the San who were suffering colitis, duodenal or gastric ulcers, babies who rejected their mom’s breast milk, constipation, and excessive flatulence. This was a step forward in addressing digestive and gastric health compared to the treatments of the day. By 1935, patients at the Battle Creek Sanitarium were consuming over 200 gallons a week of  Dr.Kellogg’s “Soy Acidophilus Milk”. The Battle Creek Sanitarium’s patients’ favorite way to enjoy Dr. Kellogg’s “Soy Acidophilus Milk” was with ripe bananas and a side of soy milk.  This predated the soy milk craze that you see today all over the world.

Dr. Kellogg and Will Kellogg were pioneers in the fight against tobacco and its harmful effects. Dr. Kellogg had discovered through increasing medical evidence that tobacco smoke caused heart disease, lung disease, digestive disorders, infections, and neurological problems.[21] In 1922, Dr. Kellogg published a successful book entitled Tobaccoism, or How Tobacco Kills. Along with Henry Ford’s book, The White Slaver, these books became a cornerstone of the progressive movement’s failed anti-smoking campaign.  Will Kellogg considered smoking to be so dangerous that he demanded that his workers at his factory either quit or he would fire them. He thought tobacco was more dangerous than drinking alcohol.[22]

Dr. Kellogg also thought that tobacco products interfered with proper muscular and growth development, caused gastric ulcers, unduly taxed the liver and kidney systems, injured the brain and nervous systems, and also impaired judgment and moral sensibility.[23] All of Dr. Kellogg’s claims have subsequently been supported by medical science, medical doctors, and research studies, except for the moral sensibility claim.

In the aftermath of World War I, Dr. Kellogg was the president of the Michigan Anti-Cigarette Society and the Committee of Fifty to Study the Tobacco Problem.[24]  Henry Ford was also a prominent member of the Committee of Fifty to Study the Tobacco Problem. Dr. Kellogg, with the help of this group, also produced the very first motion picture to address the dangers of tobacco smoking. He and his brother Will were pioneers in their opposition to tobacco products at a time when the tobacco companies were powerful and used their influence to suppress knowledge about the dangers of their products.

In the USA, the dangers of tobacco products did not reach the Federal level until January 11th, 1964, when the Surgeon General issued the 1964 Report on Smoking and Health.[25] In this report, it linked smoking to the cause of emphysema, chronic bronchitis, coronary heart disease, and increased statistical risk of lung cancer. The effects of this report were featured in television and radio reports in the USA and in foreign countries. The Kellogg Brothers knew about the dangers of smoking long before the US government did.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Kellogg Brothers founded an important cereal company that shaped  America’s idea of breakfast. They were also innovators in medical science and wellness. Dr. Kellogg and his brother Will’s opposition to tobacco products was well ahead of its time. The Kellogg Brothers' beliefs also went against the American and foreign understanding of tobacco and its adverse effects. This was a time when the tobacco Industry held a stranglehold on the public consciousness in America and elsewhere. The Kellogg Brothers’ courage in publicizing their findings left a legacy on health and wellness concepts that are still felt today.

 

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

Works Cited Page

Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017.

National Library of Medicine: Profiles in Science, Reports of the Surgeon General, The 1964 Report on Smoking and Health. Accessed on November 26th, 2025, https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight/nn/feature/smoking.

Schwartz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg: Pioneering Health Reformer. Hagerstown: Maryland. Review and Hearld Publishing Association.2006.

Wilson, Brian C. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: And the Religion of Biologic Living. Bloomington & Indianapolis. Indiana University Press. 2014.

 

[1] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017.  20 and 112.

[2] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017.  20 and 129 to 133.

[3] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 133.

[4] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 134.

[5] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017.XIV.

[6] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017.279.

[7] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 280.

[8] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 264.

[9] Schwartz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg: Pioneering Health Reformer. Hagerstown: Maryland. Review and Hearld Publishing Association.2006.62.

[10] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 89.

