The Early Life of Confederate General Robert E. Lee

If asked about Robert E. Lee, most people would answer that he was the most famous Confederate general in the Civil War - but here William Floyd Junior looks at Lee’s life before the Civil War. It includes his early education, his time at the United States Military Academy, both as a student and later as superintendent, his long career as an army engineer, the Mexican-American War, and his time in the regular U.S. Army.

Robert E. Lee at age 31 in 1838. He was then a Lieutenant of Engineers in the US Army.

Early life

Robert’s father was the famous, “Light Horse Harry Lee,” of Revolutionary War fame and a close friend of George Washington. He served in the Continental Congress and was governor of Virginia. In April of 1782, Harry married Matilda Lee, a second cousin. When Matilda’s father died, he left the family home, Stratford, to Matilda, her sister, and mother. Matilda’s mother and sister would move away leaving their shares of the property to Harry. Harry would begin to sell off parcels of Stratford’s property to cover his debts. After Matilda’s death, Harry would marry Ann Hill Carter. In the following years, Harry would be jailed twice for not paying his debts.

When Harry returned home, Ann insisted that they move to Alexandria, where they could be among friends and family and the children could receive a proper education. In Alexandria, Harry would continue to write his memoirs while trying to play the role of military hero. In the summer of 1813, he left on a ship for Barbados. In early March 1818, Harry left Nassau for the southern United States in an effort to return to his family. Harry would pass away on March 25, 1818, at Cumberland Island Georgia.

The person who did the most to teach Robert the ways of a gentleman was his mother. She would send one son to Harvard, one into the Navy, and another to the United States Military Academy. Robert’s early years were pleasant enough despite his mother’s failing health and the family’s limited income. With the absence of his siblings, Robert became the man of the house, taking care of all the family’s business and looking after his mother.

West Point

Robert’s earliest education began with his mother, before attending Eastern View, a family school maintained by the Carter family. Robert would then attend the Alexandria Academy where he would be introduced to Latin, the Classics, and become an excellent student in mathematics. After finishing at the Alexandria Academy, it was decided that Robert would attend West Point, a major factor being financial. Tuition at the United States Military Academy was free but after graduating the student had to commit to one year in the regular Army.

In 1825, the United States Military Academy at West Point was a school whose primary emphasis was on engineering. Robert, of course, met all the necessary requirements. Appointments to the Academy were made by the President from nominations made by the Secretary of War. Robert would be one of six candidates accepted from Virginia.

After a series of test at the school, Robert officially became a cadet (Freshman/Plebe) on June 28. The day at West Point officially began at 5:30 A.M. and ended at 10:00 P.M. The day was filled with classes and military activities. At the end of his first year, Robert was ranked third in his class without any demerits and promoted to staff sergeant, an unusually high rank for a plebe. In his second year, he would be appointed an “assistant professor of mathematics,” in which he tutored fellow cadets, being paid $10.00 a month. 

In his third year, Robert began scientific studies. He would not be taking a mathematics course but would continue his tutoring duties. Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, and Physics became his major courses of study. He would also take a variety of military studies classes. Lee, along with all other cadets would take compulsory dance classes. In addition, he would be chosen Corps Adjutant. During the summer of 1828, Robert would spend most of his time with his mother, whose health was becoming progressively worse. She would pass away on July 26, 1829, with Robert at her side.

On September 1, Robert began his final year at the Academy. He continued with military studies and added courses in Chemistry, Geology, Ethics, Rhetoric, and Practical Economy. It made for a very long day as in past years. He would pass all of his final exams and graduate second in his class. He would ask to be assigned to the Engineer Corps.

Early career

Brevet 2nd Lieutenant Lee would soon receive his first orders. He was to report to Major Samuel Babcock at Cockspur Island, Georgia by the middle of November. Cockspur was a God forsaken spot where Lee would help prepare the site for the building of a new fort. Lee would spend a good amount of time in water up to his armpits. By January of 1830, Lee had taken over the majority of the work.

In the summer of 1830, Lee would spend part of his time in Northern Virginia, returning to Cockspur on November 10. He would find the ditches filled and the wharf destroyed. He would immediately begin repairs. There would also be a new commanding officer, Lieutenant J.K.F. Mansfield. With Mansfield on the job, Lee became a luxury that the Corps could not afford.

