The Battle for the Border States in the American Civil War

In the American Civil War, the border states were those between Union and Confederate territory - Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia. They were key for both Unionist and Confederate war aims. By controlling them, it would make victory that much more possible. Victor Gamma explains how these states took sides in the US Civil War.

The 1862 Battle of Perryville between Unionists and Confederates in Kentucky. Picture from Harper’s Weekly.

“I hope to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky.” The quote illustrates more than Lincoln’s legendary wit. It also underlines the vital importance of the border states during the American Civil War. By late May 1861 all the states that would form the Confederacy had severed their ties with the union. But the curious fact remained that not every slave state seceded. The states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia, although slaveholding, did not see fit to join their rebellious sisters to the South. That did not mean, however, that these states solidly supported Lincoln. Divided loyalties, in fact, plagued each of them. It was anybody's guess whether they would cast their lot for North or South. 

Why were the border states so important? For the South, with the yawning gap between their war-making capacity and that of the North, it was critical to add the strength of the border states to their pitifully weak resources. The white population of the border states equaled almost half as much as the entire Confederacy. For the North, their loss would make the already daunting task of subduing the South insurmountable. The region contained enormous mineral and agricultural resources as well as vital communication and transportation links. These last were especially critical to the Union effort. The Ohio River, for example, ran along the northern boundary of Kentucky and West Virginia. This waterway alone would be essential for supplies and communications in the coming conflict. Its loss would have been a fatal blow to Northern efforts. Additionally, in terms of geography, the border states occupied too central a position to ignore.

Lincoln knew he had to tread carefully; none of the border states supported him in the election of 1860. Abolitionists were pressuring him to end slavery without delay, but Lincoln had a different set of priorities; make sure you can win the war first and then free the slaves. And to win the war he needed the border states.  Slavery was still an important part of the border state economy. Kentucky counted more slave owners than Mississippi, for example. The Lincoln administration decided early, though, to apply both political and military measures to reduce inter-state conflicts and suppress disloyalty, even if these measures came under attack as assaults on civil liberties. 

Maryland

The first place his policy was tested was in Maryland. Due to its location surrounding the nation's capital, control of Maryland was a number one priority for Lincoln. Its loss would force the government to abandon Washington - a possibly fatal blow to Union prestige. Hostility toward Lincoln’s efforts to suppress the southern rebellion and outright secessionism was strong in the state. A violent outbreak by southern sympathizers demonstrated this fact early on. On April 19, 1861 troops from northern states began passing through Baltimore on their way to Washington. A riot broke out between pro-southern residents and the 6th Massachusetts Regiment. In the resulting ruckus, several citizens and soldiers were killed or injured. These would be the first casualties of the Civil War except for the accidental deaths at Fort Sumter's surrender. Was this "Coercion" by a “Black Republican" Massachusetts regiment? Secessionists thought so and burned bridges and other places to stop more troop arrivals. Lincoln countered with a military buildup along the railroads. Martial law was declared and the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. Some of the more violent and outspoken secessionists were imprisoned. Supreme court Chief Justice Roger Taney demanded the release of the political prisoners and ruled the suspension of the writ unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored him. Lincoln’s firm response worked; secession fever subsided. At length, Maryland Governor Hicks issued a call in May to support the government’s requisition for troops, with the provision that they be assigned for duty in the state. Growing union sentiment showed itself when all six of Maryland’s seats in Congress went to unionists. Despite quite a number of Marylanders heading South to fight for the Stars and Bars, the state stayed firmly in the union.          

West Virginia

The next border state to fall to the North was West Virginia, at that time not a separate state. In 1861 those living west of the Shenandoah Valley and north of the Kanawha River brought long-standing statehood sentiment into full force with a Convention at Wheeling on May 13, 1861. Ultimately, a wait-and-see approach was taken as delegates watched to see how Virginia voted on the proposed Ordinance of Secession coming up on May 23. When Virginia duly voted to exit the union a second convention was called, which made the momentous decision to separate from eastern Virginia. In the meantime, Union forces moved in to secure the region. Strategically, the North could not afford to lose West Virginia anymore than it could Maryland. Two major railroads intersected there. It would also be difficult to control the critically strategic Shenandoah Valley without it. The main objective of the initial Union move was the Baltimore & Ohio junction at Grafton. On June 21 General George McClellan arrived. His victories allowed Wheeling to adopt a statehood ordinance. In August Richmond gave General Robert E. Lee took overall command of forces in West Virginia. Lee had more troops, but failed due to several reasons: General William S. Rosecrans’ leadership, rain, sickness and difficult terrain. Rosecrans ended up driving rebels from West Virginia. Firm Union control allowed a statehood referendum. By late 1861, West Virginia was lost to the Confederacy for good. The region joined the union officially as West Virginia on June 20, 1863 as the 35th state.

Kentucky

Lincoln’s attitude toward Kentucky was expressed in a letter of September 1861 in which he declared, “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game.” Kentucky declared that it would stay out of the conflict entirely by enacting a Declaration of Neutrality, promulgated on May 16, 1861. 'Neutrality' was actually secession because it declared the state sovereign to do what it wanted to. In fact, Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin had already defied Washington by refusing Lincoln’s call for troops to put down the secession movement. Lincoln, though, eager to avoid alienating Kentucky, carried out a policy to the effect that if Kentucky "made no demonstration of force against the U.S. he would do nothing to molest her." He allowed trade to continue. Despite the fact that many supplies headed south to aid the Confederacy, Lincoln’s policy paid off. Legislative elections went pro-Union and finally military activity along borders forced Kentucky to take sides by September. Nonetheless, Kentucky became the last state to be admitted to the Confederacy on December 11, 1861, adding a 13th star to the Confederate battle flag. Pro secessionist Kentuckians established a shadow government, which was ineffective in projecting any real power in the state. The battle for Kentucky, though, was just beginning.

Missouri

In the case of Missouri, strong-willed leaders helped to polarize the state more than it needed to be; on behalf of the South, Governor Claiborne Jackson, and for that of the North, Frances Blair and Generals Nathaniel Lyon and John C. Fremont. After a brief period of neutrality, the actions of these men triggered a struggle that would last for the entire war. After failing to bring the state into the Confederacy legally, Jackson worked secretly to take over the state with a coup. The alert Lyon thwarted him, eventually capturing the state capital of Jefferson City. The Union-controlled state government then duly ousted Jackson from office and he fled to Arkansas in exile. Yet, despite the persistence of Union political control, Jackson called a pro-southern legislature into session at Neosho near the Arkansas border. 

Pro-Union men could cause difficulties for Lincoln as well, though. Fremont was a political general but his years in the topographical corps gave him a military reputation. Thus it was that the famed “Pathfinder” was appointed to major general of Union troops in Missouri soon after Fort Sumter. Meanwhile, Confederate General Sterling Price moved into the south west of Missouri that summer. Fremont sent Lyon to meet him. Lyon divided his force and sent a flanking column to the south of the Confederate camp. The resulting Battle of Wilson's Creek on August 10 was a rebel victory. Price followed this up with the capture of Lexington on September 20. This led to an increase of guerrilla activity which would plague the state throughout the Civil War. To reverse the tide Fremont took a bold step: he took over the state government, declared martial law, included the death penalty for guerrillas, confiscated property and freed the slaves of any Confederates active in the state. The alarmed Lincoln ordered Fremont to modify this order. Fremont refused. Instead, Fremont, with 38,000 men, went on the offensive. Price retreated towards the southwest. Despite this success Lincoln revoked Fremont's emancipation order and removed him to the Virginia Theater where he could keep his eye on him. Meantime, the Missouri secessionists passed an ordinance of secession on October 28, 1861 and Missouri was accepted as the 12th state of the Confederacy. Military events, however, especially the Battle of Pea Ridge in March 1862, prevented the Confederate government of Missouri from exercising much authority. Pro-Union men controlled the state for the remainder of the war.

Back to Kentucky

By the summer of 1862 Union control included all of Kentucky, most of Tennessee, and a portion of northern Alabama. Confederate Generals Braxton Bragg and Kirby Smith invaded Kentucky in the hope of turning the tide in the West, gaining recruits and persuading Kentucky to join the Confederacy. Bragg and Kirby Smith would potentially have a combined force of 50,000 men. Bragg was confident that their numbers would be swelled by Kentucky volunteers. A stirring broadside was printed and distributed which read, “KENTUCKIANS! The time for hesitation has passed! You have now to fight, either for the Yankees, who will press you into their service, or YOUR HOMES! YOUR FIRESIDES! Your property and your liberty.”  As his forces moved north, though, few men joined the Confederates. They were waiting for Bragg to show that he could win. Unfortunately for the South, Bragg did not have enough resources to overcome Union resistance and occupy the state. His move into Kentucky was more a large-scale raid. Smith took the state capital of Frankfort and waited for Bragg. On October 4, a Confederate Governor for Kentucky was inaugurated, a move designed to sway fence sitters. The supreme test for the southern cause, however, was on the field of battle. Outflanking Don Carlos Buell’s forces in Tennessee, Bragg and Smith had moved far into the state, but they failed to win a decisive victory which could have persuaded Kentuckians to side with the South. Although winning a tactical victory at the Battle of Perryville, Bragg, over Smith’s forceful protests, decided to withdraw instead of linking the two forces and pressing the offensive towards Louisville. Bragg’s retreat spelled the end of Confederate hopes for Kentucky, which remained firmly in Union hands for the rest of the war.

In retrospect

Despite initial high hopes, each of the border states was irretrievably lost to the South by the middle of the war. The reasons are several. First, decisive action by key unionists, such as Nathaniel Lyon in Missouri, helped to halt secessionist schemes.  Additionally, the Lincoln administration’s wise policy, which combined firmness with sensitivity to the political realities in the states, allowed events to work in their favor. Lack of Confederate military success was another factor. Many did not want to back a “losing horse.” The fact was, by the summer of 1862 the South was clearly losing territory to Federal troops, especially in the West. The erosion of the slave-interest was another factor. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 put slavery in the border states in an awkward predicament, surrounded by free territory, into which their remaining slaves often escaped. West Virginia, Maryland and Missouri had all abolished slavery by war’s end. And so it can be seen that as the war went on, Confederate war aims steadily eroded, and with them, support from the border states. Finally, union support was generally stronger than secessionism in these states. The numbers speak for themselves: a total of 275,000 enlisted for the North as opposed to 71,000 for the South.