[11] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 90.

[12] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 92.

[13] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 95.

[14] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 95; Wilson, Brian C. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: And the Religion of Biologic Living. Bloomington & Indianapolis. Indiana University Press. 2014. XI.

[15] Schwartz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg: Pioneering Health Reformer. Hagerstown: Maryland. Review and Hearld Publishing Association.2006.62.

[16] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 187.

[17] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 187 to 188.

[18] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017.  190 to 191.

[19] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 195 and 200.

[20] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017.   330 to 331.

[21] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 224.

[22] Markel, Howard. The Kelloggs: The Battling Brothers of Battle Creek. New York: New York. Vintage Books. 2017. 224 to 225.

[23] Schwartz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg: Pioneering Health Reformer. Hagerstown: Maryland. Review and Hearld Publishing Association.2006. 59.

[24] Schwartz, Richard W. John Harvey Kellogg: Pioneering Health Reformer. Hagerstown: Maryland. Review and Hearld Publishing Association.2006. 107.

[25] National Library of Medicine: Profiles in Science, Reports of the Surgeon General, The 1964 Report on Smoking and Health. Accessed on November 26th, 2025, https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight/nn/feature/smoking.

Thomas Eugene Kelly was born on the 25th of December, 1919 in Worcester, Massachusetts, and grew up in an America shaped by economic hardship and the lingering trauma of the First World War. Raised during the Great Depression, Kelly belonged to a generation for whom military service was often seen as both duty and opportunity. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in April 1942. Like many young Marines, he was forged by demanding training and an unforgiving discipline designed to prepare men for a form of warfare unlike anything the United States had previously faced: amphibious assaults against a determined and well-entrenched enemy across the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean.

Terry Bailey explains.

Thomas G. Kelley. Source: Johnny Bivera, MilitaryHealth, available here.

By the time Kelly reached combat, the Pacific War had evolved into a brutal contest of attrition. The early Japanese successes of 1941–1942 had been reversed through a relentless Allied counteroffensive, characterized by "island-hopping" campaigns aimed at bypassing strongholds while seizing strategically vital positions. Battles such as Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, and Peleliu had demonstrated both the effectiveness and the staggering human cost of this strategy. Japanese forces, increasingly isolated and cut off from resupply, fought with extraordinary tenacity, often to the last man, guided by a military culture that emphasized honor, sacrifice, and resistance to surrender. It was into this unforgiving environment that Kelly and the men of the 5th Marine Division were sent in early 1945.

Iwo Jima represented one of the most formidable objectives of the entire Pacific campaign. A small, barren volcanic island located roughly halfway between the Mariana Islands and Japan, it was prized for its airfields, which could support Japanese interceptors and, if captured, provide emergency landing grounds for American B-29 bombers attacking the Japanese home islands. Anticipating an invasion, Lieutenant General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, the Japanese commander on Iwo Jima, rejected traditional beach defense tactics. Instead, he oversaw the construction of an elaborate underground defensive network of tunnels, bunkers, caves, and reinforced pillboxes, allowing his approximate 21,000 defenders to survive bombardment and emerge to fight with deadly efficiency.

When U.S. Marines landed on Iwo Jima on the 19th of February, 1945 they encountered resistance far more intense than expected. The soft volcanic ash slowed movement, while hidden Japanese positions delivered overlapping fields of fire. Casualties mounted rapidly as Marines struggled to advance yard by yard against an enemy that remained largely invisible. Kelly, serving with the 3rd Battalion, 27th Marines, found himself in the midst of this hellish landscape as the battle ground on through late February, with both sides locked in a savage struggle for control of the island's rugged terrain.

On the 25th of February, 1945 Kelly's company was ordered to seize and hold a strategically vital hill that dominated the surrounding area. The position was heavily defended by Japanese troops manning well-camouflaged strongpoints, supported by machine guns and rifle fire that pinned the Marines down and inflicted serious losses. As the attack stalled and the situation grew increasingly perilous, Kelly acted with decisive courage. Without waiting for orders, he moved forward alone, deliberately exposing himself to intense enemy fire as he closed with the Japanese positions.