Lee would soon receive orders to report for duty at Old Point Comfort, Virginia, located on the tip of the Virginia peninsula, which was the location of Fort Monroe. Lee would take charge of building Fort Wool, a short distance offshore from Fort Monroe on a manmade island. Lee’s primary task at Fort Wool was the supervision of the placement of loadstone, which he found incredibly tedious.

Lee was stationed at Fort Monroe from 1831 to 1834, directing some of the last phases of construction of Fortress Monroe. Lee’s work would become much more demanding with the absence of the Superintending Engineer, becoming involved in practically all phases of construction.

During his time at Fort Monroe, Robert would marry Mary Custis at Arlington. They would soon travel to the fort and set up housekeeping. The couple’s first child was born on September 16, 1832. The baby boy would be named George Washington Custis Lee.

In November 1834, Lee went to work as assistant to the chief of the Engineering Department (Corps) in Washington. Lee was meticulous and paid attention to every detail. However, after four months in Washington, Lee asked to be reassigned. By the summer of 1835, he would be surveying the boundary between Ohio and Michigan led by his friend, Andrew Talcott. 

The work was not expected to take more than a month but turned out to take the entire summer. The work involved a number of complicated mathematical calculations and take Lee as far as the Great Lakes. Lee would arrive back in Washington in early October to find his wife very sick. Lee became worn down by Mary’s illness and the shear tedium of work. A slow but temporary improvement in Mary’s health and the beauty of Arlington helped to cheer Lee up.

Major challenge

Lee’s next assignment, and probably the most challenging of his career, was the taming of a portion of the Mississippi River, the major transportation route in the Midwest, and St. Louis the major hub and transportation center. However, the route of the river did not remain constant, gradually changing over time. In one case the river would change in such a way that could leave St. Louis landlocked.

By the end of June 1837 Lee would be on his way to his new assignment at St. Louis. Lee’s plan for saving the St. Louis harbor would be to throw the full current of the Mississippi on to the western (Missouri) side. In turn the current would wash away the built-up sand. Lee’s plan was to work with the river, not against it, and allow the Mississippi to do most of the work.

Lee’s hard work would pay off, with the stronger force of water pounding against the head of Duncan’s Island, its sand and silt began washing away. By the end of the construction season, some 700 feet of the island had disappeared. In addition, the channel across the bar between Bloody Island and Duncan’s Island had been deepened by seven feet.

Work on the Mississippi at St. Louis would come to an end and Lee would return to Arlington in December 1839 and was eventually reassigned to the Chief Engineer’s office in Washington.

Lee’s next assignment would be to upgrade the forts, which protected New York City. This work would be all encompassing for Lee, performing all of the administrative duties and supervising construction. At the end of this assignment, Lee would travel to West Point to consult on the new cadet barracks and serve on the Board of Examiners.

Mexican-American War

With the start of the Mexican-American War, Lee would be chosen to serve on the staff of commanding general Winfield Scott. Lee’s first assignment in this position would be to scout locations for the placement of artillery for the attack on the city of Vera Cruz. After the American victory at Vera Cruz, Scott’s forces would move inland but would soon be confronted by Santa Anna’s army on the national road. Again, the reconnaissance of the engineers, including Lee, would play a vital role in Scott’s attack. For his part Lee would be promoted to Brevet Major.

The Mexican Army soon realized they were in a bad position and would retreat to Mexico City. The engineers would again play an important role in the taking of the city. This would lead to the Mexican surrender on May 25, 1848. Lee would leave Mexico the following June.

Lee would soon be back at Arlington spending as much time as possible with his family and would begin work at the Chief Engineer’s Office in Washington. Lee would be commissioned a colonel on August 24. Around this same time, he would receive his next assignment, the building of the foundation for a fort to protect Baltimore from an attack by water.

The work at Baltimore required almost hourly supervision on Lee’s part. In late July Lee would develop a fever, which was most likely malaria. He would leave the site, with General Totten’s permission, until his health improved. Towards the end of summer, Lee would be part of an inspection tour of other facilities but would soon ask to be relieved due to his ongoing illness.