What do you think of the battle for the border states in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Victor’s series on whether it was right to topple President William McKinley’s statue here.

References 

McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

Amy Murrell Taylor, “The Border States,” National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-border -states.htm

“To Lose Kentucky is to Lose the Whole Game,” Americans Teaching History, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/to-lose-kentucky-is-to-lose-the-whole-game/

Garry Adelman and Mary Bays Woodside, “A House Divided: Civil War Kentucky,” Hallowed Ground Magazine, April 16, 2010, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/house-divided-civil-war-kentucky

“A State of Convenience; The Creation of West Virginia, West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History 2021. http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood05.html and http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood07.html

19th Century Chinese-American Exclusion

The Chinese-American population started to grow significantly in the western United States from the mid-19th century following the California gold rush. However, over time this led to a backlash against Chinese-Americans, especially when the economic situation worsened. James Hernandez explains.

An image depicting Chinese gold miners in California.

The 1840s fostered a promising era of growth both in population and economic success as the American west began to rapidly develop and become a destination for those seeking new ventures in agriculture and industry. By 1849, San Francisco had established itself as a prime economic center and as a main port of entry for Chinese immigrants seeking to escape instability in China. Rather than being composed of families, the wave of Chinese immigrants mostly consisted of men seeking jobs and a chance to strike gold in the California hinterlands following the Sierra County gold strike in 1848. Chinese style restaurants, small businesses, apartments, and other services soon became a part of western urban identity as “Chinatowns” were founded in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. By 1852 San Francisco’s Chinese community had rapidly grown; approximately 20,000 immigrants resided in the area in comparison to only about 450 in 1850. The unprecedented growth in population reflected a stark shift in the area’s demography but also the beginning of resistance towards Chinese influence on western America.

Board of Health investigations

San Francisco public officials and health inspectors began to fear the obscene living conditions found in the Chinese community as they worried white citizens would become victims of the alleged health hazards within the area. A report conducted by the San Francisco Board of Health described the community with, “Each cellar [was] ankle-deep with loathsome slush, with ceilings dripping with percolations of other nastiness above, [and] with walls slimy with the clamminess of Asiatic diseases.” Crime also became a rampant issue within the community as the area became densely populated and poverty ran deep. The San Francisco Real Estate Circular documented that, “Their women are all suffering slaves and prostitutes, for which possession murderous feuds and high-handed cruelty are constantly occurring. To compare the Chinese with even the lowest white laborers is, therefore, absurd.”

Five government-sponsored health investigations led by the Board of Health took place between 1854 and 1885. These investigations were viewed as solutions to improve the “nuisance” illustrated as Chinatown; but each report depicted a “dense” and “enclosed” living environment and continued to fuel the popular rumor of a potential epidemic. Due to the inadequate living conditions found in the community, San Francisco Public Health Officials later attributed the smallpox breakouts between 1868 and 1887 to Chinese immigrants. The harsh accusations against Chinese communities in San Francisco essentially depicted a larger conflict within the context of nativism that lead to the isolation and racial discrimination of the Chinese population.

Many Chinese workers began to seek other employment opportunities as the California Gold Rush came to an end but were limited to harsh labor as Chinese immigrants were excluded from San Francisco public schools in 1859. Laborers soon found refuge working for railroad companies, most notably the First Transcontinental Railroad, but were faced with unfair working conditions and were forced to pay for food, tools, and other accommodations while white workers were fully supplied without further compensation. In an attempt to further discourage immigration and to lower job competition, the Chinese Police Tax of 1862 was passed in California and placed a $2.50 tax on every documented Chinese immigrant living in the state. AlthoughLin Sing V. Washburn soon overturned the tax as it was found “unconstitutional”, this wasn’t the first time Chinese immigrants were subject to unreasonable taxation as they previously faced a capitation tax of $50 for every Chinese immigrant in California in 1855 (overturned in 1857) and other licensing fees and taxes to work in the mining industry that weren’t abolished until 1870.

Violence

The Panic of 1873 circumstantially led to the formation of anti-Chinese groups in California as the nation faced its first “Great Depression”. The crisis was believed to be caused by a crash in major railroad companies-who happened to be major employers of Chinese immigrants. The San Francisco Workingmen’s Party, fronted by Irish immigrant Denis Kearney, began to lead many violent protests and riots aimed towards harming Chinese communities. Kearney began the party’s “Chinese must go!” campaign and threatened the city to implement job systems that would blatantly exclude Chinese workers from employment with the promise of further violence if demands were not met. On July 24, 1877, over 20 Chinese laundries, a plumbing business, and a Chinese Methodist Mission, were destroyed as hundreds flooded the streets of San Francisco to participate in the brutal riot inspired by Kearny’s Workingmen’s Party. Over $100,000 was tolled in property damage to the Chinese community, and four lives were lost. 

As Anti-Chinese sentiment rapidly grew during the late 1870s, President Rutherford B. Hayes called for a revision of the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 which formerly recognized diplomatic and trade relations between China and the US and eased immigration regulations. The revision, the Angell Treaty of 1880, acknowledged and protected US power to restrict Chinese immigration of laborers while allowing Chinese professionals to still settle in the country. Despite the new revision’s attempt to also provide security to Chinese-American rights, the changes were subsequently reversed as the treaty shed light on America’s struggle to control immigration; resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and even more scrutiny against the population. 

Introduced by California representative Horace Page, who previously introduced the Page Act of 1875 which barred the entry of Chinese women in an effort to end Chinese prostitution, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only law in the United States that completely prohibited immigration of a specific nationality. The new law halted all Chinese labor immigration for 10 years, formed new restrictions and requirements such as certifications to re-enter the US, and denied naturalization. The law was later renewed by the Geary Act of 1892 and was finally made permanent in 1902 until finally being abolished in 1943.

Chinese exclusion in context

While 19th century Chinese Exclusion laid the foundation for heavier immigration laws during and after World War I, it is no secret that the United States has since struggled to unite the country under a cohesive immigration policy that provides a secure path to naturalization for immigrants in congruency with citizens who express concern for the nation’s security and economic well-being. The continuity of the issue ultimately gives notion to the idea that the US has never been able to formulate a successful immigration policy. So does this mean the nation is hopeless in its current struggle with immigration? Possibly, but if there is anything to be learned from Chinese Exclusion, it is that the clash between nativism and egalitarianism will unfortunately prevail past any form of federal immigration policy and is a problem that seeps farther than the issue of immigration. One thing for certain is that a majority of Americans will never fully comprehend the nation’s long and unsparing history with failed immigration policies and in this case in particular, the perseverance of Chinese-Americans.

Now you can read James’ article on the importance of the 1957 Civil Rights Act here.

Amazing Women in the American Civil War

The role of women in the US Civil War has historically been understated. But, from nurses to spies and even those who disguised themselves as men to join the army, women played key roles. Ashley Goss explains.

Frances Clayton, a woman who disguised herself as a man to fight for the Union Army in the US Civil War.

There’s this misconception that the American Civil War was a man’s fight when in reality hundreds of women worked on the front lines of the war as healthcare providers, in espionage and the fight itself. Most men of the era wrote about women helping from the home front and many movies portray plantation women during the war. However, women did far more than just send food and clothing to the front lines. Not only did women have an active role in the Civil War, their efforts had a lasting impact on America as a whole. Nurses like Clara Barton and Ada W. Bacot traveled miles away from home to care for wounded soldiers. Spies like Harriet Tubman and Elizabeth Van Lew snuck behind enemy lines to smuggle information and even people back home. Most astonishingly, women like Frances Clayton, Sarah Edmonds, Marian McKenzie and hundreds more disguised themselves as men and fought on the front lines. However, not many discuss or even know about these brave women and the influence their service had on the Women’s Suffrage movement. Nurses, spies and soldiers changed the course of the Civil War and the ideas of womanhood.

The Cult of Domesticity

During the 1800s many Americans believed in the Cult of Domesticity. The Cult of Domesticity was essentially a guideline to how women should behave, and in turn, traits that men should avoid. Women were expected to follow four cardinal virtues; piety, purity, submission and domesticity. ‘True women’ were delicate, soft and weak, did not engage in strenuous physical activity, and were the center of the family and home.  Femininity also required a woman to seek a masculine working man while rejecting the values that work entailed, and the reverse was true for men. If any ‘respectable’ woman went against these rules, they were usually shunned and criticized. According to Catherine Beecher:

“Woman is to win everything by peace and love; by making herself so much respected, esteemed and loved… But the moment woman begins to feel the promptings of ambition, or the thirst for power, her aegis of defense is gone. All the sacred protection of religion, all the generous promptings of chivalry, all the poetry of romantic gallantry, depend upon woman’s retaining her place as dependent and defenseless, and making no claims, and maintaining no right but what are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love” (Grimke, 2020).

However, with the Civil War the idea of women staying in the home and being dependent on a husband started to change. Women were meant to be the moral center of the home and take care of their families. As more and more men were sent to the front, these barriers began to stretch outwards. The definition of home became debatable; moving from the house to the community, to the county, and eventually the country. Women started off by sending clothing and raising money for supplies. Plenty of women helped at home but many found that they needed to do more to help their men.

Nurses

Nurses played a vital role in assisting the army and helping them to continue the fight. Before the Civil War only men were allowed to be professional practicing nurses. Women were expected to be nurturing but not trained to handle a life-or-death situation, and certainly not paid for it. When the war started an adequate medical force was not a high priority for southern politicians because they thought the war would only last six months. As the war continued though and both sides needed more men to fight, women were integrated into nursing programs around the country. Most female nurses were treated more like housekeepers by the doctors and male nurses and not professionals, instead preparing food and keeping the soldiers’ company. According to Dorothea Dix a “respectable nurse” was over thirty, plain looking and refrained from wearing jewelry and hoop skirts (D’Antonio, 2002). However, as the body count kept rising these women started being treated as professional nurses and less like housekeepers. Even though it was jarring, women were ready for the challenge. After working hard for their new found independence and station it was hard for many women to return to their old submissive ways.