Armed with grenades and his rifle, Kelly assaulted one fortified position after another at close range. He destroyed enemy emplacements by hurling grenades into firing ports and engaging defenders directly, often within a few yards. During these actions, he was repeatedly wounded, yet he refused evacuation or medical treatment, continuing to advance despite blood loss and physical pain. His fearless movement across open ground drew enemy fire away from his pinned comrades and provided a rallying point for the rest of the company, which began to advance behind his example.

The Japanese soldiers Kelly faced were veteran defenders operating within Kuribayashi's carefully designed defensive system. They were disciplined, well-trained, and resolute, fighting from mutually supporting positions intended to maximize American casualties. Many were armed with machine guns, rifles, grenades, and mortars, and they exploited the terrain expertly. That Kelly was able to overrun multiple such positions single-handedly speaks to both his extraordinary bravery and the ferocity of the resistance he confronted. By neutralizing key enemy strongpoints, he played a decisive role in allowing his unit to secure the hill and hold it against further attack.

At the end of the action, Kelly had personally accounted for a significant number of enemy soldiers and silenced several critical defensive positions. His conduct under fire was not only tactically decisive but psychologically transformative, inspiring exhausted and battered Marines to press on in one of the most grueling battles of the war. For his conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty, Thomas Eugene Kelly was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. The citation emphasized his repeated solo assaults, his refusal to withdraw despite severe wounds, and the inspirational leadership he displayed under the most extreme combat conditions.

The Battle of Iwo Jima ultimately lasted more than a month and resulted in nearly 7,000 American dead and over 26,000 casualties, making it one of the bloodiest engagements in Marine Corps history. Of the roughly 21,000 Japanese defenders, almost all were killed. The battle became emblematic of the Pacific War's final phase, illustrating both the strategic necessity and the immense human cost of the campaign. Kelly's actions stand out even within this context of widespread heroism, representing the individual courage that underpinned American success in the face of fanatical resistance.

After the war, Kelly was discharged from the Marine Corps and returned to civilian life, bearing the lasting effects of his wounds. Unlike many public war heroes, he lived quietly and did not seek fame or attention for his achievements. He remained proud of his service and of the men with whom he had fought on Iwo Jima, viewing his Medal of Honor as a testament to their collective sacrifice rather than personal glory. Thomas Eugene Kelly died on the 9th of March, 1981 and was laid to rest with military honors.

The story of Kelly's actions endures as part of the broader story of the Pacific campaign, a conflict defined by endurance, sacrifice, and extraordinary acts of courage on both sides. On the shattered volcanic slopes of Iwo Jima, his determination and selflessness helped turn the tide at a critical moment, saving lives and securing ground that had been paid for in blood. His story remains a powerful reminder of the human dimension of war, and of how individual resolve can shape the outcome of history's most brutal battles.

In conclusion, Thomas Eugene Kelly's story brings into sharp focus the essential truth of the Pacific War: that its vast strategies and sweeping offensives ultimately depended on the courage of individuals willing to act under unimaginable pressure. On Iwo Jima, a battle defined by attrition, concealment, and relentless violence, Kelly's actions cut through the paralysis of fear and exhaustion at a moment when failure would have meant further loss of life and momentum. His willingness to advance alone against fortified positions, despite repeated wounds, embodied the Marine Corps ethos of perseverance and initiative, demonstrating how a single Marine's resolve could alter the course of a local engagement and, in doing so, contribute to a larger strategic victory.

Kelly's gallantry cannot be separated from the broader human cost of Iwo Jima. The hill he helped secure was not merely a tactical objective but part of a battlefield where every yard of ground was contested at staggering expense. His heroism stands as a representative example of the countless acts of bravery displayed by Marines who fought in conditions of extreme deprivation, uncertainty, and danger. That Kelly later viewed his Medal of Honor as a symbol of collective sacrifice rather than individual achievement underscores the shared burden borne by those who survived and those who did not.