Back to West Point

Lee would not return to Baltimore until the end of August. Work under Lee’s supervision continued but on May 28 he received a letter that would change everything. The orders stated that he would assume the position of Superintendent at West Point the following September. This was a job he really did not want but would reluctantly accept it. On August 23 he left for West Point and assumed his assigned duties.

At the time of his arrival, there was an aggressive building program underway which fit right in with Lee’s vast experience. Congress had approved funds for a riding hall, the expansion of the cadet hospital, cavalry stables, and officer’s quarters. These projects were begun under Lee’s tenure, but the majority of the construction was done in 1855.

In March 1855, Lee would become part of the regular army, again a position he had not sought out. The change from staff to line did not include a pay raise. Transfer also meant a complete break from the Corps of Engineers and, once again, long periods of time away from his family. On March 31, 1855, Lee relinquished command at West Point.

Little did Lee know that the most difficult part of his life was still in front of him.

What do you think of Robert E. Lee’s early life? Let us know below.

Now read William’s article on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here, and Walter H. Taylor, Robert E. Lee’s indispensable man, here.

Why Could you be Sent to an ‘Insane Asylum’ in 19th Century America?

‘Insane asylums’ were the 19th century forerunners of today’s psychiatric hospitals, but people were sent to them for sometimes quite different reasons to today. Here, Casey Hakenson looks at some disturbing cases of why and how people, including women, African Americans, and Native Americans, were sent to ‘insane asylums’ in 19th century America.

Elizabeth Packard, who was sent to the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane in 1860.

Before the 19th century, the only options to institutionalize a person with mental illness were jails and almshouses, where the conditions were often disturbing and dehumanizing. So, in the 19th century, ‘insane asylums’ came along. These institutions were created by reformers to be positive places where ‘lunatics’ could be cured, and ‘idiots’ taught. Yet, almost immediately, people began to be confined to these homes for some of the most benign symptoms. As these ‘homes’ rose in popularity throughout the 1800s, the number of people committed continued to rise as fewer and fewer patients were ever able to leave.

Elizabeth Packard

Let’s begin with one of the most famous instances of imprisonment. Elizabeth Packard was married to a Calvinist minister named Theophilus. Everything seemed to be going well until Elizabeth became interested in popular religious beliefs, such as Swedenborgianism, perfectionism, and spiritualism. These differences resulted in explosive arguments that culminated in her standing up in church while he was preaching and announcing she would be attending services elsewhere. Theophilus began to question his wife’s sanity (or at least claim he did) and had a doctor, J.W. Brown, visit their home disguised as a sewing machine salesman to diagnose Elizabeth. Brown concluded Elizabeth was insane because of her hostility towards her husband and her unorthodox beliefs. Elizabeth Packard spent three years at the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane (from 1860-1863) until her oldest son turned 21 years old and was able to release her. 

The truth of the matter was that in the 19th century, it was often quite easy for a man to institutionalize his wife or daughter. In some U.S. states, the man did not have to present any proof; he only needed the consent of the superintendent of the asylum. Many women were locked up for such erroneous reasons as over-education, PMS, being unmarried, or displaying what was considered over-sexual behavior such as masturbating.

One example of this was Alice Christina Abbot, committed to Taunton State Hospital in Massachusetts in 1867 for allegedly poisoning her stepfather. A bit of background: 17-year-old Alice had recently accused her stepfather of sexual abuse, an allegation that the courts dismissed. The defenses’ primary evidence against her? She didn’t seem upset that her stepfather was dead. (Hmmm. I wonder why…)

African Americans and Native Americans

Yet, of course, women weren’t the only group that were institutionalized for pseudo-scientific reasons. When the U.S. Civil War ended, there was an uptick in the institutionalization of African Americans, who many claimed would delve into insanity caused by their new freedom. African American people, like women and other disenfranchised groups, could be committed for basically any reason. A white employer or community member could claim an African American person was insane, and the accused had little resource to defend themselves in court. In fact, at Central Hospital in Virginia, an all-African American mental asylum, there were no records of anyone willingly institutionalizing themselves. Making matters even worse for the inmates, some doctors claimed that African American people needed to do hard labor to stay mentally sane. For example, at Central, they were put to work on the asylum’s large farm and performing domestic chores. (Sounds like a certain something that had just been outlawed…) And, like many who were confined to these hospitals, a large percentage died from illnesses contracted from overcrowding. 