One woman who left home to become a nurse is Ada W. Bacot. Ada was an upper-class woman from South Carolina whose father was a plantation owner and a slaveholder. At the outbreak of the war all of Ada’s brothers saw some capacity of military service and her second husband was killed in a skirmish in Dandridge, Tennessee. When her first husband and two daughters died, all she wanted to do was serve her country. She applied for both a local and out of state nursing program but when she never received an offer, she went ahead to Virginia anyway to help at the South Carolina Association Hospital there. Like many nurses she found the hospital to be unhygienic and her role was very restricted. Ada’s job originally consisted of food preparation, laundry and reading the Bible to the men. However, as the wounded piled up and she became more acquainted with gruesome injuries, her role as a nurse was taken more seriously. She was now able to help more with injuries and had more of a say in the cleanliness of the hospital and her confidence grew along with her workload. In Ada’s own words, “tis gratification to be able to do anything for the poor men, they are so grateful. One man begged me to sit awhile with him he was so lonely” (Bacot, 1990). Now even though her drive to become a nurse had no feminist intent behind it, and she even believed in the Cult of Domesticity, by the end of the war Ada was financially independent, owned her own plantation and ran it herself. Even someone who fit most of the criteria for a ‘true woman’, Ada did not want to be dependent on or owe anyone anything.

Spies

Female spies also played a key role in the Civil War, helping with strategy, armory and even freeing slaves. Women were actually preferred over men in the first few years of the war because they were not searched as thoroughly as men. Those who crossed enemy lines hid arms, medicine, and other crucial material in hoop skirts, parasols, and corsets. Messages would also be written on buttons, silk, tissue and commonplace letters in imperceptible ink. Many female spies have been credited with helping in crucial battles. At the First Battle of Bull Run, Rose Greenhow channeled important information on timing, troop strength, and last-minute strategic decisions to Confederate generals. Belle Boyd became famous after she rushed across the battlefield to give Stonewall Jackson information on the Union troops he was about to attack. This job also required constant shifts in identity, and clearly required leaving home, and these women represented a slow rejection of any traditionally established set of values for women. In taking on the roles of men, these women challenged gender norms in the mid-nineteenth century.

One woman who volunteered her services to the war was Elizabeth Van Lew. Shortly after marrying, her mother Eliza, her father John moved them from Philadelphia to Richmond, Virginia and they integrated into Richmond’s high society. Despite her father owning about a dozen slaves, Elizabeth had a Quaker education in Philadelphia, so she was a staunch abolitionist and Unionist. After her father’s death Elizabeth and Eliza freed all of his slaves and even sold land to some of them cheaply. When the war broke out both Elizabeth and Eliza sided with the Union but made sure that those around them believed otherwise. They were able to convince General John Winder to allow them to help the Union soldiers in Libby Prison under the guise of female benevolence. They used this position to pass messages to and from prisoners and even helped some to escape. Eventually Elizabeth had several confidantes working inside and outside the prison to help with prison breaks and used her wealth and family mansion to hide and take care of escapees. In December of 1863 General Benjamin Butler heard about Elizabeth’s work and recruited her as a spy for the Union Army. By the end of the war Elizabeth amassed her own spy network of twelve people, employing both White and Black spies. During reconstruction President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Elizabeth the Postmaster General of Richmond. As Postmaster she used the office to promote women’s suffrage. However, many were not okay with a woman in political office, so as soon as Grant was out of office Elizabeth was replaced. She died in Richmond on September 25, 1900 at the age of ninety-two. Unfortunately, by the end of her life, Elizabeth “had spent much of her family’s fortune on behalf of Union soldiers and civilians, and ruined her family name in the eyes of her Richmond neighbors” by acting as a spy for the Union (Varon, 2005). Also, as good as she was, Elizabeth hated being labeled as a spy because it had negative connotations. In a letter to a friend she said, “I do not know how they can call me a spy serving my own country within its recognized borders…[for] my loyalty am I to be branded as a spy-by my own country, for which I was willing to lay down my life? Is that honorable or honest?” (Varon, 2005).

Disguised as men

The last and most radical group were women who disguised themselves as men to fight alongside their husbands and brothers. Many women in the North and South wanted to help in the war effort but felt their gender limited them; several stating “if only I was a man” in letters and diaries (Clinton, 1993). Some took the initiative to change that limiting factor by cutting off their hair, changing their name and enlisting. There are records of at least 250 women who served in the Union and Confederate armies, most of their names being lost to history. It was relatively easy to fool a regiment; many of the recruits were very young so it was common to see soldiers with no facial hair and a high-pitched voice. The uniform was also so oversized it easily hid a woman’s curves. Just like the men, these women also lived-in germ-infested camps, languished in appalling prisons, and died miserable but honorable deaths for their country. Both sides were aware that women were joining and although they did not really condone it, it was also hard to regulate. One Union soldier after the Battle of Reachtree Creek wrote to his wife about a wounded female rebel and said, “I hope our women will never be so foolish as to go to war or get to fighting” (Dunn, 1864). He must have been disappointed later.

One woman who not only served in the army in disguise but also served as a nurse and a spy to some degree was Sarah Edmonds. She was born Sarah Emma Edmondson but after suffering years of abuse from her father Sarah ran away and changed her last name to Edmonds. She was still worried her father might find her though, so to keep that from happening and to find a job she disguised herself as a man and changed her name to Franklin Thompson, getting a job as a Bible salesman in Hartford, Connecticut. When the war broke out Sarah was living in Michigan and being an ardent Unionist, she enlisted as a three-year recruit to the Second Michigan Infantry in 1861. She participated in the Seven Days Battle, the Battle of Williamsburg, the Second Battle of Bull Run, the Battle of Antietam, and the Battle of Fredericksburg. In fact, at the Battle of Fredericksburg she served as orderly to General Orlando M. Poe. During the battle she spent at least twelve uninterrupted hours riding back and forth under fire delivering messages between headquarters and the front. Throughout her service she acted as a foot soldier, a nurse, an orderly, a mail carrier and, according to her memoirs, a spy. She accepted every task with exceptional courage. Even twenty years later General Poe claimed that no one in the regiment had suspected that Thompson might have been a woman. In the spring of 1863 she contracted malaria and, out of fear of being discovered if she sought medical attention, she deserted. When the war ended, she wrote her memoirs, Nurse and Spy in the Union Army, and donated the profits to various soldiers’ aid groups. Although she never gave the name of her alias out of fear of being prosecuted for deserting. Finally, in 1884, she became the first woman to be awarded a military pension.

Conclusion

Many of these women’s stories go untold even though their work not only helped the war effort but the Woman’s Suffrage Movement as well. Before the Civil War a woman’s place was in the private sphere (home), and a man’s was in the public sphere. However, these women tested the boundaries of the ‘private sphere’ by asserting that their influence on the home extended to where ever their family was, so if their men needed them then they should follow. These stories helped showcase what women were capable of. Clara Barton claimed that their efforts advanced the social position of women by fifty years. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony also used female front-line service as an example for why women should be equal to men who served alongside them. Ada Bacot, the most traditionally feminine of these women, even sent a letter to Stanton saying, “I am a property holder and tax payer [who] ought of right to vote and wish[es] to do so” (Varon, 2005). With their service and sacrifice these women didn’t just help their men but took the first steps toward the fight for Women’s Rights.

What do you think about the role of women in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

Now read about the role of women in the Confederacy in the US Civil War here.

Bibliography

Bacot, Ada W. Diary of Ada W. Bacot, 1860-1863. Edited by Jean V Berlin, Readex Film Products, 1990.

Clinton, Catherine, and Nina Silber. Divided Houses: Gender and the Civil War. Oxford University Press, 1993.

D'Antonio, Patricia. “Nurses in War.” The Lancet. The Lancet Publishing Group, December 2002. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(02)11798-3.pdf.

Grimke, A., 2020. Grimke's Appeal. [online] Utc.iath.virginia.edu. Available at: <http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/abolitn/abesaegb4t.html> [Accessed 20 April 2020].

Long, Day by Day, 542; James L. Dunn to his wife, 22 July 1864, Correspondence of James L. Dunn (accession 8301), ALUVA; Judson Austin to his wife, 21 July 1864, Papers of Nina L. Ness (Judson L. Austin Letters), BHLUM.

Varon, Elizabeth R. Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew, a Union Agent in the Heart of the Confederacy. Oxford University Press, 2005.

The Unitarians and the Reduction in the Church’s Influence in America

Since America’s independence, the Christian church has often become less involved in delivering services for society and the government more so. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses the Unitarian Church, the decline in the Christian church’s role in education, and the growth of the state.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, an influential 19th and 20th century Unitarian.

American culture started where it was founded. It began in the heart of the North American colonist at the run-up to the American Revolution. Of course, over time, that changed. And as with any cultural change comes a stark political and religious divide. Historian Peter S. Field mentions that the "advent of a democratic political culture in the early American republic entailed the occasion of the first debates on the relationship between intellectuals and democracy in the United States.” Such was particularly the case in the 1830s in Brahmin Boston where, as Perry Miller once observed, "there could hardly be found a group of young Americans more numb to the notion that there were any stirring implications in the word democracy.”

Unitarian Church

Miller was right too. Americans in the 1830s were, for the most part, generally neutral in the way that American culture was beginning to shape out. There were ups and downs. With a new nation typically comes unlimited options on what direction to take the country regarding politics and culture. Mr. Field clarifies for us that the Unitarian Church is misleading church. It is a secular church body, and not a true Christian church. To understand how the religious fracture opened up a ‘Trojan horse’ for American thought, you must understand that "while the Bible is an important text for some Unitarian Universalists, many seek guidance from other sacred books and religious traditions." According to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), "Unitarian Universalists generally agree that human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining the spiritual truth." If you join a Unitarian church, you will meet people from many different belief systems including secular humanists, agnostics, Christians, Catholics and so forth. Unitarians believe in moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity of Jesus. Their theology is thus opposed to the trinity of other Christian denominations.