In the decades since the battle, Iwo Jima has come to symbolize both the necessity and the tragedy of total war in the Pacific. Kelly's quiet post-war life, marked by humility rather than self-promotion, reinforces the enduring divide between wartime heroism and peacetime remembrance. He carried the physical and emotional scars of combat without seeking recognition, allowing his actions on the battlefield to speak for themselves. In doing so, he reflected the experience of an entire generation for whom service was a duty fulfilled, not a platform for acclaim.

Ultimately, Thomas Eugene Kelly's legacy lies not only in the Medal of Honor he received but in what his conduct reveals about courage under fire. His story reminds us that history is shaped as much by individual decisions made in moments of extreme peril as by grand strategies and commanding figures. On Iwo Jima, amid ash, steel, and relentless resistance, Kelly's determination saved lives and inspired others to endure. Remembering his actions ensures that the sacrifices of those who fought in the Pacific are neither abstracted nor forgotten, but understood through the lives of the men who bore the war at its most brutal point.

 

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.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The European scramble for Africa, the period of imperial expansion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was motivated by a variety of reasons. An examination of different sources reveals that the driving force behind the colonization of Africa was mainly economic, fueled by the need for raw materials and new markets. Political rivalries, technological advances, and cultural ideologies were contributory factors, but they were ultimately secondary to the overarching economic imperative.  To understand this expansion, one must look at the convergence of the Industrial Revolution’s demands and the geopolitical climate of the era. 

Shubh Samant explains.

A 1906 Marseille Colonial Exhibition poster. It demonstrates European colonial achievements.

A 1906 Colonial Exhibition poster in Marseille, France.

The Berlin Conference

The term “Scramble for Africa” itself reflects the speed, intensity, and competitive nature of this imperial race. Between roughly 1880 and 1914, European powers carved up nearly the entire continent, often with little regard for existing African societies, cultures, or political boundaries. The Berlin Conference of November 15, 1884 to February 26, 1885, convened by Otto Von Bismarck, symbolized this process, as European nations sat around a table in Berlin and drew borders on maps that would later become the foundations of modern African states. This conference was not about African voices or African agency; it was about European powers negotiating among themselves to avoid conflict while maximizing their territorial and economic gains. The General Act of the Berlin Conference established the principles of "effective occupation," which required powers to demonstrate physical presence and administration to claim sovereignty, further accelerating the rush to the interior.

 

The Economic Engine

The Industrial Revolution was the force that created an economic push, since it had established an unprecedented need for raw materials. Some examples of natural resources present in Africa included cotton, palm oil, rubber, and minerals. These resources were important to the industries of Europe, and gaining access to them was of the utmost importance. There were economic motivations which pushed the European powers to colonize and tap the wealth of Africa. With the need for new markets in rise, the majority of Africans were perceived as a wonderful opportunity for new markets for European-made manufactured goods. By 1870, industrial output in Europe had reached a point where domestic markets were becoming saturated, leading to a "Long Depression" that made overseas expansion look like a financial necessity.

The economic logic was straightforward: industrial economies in Britain, France, Germany, and Belgium required steady supplies of inputs to sustain production. African rubber fed the tire industry, palm oil was used in soaps and lubricants, cotton supplied textile mills, and gold and diamonds enriched European treasuries. Beyond raw materials, Africa also represented a potential consumer base. Even though most Africans had limited purchasing power, imperialists imagined vast markets where European goods could be sold. This vision of Africa as both a warehouse of resources and a marketplace for manufactured products was central to the imperial project. The discovery of the Witwatersrand gold reef in 1886 transformed South Africa into a focal point of global finance, drawing in billions in European capital and cementing the economic priority of the region.