Native Americans were prone to a similar fate since they were often diagnosed and committed by the white reservation agents who were put in place by the government - men who usually had little to no medical training. Native Americans, too, could be confined for an array of offenses, such as refusing their government’s assimilation tactics, or in one man’s case, a 1913 accusation of ‘horse-stealing mania.’ Native Americans, like other asylum patients, were often treated to conditions akin to torture, sterilized, experimented on, and usually died in these places of ‘healing’. 

A few more examples from a ‘reasons for admission’ list from Weston Hospital in Lewis County, West Virginia were:

-Bad Company

-Bad Habits

-Business Nerves

-Crime

-Death of Sons in the War

-Deranged Masturbation

-Desertion by Husband

-Disappointment 

-Domestic Trouble

-Doubt about Mother’s Ancestry

-Feebleness of Intellect 

-Female Disease

-Hard Study

-Imaginary Female Trouble

-Laziness

-Medicine to Prevent Conception

-Menstrual Deranged

-Novel Reading

-Parents were Cousins

-Political or Religious Excitement 

-Suppressed Masturbation

So, what could you get institutionalized for in the not-so-distant past? Anything, really. 

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

References

Brice, Anne. “How the U.S. Government Created an ‘Insane Asylum’ to Imprison Native Americans.” Berkeley News, 19 Nov. 2020, https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/11/19/ using-disability-to-imprison-native-americans/. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

Charleston, L.J. “Outrageous Ways to be Admitted to an Insane Asylum in the 19th Century.” News.com.au, 18 Aug. 2019, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true- stories/outrageous-ways-to-be-admitted-to-an-insane-asylum-in-the-19th-century/news-story/e590c54e3469606d1b2330a52c3d8f6b. Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“Elizabeth Packard: Advocate for the Rights of Married Women.” History of American Women, https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2013/01/elizabeth-packard.html.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“How Victorian Women were Oppressed through the Use of Psychiatry.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/netflix-2017/how-victorian-women-were- oppressed-through-the-use-of-psychiatry/1607/. Accessed 1 July 2021.

“Packard, Elizabeth (1816-1897).” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/packard-elizabeth-1816-1897.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

Peterson, Britt. “A Virginia Mental Institution for Black Patients, Opened After the Civil War, Yields a Trove of Disturbing Records.” The Washington Post, 29 March 2021,  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/black-asylum-files-reveal-racism/2021/03/26/ebfb2eda-6d78-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html. Accessed 1  July 2021. 

 Tabler, Dave. “125 Reasons You’ll Get Sent to the Lunatic Asylum.” AppalachianHistory.net, 4 December 2008, https://www.appalachianhistory.net/2008/12/125-reasons- youll-get-sent-to-lunatic.html. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

“The Growth of the Asylum.” Historic England, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1832-1914/the-growth-of-the-asylum/. Accessed  1 July 2021. 

Four of the Most Eccentric Scottish Dukes of Hamilton

The Dukedom of Hamilton, one of the most important peerages in Scotland, was created in 1643, and as of 2021, we are on the 16th Duke of Hamilton. Here, Ilana Barnett looks at the lives of four of the most eccentric dukes.

Hamilton Palace around 1880.

The Dukedom of Hamilton is one of the highest peerages of Scotland, second only to the Duke of Rothesay, a title held by the eldest son of the Sovereign. As the Hereditary Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse (the seat of the Scottish Parliament) and the Hereditary Bearer of the Crown of Scotland, they fulfill important national and ceremonial roles. 

As with all powerful and prominent families, many of its members led what you could call colorful lives. None more so than the 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th dukes who more than contributed to the reputation and notoriety of one of the premier families of Scotland.

The Dueling Duke

The 4th Duke of Hamilton, James, had a way of courting bad press. He was described as perpetually drunk, selfish, arrogant, a disaster and a wastrel. He was a leader of the Scottish National Party and a vocal opponent of Scotland’s union with England. In November 1712, he was killed in a duel, which shocked polite society - and then the law was changed. 