The Unitarian Church is then a more secular body that was formed in the 19th century ‘vacuum’ created when God was beginning to become separated in public schools, different from traditional teaching. Unitarian Congregationalism is another name for their secular "church body." Transcendentalism is the name to those who are engaged in practicing spirituality who felt "too intellectual" and "in control" of their fate to admit their personal destiny is actually guided by a single higher power. “Transcendentalism proved to be almost a byword for an otherworldly, inchoate intellectual community that only marginally traveled beyond the parochial confines of eastern Massachusetts. Whether the logical outgrowth of Unitarian Congregationalism or its dedicated nemesis, Transcendentalism seemed altogether too intellectual, too elitist, and too apolitical to be of any great relevance to the unfolding social and political drama of the Jacksonian era.”[1]

Hairline fracture

There was a hairline fracture that split the thinking of American traditionalists and progressive intellectuals. The Unitarian Church was the catalyst, following transcendentalism in close second. Traditionalists (such as the clergy and church) began to slowly stop providing leadership in public schools and universities (prior to this it was a purely Christian education). Harvard (originally a Christian church) was taken over by Unitarians and as the quality of public education began to change (and at times decline), Horace Mann (the "father of progressive education") would convince the state of Massachusetts that the best way for education to grow would be to have the government take control, instead of non-governmental groups (like families and churches).

What followed afterwards was the move to “self-culture,” a human thought process of “me, myself, and I” which closely follows materialism. To break open a political divide for control and power, there must be a catalyst to enable this cultural shift. Thus, secular humanism was born. “By self-culture, [...] personal striving for the intellectual and spiritual complement to material pursuits... to convey their [American individual] belief in the virtually limitless human capacity for development of their spiritual faculties through the study of culture.” [2] It is this idea that begins to remove the personal importance of having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ - that is, Christianity.

As traditional American doctrines were neglected, the competing ideology of socialism took off. Karl Marx never had much influence in American society - until the country backslid from Christian principles and dabbled in greed. Thus, monopolies would form and grow. Wealth was accumulated, instead of employing the extra wealth to meet the needs of the poor and society. Self-culture (or individual interest), as Field would put it, began to replace the common good of the community.

The Trojan Horse

Marshall Foster writes that “in the loft restaurant above Peck’s restaurant at 140 Fulton Street in lower Manhattan, a group of young men met to plan the overthrow of the predominately Christian world-view that still pervaded America. At this first meeting five men were present: Upton Sinclair, 27, a writer and a socialist; Jack London, writer; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister; J.G. Phelps Stokes, husband of a socialist leader; and Clarence Darrow, a lawyer.

Their organization was called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Their purpose was to ‘promote an intelligent interest in socialism among college men and women.’ These men were ready to become the exponents of an idea passed on to them by an obscure writer named Karl Marx—a man who was supported by a wealthy industrialist who, inexplicably, believed in his theory of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Although a small group in the beginning, these adherents of socialism more than succeeded in their task.

“By using the proven method of gradualism, taken from the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, these men and others who joined with them slowly infiltrated” the public schools in America. By 1912 there were chapters in 44 colleges. By 1917 there were 61 chapters of student study groups of the League of Industrial Democracy. “At that time John Dewey, the godfather of progressive education, was the vice-president of the league. By 1941 Dewey had become president and Reinhold Niebuhr, the liberal socialist theologian, was the treasurer.”[3]

Conclusion

The beginning of the end of traditional America had become entrenched. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell says that “the loss Christian tradition, character, and responsibility led to the failure of many banks in the early 1900s. To remedy this situation, power was granted to a centralized Federal Reserve Board in 1913. But this unbiblical economic structure and lack of character produced many more problems. Within 20 years, the Stock Market had crashed, and America was in the midst of the Great Depression.”[4] With the propagation of socialism, people were ready for Roosevelt's “New Deal,” such as Social Security and other welfare agencies, which ultimately set up the state as provider rather than God. The rest is history.

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Dr. Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. Dr. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life, 253. 1989.

[2] Field, Peter S. 2001. ""the Transformation of Genius into Practical Power": Relph Waldo Emerson and the Public Lecture." Journal of the Early Republic 21 (3) (Fall): 467-493.

[3] Foster, Marshall, and Mary-Elaine Swanson. The American Covenant: The Untold Story, xvii. Mayflower Inst, 1983.

[4] Ibid., Dr. Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. Dr. McDowell, 250-251.

Robert Todd Lincoln and the Curse of the Presidential Assassination

Robert Todd Lincoln (1843-1926) was the son of Abraham Lincoln and an influential figure in his time. He was also near the scene at the time of three US presidential assassinations spanning over 35 years. Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

A young Robert Todd Lincoln.

There are some figures in history that transcend their time, even if we are sometimes largely ignorant of why it is that we remember them. Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, Einstein and Hitler are all names that echo down the ages, for good or ill, and who even the most history-phobic of us will recognize.

To be the child of one of these would not have been an easy place to occupy, and Robert Todd Lincoln bore the weight of that position for most of his life. He is remembered as an ‘unsympathetic bore[i]’, tainted by his relationship with his successful father and his mentally ill mother[ii]. Yet Robert carried another burden: if such a thing as a curse exists, then Robert was encumbered by one of the worst – the curse of the presidential assassination.

Abraham Lincoln: April 15, 1865

Robert’s first encounter with a presidential assassination was that of his own father, Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States. It was an event touched by coincidence and regret, and one which had a profound effect on his eldest son.

Robert’s relationship with his father is considered by many historians to have been strained[iii]. As the son of an aspiring politician, Robert rarely saw his father during his childhood and their bond was undoubtedly weaker than the one Abraham had with his other sons. Yet it would be overstating their difficulties to say that Robert was estranged from his father; on the day of the assassination they had spent several hours alone together before the President went to a cabinet meeting.[iv] That evening he and his parents had dined together at the White House and he remembered some years later how his father had asked him to come to the Ford Theatre with them. Not attending was one of his greatest regrets[v]. In a 1921 article based on the recollections of Robert to a friend, he believed that:

“My seat must have been placed in the door alcove…which was covered with a curtain…He [Booth] would have encountered a psychological obstacle.…To open the door and fire at an unsuspecting man is one thing, but to fire after he had found his way blocked is another. I do not believe that he would have attempted it if I had been there.”[vi]

Despite being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, the President was not killed instantly and was carried to a house belonging to William Petersen where he died at 7:22am the next morning with Robert at his bedside. Despite his previous stoic behavior, The Secretary to the Navy noted that he ‘gave way on two occasions to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud…’[vii].

The event affected Robert not only as a son but also as a future government official, and one letter in particular shows how he was still conscious of the danger to the incumbent president 24 years later:

‘I have no doubt that President Arthur will take care of himself; but he is undoubtedly liable to be killed by some crazy person or by a fanatic who would be willing to do the deed for the notoriety which might be gained thereby.’[viii]

In an ironic twist of fate, Abraham Lincoln had previously had a great deal to be grateful to the Booth family for. His killer’s elder brother, the celebrated actor Edwin Booth, had saved Robert from possible injury or even death at New Jersey train station in either 1863 or 1864. Horrified by his brother’s actions, it gave Edwin comfort to know that he had been of some benefit to the Lincoln family and Robert was able to talk about the incident without any bitterness, recalling in 1918 that ‘I never again met Mr. Booth personally, but I have always had most grateful recollection of his prompt action on my behalf’.[ix]

James Garfield: September 19, 1881

Four months into his presidency, James Garfield advertised his intended plan to move to New Jersey for the summer. He would take the train from Washington’s Baltimore and Potomac railroad station on July 2, 1881 and among the members of his cabinet there to see him off would be his Secretary of War, Robert Todd Lincoln.

Up until that point the only President to have been assassinated was Lincoln’s father, so an attempt on the President was considered both a rare and somewhat unlikely event. James Garfield believed that the President should be seen by the people and he therefore took few precautions when in public. He had once written:

‘The letter of Mr. Hudson of Detroit, with your endorsement came duly to hand. I do not think there is any serious danger in the direction to which he refers - though I am receiving, what I suppose to be the usual number of threatening letters on that subject. Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; and it is not best to worry about either.’[x]

Unfortunately, Charles Guiteau had decided that the President’s death was a political necessity. His initial anger at being overlooked for a diplomatic position in Paris (which he had convinced himself was his right due to a speech he had written in support of Garfield during the election) gradually turned to paranoia. He was convinced that Garfield disliked him due to his allegiance to the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party and eventually that Garfield was a traitor and dictator.[xi] He wasn’t subtle in his intentions, going so far as to send the President letters and asking for a tour of the prison where he believed he would be incarcerated after the event.[xii] A letter taken from his pocket read:

‘The President’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will unite the Republican Party and save the Republic…I had no ill-will toward the President. His death was a political necessity.’[xiii]

Robert Lincoln had come to the station to let the President know that he was unable to join him on the trip as originally planned, but what he witnessed must have brought back terrible memories. Reportedly only 40 feet away from the President, he watched Guiteau step out of the shadows, walk up to the President and fire two shots, one to the arm and the other to the back. As with his father’s shooting, he showed some elements of calmness, attending the fallen President, calling for a gunshot wound specialist, Dry Bliss, and putting soldiers onto the streets to ensure calm.[xiv]

As with President Lincoln, Garfield did not die immediately; in fact, it took 80 days for him to succumb, not to the gunshot wound, but to the septicemia caused by his doctors. In September 1881, Robert Todd Lincoln attended a second funeral of an assassinated president.[xv]

William McKinley: September 14, 1901

The Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo was intended to showcase American achievement with the slogan ‘commercial wellbeing and good understanding among the American Republics’[xvi]. President William McKinley, six months into his second term as the 25th President, was attending as part of his American tour. He was a popular president and the speech he gave there on September 5 was attended by a vast audience[xvii]. The next day, he toured Niagara Falls before returning to the fair for a public reception at the Temple of Music. McKinley enjoyed meeting the public and despite Secretary Cortelyou’s reservations, he was determined to attend, putting the reception back onto his schedule every time it was removed. Cortelyourelented but ensured that there would be ample security at the venue: the President’s own protection officer, George Foster, plus two other Secret Service Agents, the Exposition police, four Buffalo detectives and a dozen artillerymen[xviii]. But the precautions were to no avail. The day was hot and the usual precaution that everyone in the line should approach the President empty handed was abandoned, along with the habit that Foster should stand beside the President. By the time Foster realized that the approaching man, with his hand covered by a handkerchief[xix], was a danger, it was too late and at 4:07pm unemployed factory worker turned political anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, shot McKinley twice in the abdomen.

A few hours later Robert Todd Lincoln stepped off of a train at Buffalo station on his way to the Exposition to be greeted by a telegram reading:

“President McKinley was shot down by an anarchist in Buffalo this afternoon. He was hit twice in the abdomen. Condition serious.”[xx]

Lincoln missed the actual moment of the shooting, but he immediately went to see the President and spent some time with him that evening and again two days later. Lincoln believed that the President was remarkably well given what had happened to him, but eight days later on September 14, McKinley died of gangrene. 