 

Political Rivalry and the Rise of Nationalism

While economic reasons were the most significant driver, political rivalry also provoked the scramble for Africa. The extent of European control by 1914 was overwhelming, leaving just two nations (Ethiopia and Liberia) independent. This is indicative of the fierce competition among European nations, each searching for more power and prestige, National pride and the desire to retain power were strong incentives for colonization, as suggested by Freidrich Fabri. Even these political incentives, though, were intertwined with economic ones, as colonies also symbolized a source of wealth and power. Fabri argued in 1879 that for a new nation like Germany, colonial expansion was a vital necessity to maintain its standing among older powers.

Nationalism was a powerful force in late 19th-century Europe. Countries like Germany and Italy had only recently unified, and their leaders sought colonies as a way to demonstrate strength and legitimacy on the global stage. France, still reeling from defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, looked to Africa to restore its prestige. Britain, already the world’s leading imperial power, sought to maintain its dominance by controlling strategic territories such as Egypt and South Africa. Colonies became symbols of national greatness, and losing ground to rivals was seen as a humiliation. Thus, political rivalry was inseparable from the economic quest, as each empire measured its success not only in wealth but also in the size of its colonial holdings. The "Great Game" was no longer confined to Asia; it had moved to the African continent, where every square mile gained was seen as a blow to a neighbor.

 

Technological Advancements and Military Dominance

Technological innovations greatly aided European imperialism. Steamships, railroads, etc. allowed Europeans to penetrate into the African interior and overcome the logistical challenges. The invention of the Maxim gun further enhanced European military superiority. These technological innovations were ultimately tools to achieve the economic goals. Without these advancements, the "Dark Continent" would have remained largely inaccessible to large-scale European administration.

The role of technology cannot be overstated. Prior to the late 19th century, much of Africa remained inaccessible to Europeans due to disease, geography, and logistical difficulties. The discovery of quinine as a treatment for malaria reduced mortality rates among Europeans and made deeper incursions possible. Railroads allowed for the rapid transport of goods from the interior to coastal ports, while steamships shortened travel times between Europe and Africa. The Maxim gun, the first fully automatic machine gun, gave European armies overwhelming military superiority over African forces armed with spears, muskets, or outdated rifles. These innovations created the infrastructure and military dominance necessary to sustain imperial control, ensuring that economic exploitation could proceed with minimal resistance. At the Battle of Omdurman in September 02, 1898, British forces used Maxim guns to kill roughly 11,000 Mahdist warriors while losing only 47 of their own men, illustrating the terrifying disparity in power.

 

Cultural Justifications and Social Darwinism

There were cultural beliefs, such as “The White Man’s Burden” philosophy, that gave a moral reason for European imperialism. These cultural beliefs were used to cover up economic reasons for it. Although there were some Europeans who sincerely believed they were there to civilize the native Africans, they were largely motivated by a desire to acquire wealth and minerals. In general, while the scramble for Africa had a variety of reasons, it was the economic ones which were primary. It was the need for raw materials, markets, and investment opportunities that propelled the rush of the colonization of Africa. Political rivalries, technological changes, and cultural mentality served as underlying factors, but were complementary to the strong economic factors. Social Darwinism provided a pseudo-scientific framework that ranked races, suggesting that the "survival of the fittest" applied to nations and justified the domination of the "weaker" by the "stronger."

The cultural dimension of imperialism was deeply intertwined with notions of racial superiority and paternalism. Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem “The White Man’s Burden” encapsulated the idea that Europeans had a moral duty to “civilize” non-European peoples. Missionaries traveled to Africa to spread Christianity, often believing they were saving souls, but their efforts also paved the way for colonial administrations. Education systems were introduced that emphasized European values, languages, and histories, while African traditions were marginalized or dismissed as primitive. This cultural justification provided a veneer of morality to what was essentially economic exploitation. By framing imperialism as a benevolent mission, European powers could present themselves as altruistic actors, even while extracting immense wealth from African lands. However, the "civilizing mission" often translated into the dismantling of local governance and the imposition of European legal codes that prioritized property rights for settlers over indigenous land use.