Hamilton’s adversary was Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, with whom he had been embroiled for 11 years in a bitter legal dispute. Both men had married nieces of the Earl of Macclesfield but on his deathbed, it was reported that the Earl named Mohun as his sole heir. Hamilton disputed the validity of the confession and the credibility of one of the witnesses. Hamilton might have had good reason to doubt Mohun’s word. Mohan was no saint, having already stood trial three times for murder. Finally, emotions became so heated that they decided a duel was needed to settle the matter for once and for all. 

They met in Hyde Park along with their Seconds, George MacCartney and Colonel John Hamilton. In the event Hamilton killed Mohun, who in turn severely wounded Hamilton.  Furious, MacCartney lunged at Hamilton, running him through with his sword. It is very likely that Colonel Hamilton in retaliation fought MacCartney as both men fled to the continent in fear of arrest. The duel had been so bloody that the government was persuaded to ban duels using swords in favor of pistols, which inflicted less horrific injuries. The incident was immortalized by Thackeray in his novel The History of Henry Esmond.

A Curtain Ring Wedding

The 6th Duke of Hamilton’s (another James) claim to notoriety was very different. He enters the history books as a womanizer and debaucher. On February 14, 1752, he finally found a woman he could not have his wicked way with, in the form of the society beauty, Elizabeth Gunning. Elizabeth was penniless but stuck to her principles and saved herself and her reputation from ruin. Her price – marriage. That same night at 12.30, the desperate and lustful James plucked a parson out of bed to perform the marriage, using a bed curtain ring as a wedding ring. Presumably at around 2am, he finally got the girl and she got her duke.

The Hamilton House Dance

Following in family tradition, Douglas, the 8th Duke of Hamilton, was famous for his looks, which he used to good effect as a womanizer. He inherited the title on his brother’s death in 1769. In April 1778, he married Elizabeth Anne Burrell, a match his family disapproved of as unequal. They had no children and were divorced after sixteen years, possibly due to the duke’s numerous affairs (although the duchess was also rumored to bed hop on occasion). Affairs were pretty much the norm amongst the upper classes but there were unwritten codes of conduct, discretion being one. Hamilton, on the other hand, didn’t bother with any pretense of propriety, a trait one of his favorite mistresses, Frances Twysden, wife of the Earl of Eglinton, seemed to share. On one occasion, she brazenly asked her husband’s servant to admit the Duke of Hamilton into her bedchamber. Loyally the servant refused. The dance the “Hamilton House” was named after the duke and duchess with the steps and numerous changes of partners symbolizing their infidelities.

The Proudest Man in England

If you visit the town of Hamilton in South Lanarkshire, make sure you take time to see the Hamilton Mausoleum. The mausoleum, all that remains of the once magnificent palace, which existed on the site, is considered to be one of the finest and most remarkable private tombs in the world. 

The visionary behind its construction was Alexander Douglas Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton. As well as being a Knight of the Garter, Grandmaster of the Freemasons and a British ambassador, he was also a famous dandy. Lord Lemington in his book In The Days of the Dandies wrote “Never was such a magnifico as the 10th Duke”. Extremely proud of his ancestry, he was convinced he was heir to the Scottish crown. His inflated sense of his own importance resulted in him hiring a hermit to adorn the grounds of Hamilton Palace. Increasingly eccentric as he grew older, he was affectionately called ‘El Magnifico’ by the locals as he wandered around the town of Hamilton wearing the Douglas tartan. 

Hamilton died at the age of 84 in London on August 18, 1852, his body mummified and placed in a sarcophagus (the only receptacle he considered worthy of him) and then transported to the mausoleum. He had come by the sarcophagus whilst acting as a buyer for the British Museum in Egypt. The British Museum, uninterested in the purchase of a sarcophagus of a non-royal, allowed Hamilton to keep it. It is not known how they managed to fit his body in the sarcophagus as the duke was eight inches taller than the original occupant - it has been suggested that his legs were rearranged with a sledgehammer and bent under him. Unfortunately, as the mausoleum had no roof, the duke had the ignominy of lying in state with building work going on around him. Probably not the grand exit the duke had envisaged for himself. Eventually his sarcophagus was placed on a black marble slab, resting in a manner as befitted “El Magnifico”.