The event could only have brought back more memories for Lincoln and he did not disguise his sadness when he wrote to the new President, Theodore Roosevelt:

“I do not congratulate you, for I have seen too much of the seamy side of the Presidential Robe to think of it as an enviable garment.”[xxi]

A Certain Fatality

When Robert Lincoln died in 1926, there had been three presidential assassinations and he had a connection to them all. As historian Todd Arrington has observed, that might not have been unusual for a man involved in politics as Lincoln was[xxii], but, on a personal level, it must have been a painful situation.  

‘There is a certain fatality about presidential functions when I am present,’ Lincoln is supposed to have quipped. Perhaps the more telling quote is the one he gave to the New York Times the day after the shooting of James Garfield in Washington: ‘How many hours of sorrow I have passed in this town.’[xxiii].

 

What do you think of Robert Todd Lincoln? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Samantha Arrowsmith’s article on 7 occasions Europe changed the time here.

[i] Lincoln: A Foreigner’s Quest, Jan Morris, 2001, p128 

[ii] Meet Robert Todd Lincoln, The Estranged Son of the 16th President who had his mother committed, Lauren Zmirich, 2019 

[iii] Lincoln’s Boys: The legacy of an American father and an American family, Robert P Watson and Dale Berger, 2010

[iv] Giant in the Shadows: The life of Robert T Lincoln, Jason Emerson, 2012, p99 

[v] Emerson, p107

[vi] The Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection

[vii] Emerson, p105

[viii] Letter from Robert Lincoln 28 September 1881

[ix] How Edwin Booth Saved Robert Todd Lincoln’s Life, Jason Emerson, 2005

[x] Letter from President Garfield to Sherman, November 1880

[xi] Killing the President: assassinations, attempts and rumored attempts on US Commanders-in-Chief, Willard M Oliver and Nancy E Marion, 2010, p44

[xii] Oliver and Marion, p44

[xiii] The New York Times 3 July 1881

[xiv] ‘A Certain Fatality’ Robert Todd Lincoln and the Presidential Assassinations, Todd Arrington, 2014

[xv] Funeral of President Garfield: Announcement to the Public

[xvi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Exposition

[xvii] You can view the President giving the speech at https://www.loc.gov/item/00694342/  

[xviii] JFK assassination records: Appendix 7: a brief history of presidential protection

[xix] The New York Times 7 September 1901

[xx] Arrington, 2014

[xxi] Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site

[xxii] Arrington, 2014

[xxiii] Arrington, 2014

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 4 – McKinley’s Character

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 4, we look in depth at McKinley’s character and domestic life.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal, in part 2 here he looks at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans, and in part 3 here he considers McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

A photo of William McKinley.

The word included in the accusations brought against the man: “rape, murder, genocide, savagery” would be a good description of a serial killer or monstrous dictator like Hitler. But they are wildly inconsistent with the known character of William McKinley. The testimony of those who knew the man are universal in their admiration of his personal habits. In 1896 when a McKinley run for president became likely, the opposition mudslinging kicked into high gear. The problem was, they could find nothing to attack him on. His life was free from scandal, he was a hard worker.  He had not used his office to enrich himself. The opposition then resorted to digging up falsehoods.

In fact, the general respect with which this man had garnered from public opinion is well illustrated from an incident occurring in 1893. In that year of financial panic, McKinley, through no fault of his own, faced bankruptcy. His debts far exceeded his ability to repay and so he considered quitting politics and returning to practice law. When his desperate straits became public knowledge, a great outpouring of public sympathy arose. As many as five thousand donations, many from Democrats, poured into the Governor's office. The reason? His reputation for kindness and as an honest public servant who never used his office for public gain. The Democrat Brooklyn Eagle described the entire affair, both the bankruptcy and the generosity of friends in coming to McKinley’s assistance as “a matter of hearthstone pleasure around the land.”

Honest politician

To those who say an honest politician doesn’t exist, I say, meet William McKinley. Even in that era when people took religion seriously, he stood out as an example of a complete Christian gentleman. He is, in fact, considered to be one of the most devout men to ever occupy the White House. He was a lifelong and pious member of the Methodist Church. As a holder of public office, he would often pray before making important political decisions. His soul-searching about what to do with the Philippines is not atypical. On that subject he said to a group of visitors: “I walked the floor of the White House night after night, until midnight. And I am not ashamed to tell you gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night.” He disapproved of off-color jokes or stories in his presence. As president of the local Y.M.C.A. he mentored young men to take their devotion to spiritual and moral standards seriously and led them in street-witnessing outings. McKinley characteristically proclaimed his spiritual convictions publicly, “Our faith teaches that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial, and who will not forsake us so long as we obey His commandments and walk humbly in his footsteps.” I believe the record of his life, as witnessed partially in this article, provides abundant examples of the fact that his life and actions as a political leader were amply informed by his religious convictions. 

Broad-minded

Next, evidence is abundant of his basic broad-mindedness. In the words of one biographer, “McKinley was devoid of bigotry…” For instance, although a dedicated member of the Methodist Church all his life, his creed based itself on the love and kindness of God, not doctrinal bickering. In contrast to a rising tide of anti-Catholicism, he consistently embraced into his circle of friends and into his administration followers of all creeds, including Catholic. His choice as Commissioner-General of Immigration was an Irish Catholic labor leader named Terence Vincent Powderly, founder of the Knights of Labor. At the presentation of the sword to Admiral Dewey on October 3, 1899, McKinley took the unprecedented step of having a Roman Catholic prelate, Cardinal Gibbons, pronounce the benediction. Despite his strict Methodism, he made many friends among the Catholic community of Canton. 

Kindred to this, his attitude toward labor further underlined his humanity. Although a Republican and decidedly pro-business, he managed at the same time to be a friend of labor. This was no easy feat during the ‘Gilded Age’. Conflict between labor and the corporate interests was so intense at this time that some were afraid it would lead to a new civil war. Despite this, McKinley managed to win the support and respect of both sides. He understood the importance of a healthy business environment while at the same time sympathizing with the grievances of labor. His popularity with labor dates from an early court case in which he defended some miners who had been involved in a riot. He managed to get all but one acquitted. When the strikers scraped up money to reimburse him, McKinley refused to accept payment from the struggling miners. Numerous measures passed for the protection of workers during his tenure as governor of Ohio show his influence. He often took it upon himself to arbitrate labor disputes, attempting to win settlements favorable to both sides. When he did so, he insisted that his involvement be kept private.  

Dedicated public servant

By all accounts McKinley was a dedicated public servant. As president, he rarely took vacations. In 1898, a very taxing year involving major foreign policy crises, he took one holiday lasting one week. Part of it was spent visiting a military hospital to check on conditions and encourage the sick and wounded. Intense pressure brought on by the Spanish-American War and scandals over the War Department would have driven a lesser man to frequent vacations - not the sober McKinley. Contrast this with the frequent vacations taken by recent presidents. During that war, which McKinley had done everything he could to avoid, he was governed by the rule he articulated to his Secretary of War, Russell Alger. The Secretary was eager to deflect negative publicity and cater to growing demands from militiamen who feared the war would end before they had a chance to see action. To accomplish these ends he proposed to the president an immediate attack on Puerto Rico. McKinley answered with his usual terse practicality and high standards, “Mr Secretary what do you think the people will say if they believe we unnecessarily and at great expense send these boys out of the country? Is it either necessary or expedient?” 

Eyewitnesses also reported that the Major was devoid of pretense or self-importance no matter how high he rose in the public service. Both in speech and appearance he “showed no sign of self-importance or affectation” in Leech’s words, and was always accessible to the general public. He often insisted that his participation in certain accomplishments be kept out of the paper for he had “no desire to indulge in any pyrotechnics.” His attitude toward public service can be summed up in the following statements taken down by his secretary George Cortelyou, “when the time comes the question of my acquiescence (to re-nomination in 1900) will be based absolutely upon whether the call of duty appears to me clear and well defined.” Since McKinley was not known for empty platitudes, we can take these statements at face value.

Domestic life

In domestic virtues McKinley developed a reputation which approached the legendary. He married Ida Saxton on January 25, 1871. The marriage was sadly destined to have its share of tragedies. Two daughters were born to the couple, both of whom died in early childhood. The sad little graves of Katie and Ida McKinley can be seen in the McKinley Memorial in Canton, Ohio. McKinley’s wife never quite recovered from this double blow and was a semi-recluse for the rest of the couples’ marriage. As author Margaret Leech put it “The pretty, pleasure-seeking young woman McKinley had married had changed to a feeble, self-centered nervous invalid.” Much of the Major’s time was spent tending to his wife during her frequent bouts of illness and seeking respite by sending her to various cures. Ida could also be rather demanding. Many official meetings were interrupted by her insisting her husband leave the meeting immediately and tender his views on some domestic matter. Common themes were his opinion on which fabric to use in creation of some item of clothing or decor. The disgruntled participants of the meeting were surprised to see McKinley immediately leap up to go to his wife at these summonses. To many his wife’s solicitations seemed trivial, but McKinley invariably gave her his full and careful attention. Unlike many men in his circumstances, the Major never gave in to complaint or the seeking out of other female companionship. Instead, many observed him change to accommodate his wife. He was observed tirelessly ministering to her needs and attentive to her comfort. His tone of voice became soft and careful, he developed skill in diverting Ida, he endured close, stuffy environments because she avoided fresh air, he adjusted his gait to suit her hesitant pace. He became expert at diagnosing the degree of severity of her attacks and treating them. His example of domestic constancy was one factor in winning the support of women, who, although they lacked the suffrage at this time, were playing an increasingly important role in social and political issues. After decades of marriage he continued to sign his letters to her “your faithful husband and always your lover.” During the White House years, so devoted was the president to the First Lady that Senator Mark Hanna remarked that McKinley's dedication to her was “making it awfully hard on all the other husbands around here.”

Quotes on McKinley

But instead of relying on our distant voices alone, let us allow those who knew him to speak. The following are a series of quotes.

He was “a mediaeval knight in the dusty arena of Ohio politics” - Bellamy Storer.

“He never had a harsh word, but rather a kindly appeal: ‘Come now, let us put the personal element aside and consider the principle involved.’ “ - Robert La Follette.