 

African Resistance

As Europeans entered the lands of Africa, so did the Africans resist. African resistance was not a monolith; it ranged from diplomatic negotiation and tactical alliances to full-scale guerrilla warfare and religious uprisings. One of the most significant examples of sustained military resistance was led by Samori Touré, the founder of the Wassoulou Empire. Between 1882 and 1898, Touré utilized a sophisticated "scorched earth" policy and moved his entire empire eastward to evade French forces. His ability to manufacture and repair his own firearms locally allowed him to resist for sixteen years, proving that African states were capable of high-level military organization.

In East Africa, the Maji Maji Rebellion (July 1905 to July 1907) demonstrated the power of spiritual unity. Diverse ethnic groups in German East Africa (modern-day Tanzania) united against forced cotton cultivation. Rebels believed that a sacred water (maji) would turn German bullets into water. While the Germans eventually suppressed the uprising through a manufactured famine that killed hundreds of thousands, the rebellion forced the colonial administration to reform its more brutal labor policies, showing that even "failed" resistance could alter the colonial trajectory.

Perhaps the most striking exception to European dominance was the Ethiopian Empire under Emperor Menelik II. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Menelik II recognized the importance of modernizing his military early. He played European powers against one another to purchase modern rifles and artillery. When Italy attempted to impose a protectorate, the Ethiopian army decisively defeated the Italian forces at the Battle of Adwa on March 01, 1896. This victory ensured Ethiopia remained the only indigenous African state to maintain its independence throughout the Scramble, providing a powerful symbol of hope for future Pan-African movements.

Furthermore, resistance often took place within the colonial system itself. In West Africa, the "Aba Women's War" of November 1929 saw thousands of Igbo women in Nigeria organize mass protests against the British "Warrant Chiefs" and the imposition of new taxes. Through "sitting on" the chiefs, a traditional form of shaming, the women successfully forced the colonial government to drop the tax plans and reform the local administration. These examples illustrate that while the Scramble was a period of intense European aggression, African agency was never extinguished; rather, it adapted to the new realities of imperial rule.

 

Conclusion

By 1914, Africa was almost entirely under European control, and the continent’s political, economic, and cultural landscapes had been dramatically reshaped. The legacy of this period continues to affect Africa today, as many post-independence states inherited borders, institutions, and economic structures created during colonial rule. The scramble for Africa was not merely a historical episode of conquest; it was a transformative moment that altered global power dynamics, enriched European nations, and imposed lasting challenges on African societies. The transition to independence in the mid-20th century was frequently complicated by these extractive colonial structures, which were not designed for democratic self-governance.

In conclusion, the scramble for Africa was driven primarily by economic imperatives, but it was reinforced by political rivalries, technological innovations, and cultural ideologies. The industrial revolution created the demand for raw materials and markets, nationalism fueled competition among European powers, technology enabled conquest and control, and cultural beliefs provided moral justification. Together, these factors produced one of the most dramatic episodes of imperial expansion in world history. Yet beneath the rhetoric of civilization and progress lay the fundamental reality: Europe’s hunger for wealth and resources was the true engine of colonization. The scramble for Africa was, at its core, an economic enterprise cloaked in the language of politics, technology, and morality. By the time the dust settled, the continent was irrevocably tied to the global capitalist system, a tie that persists in the modern era's neo-colonial economic relationships.

 

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

References

  • Fabri, Friedrich. (1879). Bedarf Deutschland der Colonien? (Does Germany Need Colonies?).

  • Headrick, Daniel R. (1981). The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century

  • Hobson, John A. (1902). Imperialism: A Study.

  • Hochschild, Adam. (1998). King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa.

  • Kipling, Rudyard. (1899). The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands.

  • Pakenham, Thomas. (1991). The Scramble for Africa: White Man's Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912.

  • Said, Edward W. (1993). Culture and Imperialism.