“That never failing remedy of yours.” -- Mark Hanna on McKinley’s famous tact.

"In a few minutes word came from Mr. McKinley that he would see me. How any man can see so many people ... and still keep himself calm, patient, and fresh for each visitor in the way that President McKinley does, I cannot understand. - Booker T. Washington

McKinley Quotes:

“This seems to be right and fair and just. I think so don’t you?” (To Mark Hanna)

“There are some things … I would not do and cannot do, even to become President of the United States.”

“War should never be entered upon until every agency of peace has failed; peace is preferable to war in almost every contingency.” 

This brings us back to the accusations. Bearing in mind that this article is by no means an exhaustive description of the admirable character of our 25th president, ask yourself, does William McKinley sound like someone who would be guilty of “racism, murder and slaughter” or willing to tolerate the enslavement and abuse of anyone? Or has he been most grievously misrepresented? 

Having read the series, what do you think of William McKinley? Let us know below.

Now, if you want to learn about Tudor England, you can read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

References

The Booker T. Washington Papers, Vol. 5: 1899-1900, University of Illinois Press, 1976.

“Conflict Among the Tribes and Settlers.” Nebraska Studies.org

Gould, Lewis L. The Presidency of William McKinley, Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1980.

Gould, Lewis. “William McKinley Domestic Affairs.” 2019, miller center.org, accessed October, 2020.

Harpine, William D.  “African American Rhetoric of Greeting During McKinley’s 1896 Front Porch Campaign.” University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Communication Department 2010.

Leech, Margaret, In the Days of McKinley, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959

McKinley, William, First Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1897.

McKinley, William, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1897.

McKinley, William. “Veto Message to Congress.” May 03, 1900.

“William McKinley and Civil Rights” Presidential History Geeks, Oct. 13th, 2011, potus-geeks.livejournal.com, accessed October, 2020.

Marshall, Everett, Complete Life of William McKinley and Story of His Assassination An Authentic and Official Memorial Edition, Containing Every Incident in the Career of the Immortal Statesman, Soldier, Orator and Patriot, Originally published by Donahue, 1901

Morgan, H. Wayne,  “The View from the Front Porch: William McKinley and the Campaign of 1896" presented to the 12th Hayes Lecture on the Presidency, February 18, 2001, in the Hayes Museum auditorium.

“Patterns of White Settlement in Oklahoma” Region 3 Oklahoma Historic Preservation Survey, Oklahoma State University, 1986. 

Washington, Booker T. Up From Slavery, An Autobiography, New York: Doubleday, 1901.

The 1897 Greco-Turkish War: A Minor War with Major Consequences

The 1897 Greco-Turkish War took place over 32 days from April to May 1897. Greece and the Turkish Ottoman Empire fought, primarily over the question of the status of Crete. However, the war had lasting consequences. Rama Narendra explains.

The Battle of Domeke in the 1897 Greco-Turkish War. Painting by Fausto Zonaro.

The 1897 Greco-Turkish War is a war few remember or even know about outside of the countries involved. The war was relatively short, involved two relatively minor players in the European Concert, and is completely overshadowed by wars and crises happening shortly after it like the Agadir Crisis, the Italo-Turkish War, The Balkan Wars, and World War I. However, the war still had major, but subtle consequences for both countries which, like dominoes, led to the Balkan Wars in the 20thcentury.

Background

Just like other Empires at the time, the Ottoman Empire was troubled with nationalist revolts in the 19th century. One particular hotbed for nationalist fervor was Crete, with its Greek-speaking majority demanding autonomy or even self-rule. To escalate the situation, King George of Greece was of one mind with Greek nationalists in wishing to annex the island, and frequently sent arms and men to support Cretan nationalists. 1897, however, would prove to be a fateful year as the over-confident Greek leadership saw the chance to annex Crete or even expanding on the mainland further north. This overconfidence was fueled by the humiliation of the Ottoman armed forces back in the 1877 Russo-Turkish War, and an exaggerated view of the internal problems of the Ottomans, especially regarding the Armenian rebellions.

The Ottoman military, though, was far from what the Greek leadership had imagined. Sultan Abdülhamid II has been working closely with German advisors to reform and improve the Ottoman army. The mission led by Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz in 1886 had particularly lasting effects on Ottoman leadership and planning. He not only drastically improved the Ottoman education and training system, but also changed the overall status of the general staff officer corps within the army. Close cooperation with German firms also ensured that the Ottomans were armed with modern bolt-action rifles.

Escalating Tensions

On February 15, 1897 two regular Greek battalions, joined by local rebels landed on the shores of Crete. Within two weeks, Greek semi-official gangs, called the Ethnike Hetairia, reinforced with regular officers and soldiers, began to launch raids into Ottoman Thessaly. On April 9 Greek raiders, with some Italian volunteers, attacked Ottoman border towers and defeated a border company in Kranya. They were repulsed by Ottoman border guards the next day, and even though the Ottoman government were reluctant to enter a full-blown war, intense public pressure eventually pushed the Ottomans to declare war on Greece on April 17.

The war was fought in two separate theaters: Alasonya-Thessaly and Yanya-Epirus. However, most of the fighting was done in the Thessaly Front. During the war, the Ottomans used plans devised by none other than Von der Goltz himself. The plan was to force the Greeks to overstretch their defensive lines, which were very near to the border. The main body of the Ottoman Army at Alasonya would then try to encircle the Greeks before they were able to retreat back to the Yenisehir line. Von der Goltz expected that the Great Powers would not let the Greeks be beaten and would intervene in the conflict in less than 15 days. So the Greek army had to be crushed in less than two weeks.

The War

The first stage of the war (April 16–22) was marked by border clashes and the occupation of mountain passes. This stage also shows that despite the reforms the Ottoman army still had glaring shortcomings. Officers and soldiers sometimes ran towards the enemy as if in a race without paying attention to combat tactics and techniques, and as a result officers suffered abnormally high casualty levels. Instead of conducting the encirclement maneuver as planned, most units simply tried to push the Greek defenders back by frontal assaults. Confusion, delay, and lack of coordination and communication were the norms until the Ottoman forward units reached weakly defended Yenisehir two days after the Greeks withdrew from the town.

The second stage (April 23–May 4) was marked by the battle of Mati-Deliler and the occupation of Tırnova and Yenisehir. The second stage proceeded almost the same way as the first stage, with Ottoman units pushing the Greek defenders back without attempting encirclement maneuvers, and the Greeks safely evacuated their defenses and retreated to their last defensive line.

The third and last stage (May 5–17) was marked by the decisive battles of Velestin, Catalca, and Domeke, in front of the last Greek defensive line. The first battle of Velestin was a disaster for the Ottomans. In this encounter, a forced reconnaissance turned into a futile and bloody assault, and the Greek lines held firm against Ottoman cavalry and infantry charges. However, the Ottomans eventually pushed through Greek lines in the second battle. The Ottoman army finally decisively beat the Greeks at the battles of Catalca and Domeke. The Greek defenders were thoroughly beaten and the road to Athens was opened.

Conclusion and Consequences

However, as Von der Goltz had predicted, the Great Powers intervened and Greece was saved from further humiliation. Even though the Ottomans militarily won the war, they did not gain much from the victory. The Great Powers forced the Ottomans to give Crete autonomy and refused an Ottoman plea to obtain the region of Thessaly, previously lost in the aftermath of the 1877 Russo-Turkish War. Greece, however, was required to pay a heavy war indemnity to compensate the Ottomans for the territory won by them in Thessaly and returned under the terms of the peace. The victorious Ottoman troops retreated as if defeated, and Abdülhamid spent several tense months trying to explain to the public why the war had been won in the battlefield but lost at the diplomatic table.

So what were the consequences of this short war? As it turned out, they were big. In the Ottoman Empire, despite the disappointing result, the victory gave the Ottomans a public morale boost and confidence after being humiliated by the European powers for decades. This confidence is what eventually drove an overwhelmingly pro-war public opinion on the eve of the 1912-13 Balkan Wars. If their armed forces had beaten Greece in 1897, what prevented them from doing it again? Yaşasın harb! (Long live War!), cried the pro-war demonstrators in 1912.

In Greece, the defeat was seen as disgraceful and humiliating, mostly due to the rapid and unexpected advance of the Ottoman army. This defeat though, fueled the country’s irredentist policy of the Megali Idea (Greater Greece) and led Greece to reform its politics and economy, redefine its international alliances, and prepare the military and naval forces that helped Greece double its territory over the next 20 years.

If you enjoyed this article, you can read about the Megali Idea and how it shaped the modern Greek state here.

References

Ginio, E. (2016). The Ottoman Culture of Defeat: The Balkan Wars and Their Aftermath. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Katsikas, S., & Krinaki, A. (2020). Reflections on an" Ignominious Defeat": Reappraising the Effects of the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897 on Greek Politics. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 38(1), 109-130.

Uyar, M., & Erickson, E. J. (2009). A Military History of the Ottomans: From Osman to Ataturk: From Osman to Ataturk. ABC-CLIO.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 3 – McKinley and African Americans

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 3, we look in depth at McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal and in part 2 here he looks at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans.

Booker T. Washington, an educator, orator, and advisor to US presidents. Washington met with William McKinley.

The protestors in Arcata, California accused the 25th president of supporting “racism and murder.” How does this charge stand up? From his youth McKinley shared the strong anti-slavery and pro-union views of his family. Not long after the fall of Fort Sumter, the young McKinley answered his country’s call and volunteered for service. He served bravely throughout the conflict, rising to the rank of major. He, in fact, liked to be referred to as “The Major” for the rest of his life. As such he played his part, along with millions of others, in re-uniting the nation and freeing the slaves. During his political life he remained steadfastly dedicated to the party of Lincoln and full civil rights for the ex-slaves. His first political speech took place in 1867. His theme? Give African Americans the vote. He spent a good amount of that year continuing to work for this cause. 

His campaign for African American suffrage and equal rights for African Americans did not end in 1867. After election to congress in 1876 he continued to advocate for disenfranchised African Americans. On April 28, 1880 at the Republican State Convention in Columbus, Ohio he attacked the Democratic suppression of African American voting rights. He described the Democratic effort to establish one-party rule in the South and the almost complete suppression of opposition political activity. Using the example of a largely African American district he denounced the fact that the population had “been disenfranchised by the use of the shotgun and the bludgeon.” He then challenged his audience with a burning question:

“Are free thought and free political action to be crushed out in one section of the country? I answer No, no! But that the whole power of the Federal Government must be exhausted in securing every citizen, black or white, rich or poor, everywhere within the limits of the Union, every right, civil and political, guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws.”

1880s and African American votes

McKinley continued hammering at this theme throughout the 1880s, referring to “Southern outrages” and reminding his fellow congressmen that the small number of African American representatives was proof that African Americans were being denied the vote in the South. He continued to uphold the Old Guard Republican ideal long after many had given up on Reconstruction. One such speech appealed to the desperate need to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments:

“...the consciences of the American people will not be permitted to slumber until the great constitutional right, the equality of the suffrage, equality of opportunity, freedom of political action and political thought, shall not be the mere cold formalities of constitutional enactment as now, but a living birthright which the poorest and humblest, white or black, native born or naturalized citizen, may confidently enjoy, and which the richest and most powerful dare not deny.”

McKinley and the 1896 election

Throughout his career McKinley sought African American support. While in Congress he supported Reconstruction and opposed the white-supremacist policies of the Democrats. He received African American delegations both in Georgia while staying with friend and supporter Mark Hanna, and at his home in Ohio during the run for the White House. During this stay in Georgia, which was essentially a campaign trip, he became the first presidential hopeful-nominee in American history to address an African American audience. On this occasion he spoke at an African American church. When it came time to officially run for the nation’s highest office, McKinley conducted his run entirely from his front porch. During the presidential election campaign of 1896, hundreds of delegations made their way to Canton, Ohio to show support or hear from the candidate. Included among these visitors were several African American delegations that made the journey to the candidate’s front porch to show their support. African Americans as a whole supported McKinley because, during this time of the rise Jim Crow, they knew he did not support increasing discrimination. Bishop B. W. Arnett, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, stressed to McKinley that: “We come to assure you that we will never cease our efforts on your behalf until we have achieved such a victory in November as was won by our fathers in their early struggles for liberty… you represent the cardinal principles of the Republican Party which have so benefited our race—the principles for which you and your comrades struggled from 1861 to 1865.” Another African American delegation, this one from McKinley’s own Stark County, had first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s character and policies. On July 3, 1896 this local organization came to see their candidate. William Bell of Massillon, Ohio delivered a brief message of support as follows:

“You have always treated us, just as you do everybody else . . . with great consideration and kindness, and on every occasion have been our friend, champion and protector. We come to congratulate you and assure you of our earnest support until you are triumphantly elected next November.”

The front porch candidate’s own remarks to African American groups included the following statements: “It is a matchless civilization in which we live; a civilization that recognizes the common and universal brotherhood of man.”

McKinley as president

As governor and president McKinley condemned lynching - a quarter of a century before Congress finally found within itself the conviction to pass anti-lynching legislation. Let’s look at McKinley’s statement in context:

“These guarantees (basic freedoms such as speech) must be sacredly preserved and wisely strengthened. The constituted authorities must be cheerfully and vigorously upheld. Lynchings must not be tolerated in a great and civilized country like the United States; courts, not mobs, must execute the penalties of the law. The preservation of public order, the right of discussion, the integrity of courts, and the orderly administration of justice must continue forever the rock of safety upon which our Government securely rests.” 

Despite the pressures of changing times, McKinley never wavered from adherence to the tenets of the party of Lincoln. He maintained and extended the traditional Republican inclusion of African Americans in government and expressed support for their cause. He spoke against having the nominating convention to be held in St. Louis for fear that African American delegates would not be able to get a hotel room. He once refused to stay at a hotel that would not serve African Americans. He included two African Americans on his inauguration committee. He appointed several African Americans to government positions. He was the first U.S. president to visit the Tuskegee Institute (established in 1881). He went 140 miles out of his way to do so. This act was of signal importance in bringing attention and support to this educational institution which was doing so much to help African Americans improve their conditions of life. When the Spanish-American War broke out, McKinley was diligent to make sure that African American soldiers served, even reversing orders attempting to prevent the recruitment of African American soldiers. Military service was an important part of the on-going process of African Americans gaining respect from white society as they performed valuable service and demonstrated their valor.

The Major also met with African American leaders such as Ida Wells and Booker T. Washington at the White House more than once. This event took place years before Theodore Roosevelt's famous White House meeting with Washington. The great educator recorded his impressions of McKinley and their meeting on his second visit to see McKinley. At this time a number of race riots had recently taken place in the south.  Washington noted that the president seemed “greatly burdened by reason of these disturbances.” Despite a long line of people waiting to see the president, McKinley detained Washington for some time to discuss the current condition of African Americans. He remarked repeatedly to Washington that he was “determined to show his interest and faith in the race, not merely in words, but by acts." The fruit of this meeting was the first visit to Tuskegee by a sitting president of the United States. 

Conclusion

Could he have done more? Certainly. Beyond the measures discussed here he was not notably pro-active in improving the situation regarding civil rights. What he did was to maintain the Republican tradition followed by his predecessors and sympathize with the plight of African Americans. However, in the words of a McKinley historian, “given the political climate in the South, there was little McKinley could have done to improve race relations, and he did better than later presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, who doubted racial equality and Wilson who supported segregation.” He did not share the radical Reconstructionist vengeful attitude toward the defeated South but rather all his life advocated reconciliation between the two sections. It must be understood that at the time the memories of the Civil War were still fresh and the need to strengthen the bonds of union still dominated the American consciousness. One of McKinley's key objectives was to continue healing the wounds of the old separation and to do everything he could to build unity between the sections. Pushing too hard on civil rights would have destroyed that effort. He may not have been a strong civil-rights advocate, but he did accomplish several ‘firsts’. In the last analysis, his actions and policies were certainly a far cry from “racism and murder.”

 

Now in part 4 here, the final part in the series, you can read about McKinley’s character.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 2 – McKinley and Native Americans

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 2, we look in depth at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans and the accusations made against McKinley by the statue topplers.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal and starts to look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.

President William McKinley.

Arcata Council Member Susan Ornelas said: “It’s not just a lost thought. McKinley didn’t back Native Americans at all. He backed the Curtis Act, which took away Native rights on a lot of land.” As we have seen, to say McKinley “didn’t back Native Americans at all” is completely false. He firmly backed the Navajo against the attempted depredations of whites. The Curtis Act was an amendment to the Dawes Act of 1887. After the Civil War U.S. policy towards Native Americans changed to assimilation. Laws such as the Dawes Act basically sought to turn Native Americans away from their traditional tribal lifestyle and assimilate into the larger culture of modern America. Although settler greed certainly explains part of it, the Dawes Act and other measures reflected the prevailing view that the nomadic or tribal ways of the native peoples must inevitably give way to the sedentary, agricultural, and now industrializing, majority culture. It was thought that if Native Americans owned their own land and were responsible for it, dressed like white people and started living like them, they would cease being “Indian,” melt into the larger population, and the government would be free of having to oversee them. As such it abolished tribal government and gave individual Native Americans their own plots of land. The measure was also partly the result of building public pressure to treat the Native Americans with greater fairness.

Assimilation

Whether one agrees or disagrees, the fact was that the European pattern of civilization was simply overtaking tribal or nomadic cultures, which were seen as no longer feasible in the modern age. The then current philosophy was assimilation. Today this is unpopular, but then it was believed that the indigenous people needed to be helped in making the transition from the nomadic to the agricultural ways of the majority culture. The idea was to stop dealing with the Native Americans as a tribe, but instead as individuals, like non-indigenous people. As is often the case, intentions don’t always match reality and lofty motives were mixed with some selfish intent. In the wake of the Act, Native Americans lost an enormous amount of land. Additionally it also helped destroy the communal basis of indigenous culture. Ultimately the Act was recognized to be a failure, but at the time it was believed to be a needed reform. 

William McKinley became president after the point at which this had all been accomplished and was charged with administering policy within a framework that he did not create. To blame him for any negative effects of the Curtis Act is thus unfair. As we have seen, McKinley had a strong sense of justice and was determined to treat the Native Americans fairly. The Curtis Act was titled “An Act for the protection of the people of the Indian Territory.” With a title like that it is not surprising that McKinley believed it would do just what the title claimed. Moreover, the bill was not sponsored by unfeeling whites, but by Charles Curtis, a mixed-blood Kansas Native American and senator from Kansas. Curtis held the conviction that his people needed to embrace change if they were to move forward. He was an especially fervent believer in education. This conviction flowed out of his own experience. Born on a reservation in poor circumstances, he rose through hard work to eventually become majority leader in the Senate. Education played an important part in the process. With encouragement from both grandparents, he graduated from High School and then went on to study law. Because of his own success, he firmly believed that education and assimilation was the best way for his fellow Native Americans to prosper. The Dawes and Curtis Acts were partly designed to help indigenous people earn a living while making the transition by giving them land. Therefore we can see that the future negative effects of the Curtis Act were not widely foreseen at the time. The Act was well meaning and McKinley’s motives in backing it were out of a desire to help the tribes.

Support for the Curtis Act

In his first annual message to Congress on December 6, 1897, the president explained his reasons for supporting the Curtis Act. He remarked that conditions in the Indian Territory had drastically changed over the previous 30 years and that the old treaties were no longer functioning. He pointed out that the white population greatly exceeded that of the Native Americansand that the whites were deprived of certain privileges. He asserted that the whites had settled with the permission of the Native Americans. The worst one can say about McKinley’s message is that he was incorrect that all white settlement was by permission of the Native Americans. The truth is that many whites settled in Indian Territory without permission. Since the president was not known for fabrication, it is most likely that he was unaware of this. The Dawes Commission made the following recommendation to the president: “Individual ownership is, in their (the Commission’s) opinion, absolutely essential to any permanent improvement in present conditions, and the lack of it is the root of nearly all the evils which so grievously afflict these people.” According to the information McKinley was given, the Curtis act was “having a salutary effect upon the nations composing the five tribes” and that the Dawes Commission reported “the most gratifying results.” The president was acting on the recommendations of experts, so what else was he supposed to do?

As a part of assisting the tribes, McKinley was diligent in fulfilling the “The Historical Trust Relationship'' between the U.S. government and Native Americans. One of the key elements in fulfilling the government’s part of the relationship was to provide educational opportunities. In this capacity McKinley signed no less than four executive orders providing land for Native American schools.

Judging McKinley

To meet the standards set by the protestors, McKinley would have had to: A) Repudiate over 30 years of government and territorial policy which by then involved hundreds of thousands of people, B) Publicly reject the findings and recommendations of an expert commission sent to make judgments based on personal investigation - and on what basis would he have been able to do so?, and C) Somehow have the vision to understand what no one else seemed to regarding the future damage to tribal culture that would result. Additionally, the protestors do not seem to understand the nature of American government. McKinley was not a dictator who could simply order something to happen. He had to work within the democratic system and was beholden to Congress and the people who voted for him. Not only was their strong support in Congress and what would become Oklahoma for the measure, some tribes agreed to it as well.

In an effort to have the facts on their side, pro-statue-removal Arcata city interns Paul Hilton and Steven Munoz were tasked with gathering information on McKinley and his statue. They charged that he was complicit in the so-called “California Genocide.” Hilton stated: “He turned a blind eye when California paid off militia who killed and massacred natives,” adding, “Looking away is being complicit.” Mr. Hilton and his co-intern assembled a three-part report on the 25th president and his statue. A related accusation was, “Why do we have this man standing in this square where they used to sell our children?” The protest was referring to mistreatment of California Native Americans, which allegedly included the sale of Native American children as slaves.

Putting the claims to the test

Let’s test this accusation. It is, in a word, so impossible as to approach the bizarre. Simply look at the chronology. Historians consider the genocide to have taken place from 1848 to roughly the 1870s. As stated above, McKinley was a boy and young man who had not even held political office yet during the California Genocide. The Arcata accusation might make some sense if he were a resident of California, but he was a resident of Ohio, in which case he cannot be expected to even be aware of the genocide, let alone speak out against it. Blaming him for the California Genocide is like blaming the young Abraham Lincoln for slavery. 

But let’s allow Native Americans to speak for themselves. After expiring on September 14, 1901 from the gunshot wounds he received at the hands of his assassin, McKinley’s body lay in state at Buffalo, New York for two days. A Congress of Native Americans of the Pan-American Indian Congress had been a part of the great exposition in Buffalo. Led by several chiefs, including Geronimo, a procession of Native Americans, each holding a white carnation, paid their respects at the casket of the fallen chief executive. The chiefs composed a memorial card which read:

“The farewell of Chief Geronimo, Blue Horse, Flat Iron and Red Shirt and the 700 braves of the Indian congress. Like Lincoln and Garfield, President McKinley never abused authority except on the side of mercy. The martyred Great White Chief will stand in memory next to the Savior of mankind. We loved him living, we love him still.”

Geronimo’s eulogy continued the tribute:

“The rainbow of hope is out of the sky. Heavy clouds hang about us. Tears wet the ground of the tepees. The chief of the nation is dead. Farewell.” 

The reference to mercy may be to McKinley’s action after the Battle of Sugar Point. After that conflict, McKinley pardoned all Native Americans involved.

Now, in part 3 here you can read about McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

7 Occasions that Europe Changed the Time

The continent of Europe is complicated politically, culturally and linguistically. And if you delve a little deeper into history, you realize that the continent’s association with time is equally complex and surprising. Here are seven of the most peculiar ways that time has been changed in Europe. Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

Adolf Hitler and then Spanish leader Francisco Franco in 1940. Franco adjusted Spanish time to align with German time during World War Two. Picture from Heinrich Hoffmann/Krakow-Warsaw Press Publishing, available here.

Ever wondered who you should thank for losing an hour’s sleep every year? 

I’m not a big fan of bugs, and my golf game is, well, let’s just say that getting off the tee is an achievement, so it seems odd that both should have had such a big impact on mine and millions of other people’s daily life.

If Benjamin Franklin was being satirical in his 1784 paper suggesting the firing of canons every summer morning to get people up earlier, New Zealand scientist George Hudson made the first serious suggestion to change time in 1895; he wanted more daylight hours to engage in his bug hunting. The cause was later taken up in the UK by William Willett who, wanting the chance to play golf for longer, published The Waste of Daylight in 1907 hoping to promote the idea. 

By 1916 and the onset of the Great War, the argued reason to change the clocks in order to save energy took on more urgency; Germany was the first to introduce the policy in April 1916 and Britain adopted the practice a month later along with France, Italy and Russia.

So, the next time you wonder who causes you to lose that hour’s sleep every year, you can blame bugs and golf.

Did you think that a year could only be either 365 or 366 days?

It is a fact that every child is taught in school that the year consists of 365 days in a standard year and 366 in a leap year. Fact, yes?

Well, not in Europe.

In 46BC, when Julius Caesar introduced his new calendar, he created a year that was 445 days long. Unfortunately, the Julian calendar gained a day every 128 years, so, by 1582, a new calendar, the Gregorian, was introduced which required Europe to lose days. Every time a country swapped to the new calendar, they lost between 10 and 13 days a year. In the UK, the first day of the year was actually March 25, so when they and their dominions (including America) finally made the change, it meant that the year 1752 was only 282 days long.

Why were France and Britain not always in the same year?

The countries of Europe were, and are, pretty good at disagreeing with each other and, unfortunately, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar sparked all sorts of underlying religious turmoil. It was seen by some countries as a papist plot not to be trusted and certainly to be resisted. So, when France, Spain, Italy and other Catholic countries adopted the new calendar in 1582, a lot of Protestant countries didn’t. And, so began five centuries during which different parts of the continent used different dates. It was often the case that they were even in different years. Take just one date - January 1, 1700: France, Spain Italy and even Scotland (which by then was part of the United Kingdom) were all in 1700, whilst England and Wales were still in 1699 and remained so until March 25. Even after the UK as a whole moved in line with the majority of Europe, other countries did not – Europe was not on the same calendar until Greece finally transferred in 1923.

Who made the decision to cancel Christmas?

The name of the man (and it would have been a man) who decided the timing of the change to the Gregorian calendar in the Spanish Netherlands is now lost to us, but he was surely an inspiration for Scrooge and the Grinch.

By December 1582 it was clear that 10 days would be wiped out of existence by the change; the people of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Poland had gone to bed on October 4 and woken up on October 15. So, making the decision to make the change on December 21 was surely asking for trouble? Unfortunately, for the Spanish Netherlands that is what happened and, officially at least, there was no Christmas Day for them that year.

Which raises the question of why Greece didn’t learn the lesson. Their change in 1923 also affected the Christmas season, with New Year’s Day occurring before Christmas Day. However, Greece did manage to come up with some kind of solution and 1924 saw two Christmas celebrations. 

Why the years 1793-1806 never existed in France

The French Revolution ushered in a lot more changes than just the removal of the monarchy. The New Republic’s leaders were also keen to introduce a scientific revolution that saw the introduction of all things metric. This was the era of the meter, something that we have since adopted, and the decimalization of time, something that has not been as successful. 

Under the French Republican Calendar, years remained 12 months long, however, the first day was changed to 22 September and the old dating system was abolished. The year 1792 ceased to exist and instead was renamed Year One of the Republic.

Not just mathematicians, but also poets and painters were employed to design the new calendar, with special pictures used to represent the months, ten-day décades replacing weeks, and months being given new names.

A new clock was also created, introducing ten-hour days with a hundred minutes per hour and a hundred seconds per minute.

For twelve years France operated on a separate time and dating system until the Republic fell in 1806. Whilst the French have undoubtedly come up with some stunning inventions over the centuries, 100,000 seconds a day clocks and months named after fruit are not two of them.

Is the UK ten minutes late?

In 1884 (when Britain dominated all things naval and trade) it was decided by the International Meriden Conference in Washington that Greenwich in London would become the prime meridian, or, in other words, the center of time. It would mark Longitude 0º and it would be from here that the various zones would span out around the world.

But Greenwich had a rival in Paris, whose longitude is 9 minutes and 21 seconds ahead of GMT.

This was also the era of Anglo-Franco rivalries and no self-respecting French navigator or scientist was going to allow the nation’s time to be dictated to by the English. Paris Mean Time (PMT) had been created in 1881 and, being only 2 degrees east of Greenwich, there was no future for it in a world now dominated by GMT. It would take until 1911, before France finally gave up their hope of it remaining a contender as the Prime Meridian and turned their clocks back by 9 minutes and 21 seconds to match GMT. Nevertheless, it remained as Paris Mean Time; any reference to Greenwich was firmly kept out of the title.

So, all was well…and then along came the Nazis.

How Hitler caused a late lunch in Spain

Trying not to turn this into an essay on my failings, I’ve never been that up on geography. I know a few capital cities, can tell you the names of the continents and can actually locate a few countries on a map, but in nearly 50 years on this planet, I never noticed that a large proportion of Western Europe is not where, or rather when, it should be.

And we have Hitler to thank for it.

Until the 1940s the countries of France, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were all on GMT/UTC as fitted their latitudinal position. But the Nazis wanted their war machine to be coordinated, and they adjusted the time of their occupied territories to match Germany’s. Although nominally neutral, Spanish leader Franco ensured that Spain changed to the new time zone to show support for his Fascist ally.

At the end of the war, France should have moved back to GMT+0, but two weeks before they were due to do so in November 1945, the French government changed its mind and decided to stay on Central European Time (GMT+1). 

Similarly, Spain did not return to GMT, a decision which has been linked to the reason why the Spanish eat so late in the day compared to other countries; lunch stayed at the same solar time whether the clocks had jumped forward or not.

I doubt that when Hitler set out on his chosen career path of genocidal maniac, he did so with the intention of disrupting Spanish mealtimes or leaving a lasting impression on European time. Nevertheless, he did.

The future?

Time still remains an issue in Europe, from whether to keep Daylight Saving Time to if Spain should revert back to GMT to be in line with Portugal. But for us who live on the continent, we can only hope that the days when we weren’t even in the same year are over. 

What do you think of changing the time in history? Let us know below.

References & Further Reading

Time and Date.com

The Guardian: Paris Mean Time

Vanessa France: A brief history of (French) time

WEBEXHITS: Calendar - French

The Atlantic: The creation of modern time

ADSB: Calendar Reform 1752

Atlas Obscura: Why England was a year behind Belgium, Spain and Italy for 170 years

Time and Date: The Julian-Gregorian switch

Mirlibooks: Confusion and Myth in the Gregorian Calendar reform

Here’s why Spain has been in the wrong time zone for the past 76 years