What do you think of the Dukes of Hamilton? Let us know below.

Ilana writes at The Haunted Palace Blog here.

Robert E. Lee’s Indispensable Man: The Life of Walter H. Taylor

Walter H. Taylor was indispensable to the Confederacy’s efforts in the US Civil War. His contribution to the southern war effort as Lee’s adjutant was key. His contributions to the City of Norfolk and the state of Virginia after the war are also well known. Taylor would also contribute to the history of the war by writing two books about Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. At one point, Taylor would comment about not loving Lee, but never losing respect for him. The other part of Taylor’s story is his relationship with Bettie Saunders, his future wife. Their wartime letters are an endless source of information about their relationship and what was taking place on the war front.

William Floyd Junior explains.

Walter H. Taylor, circa 1864.

Taylor was born in Norfolk, Virginia on June 13, 1838. His early education took place at what today is Norfolk Academy. In August of 1854, he began attending the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. Walter was an excellent student, but failed to complete his studies, having to withdraw upon the death of his father. He would go to work at the Bank of Virginia and then at the Norfolk and Petersburg Railroad. Taylor was also part of a Norfolk Volunteer Militia group known as “Company F.”

On May 2, 1861, he received a telegram from Virginia Governor John Letcher to report for duty. Taylor was twenty-two years of age without any combat experience. On May 3, Taylor took the train to Richmond and went to the Spotswood Hotel. It was here that Taylor first saw Robert E, Lee, commenting that, “he appeared every inch a soldier and a man born to command.”

When the Provisional Army of Virginia, which Lee had been assembling, became part of the Confederacy, Lee was appointed one of five new generals. He would be retained in Richmond as military advisor to President Jefferson Davis. Taylor and other members of the headquarters staff would remain on duty with the general.

In late July Taylor would travel with Lee to western Virginia in an effort to reconcile differences between generals Floyd, Wise, and Loring. After three months in the mountains, Lee’s mission could not be called a success.

On November 6, 1861, Taylor left with Lee for Charleston, South Carolina. Lee had been given the job of building a defensive line along the coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and east Florida. In the following months defenses were improved around Charleston, Fort Pulaski, and Savannah. Lee’s work would soon come to an end with Davis ordering him to return to Richmond to begin his job as military advisor. Taylor would now be designated as an aide. Lee’s trust in Taylor would grow to a point that Taylor would be allowed to sign important documents in Lee’s absence.

1862

At this time, General Joseph E. Johnston was in command of Confederate forces defending Richmond. On May 31, 1862, at the battle of Seven Pines, Johnston would be severely wounded. President Davis would give command of Johnston’s forces to Lee. Taylor would remain on Lee’s staff when he assumed his new position. At this time, Taylor listed two assistant adjutants general, four aides and a military secretary as part of Lee’s staff.

The army that Lee took command of had an effective strength of 80,762 with which to defend Richmond during the Seven Days Battles. Taylor, at twenty-four years of age, would now have the heavy burden of acting as Lee’s alter ego, in matters of administration. Taylor would also be entrusted to deliver important orders to commanders on the battlefield.

On September 7, 1862, at the start of the Antietam campaign, Walter would write to Bettie about working for Lee, “But I never worked so hard to please anyone and with so little effect as with General Lee. He is so unappreciative-Everybody else makes me flattering speeches, but I want to satisfy him. They all say he appreciates my efforts, but I don’t believe it, you know how silly and sensitive I am.”

Taylor’s workload would increase even more, when he was directed to see after the sick and wounded from recent battles and arrange for their transportation to Winchester which had been designated a rendezvous point.

On September 17, the single bloodiest day of the war, would take place at Sharpsburg (Antietam), Maryland. Union General George B. McClellan enjoyed an almost two-to-one advantage in troops, but the Confederates would hold their own. The outcome of the battle was indecisive. In a letter to his sister, Taylor wrote, “Don’t let any of your friends sing ‘My Maryland’-not my Western Maryland anyhow.”

In early November, the Union Army crossed the Potomac back into Virginia. On November 7, McClellan would be replaced by General Ambrose Burnside. On December 13, Burnside would attack Lee’s strong position at Fredericksburg, which became a total disaster for the Federals. Taylor would later write that he had never seen anything like the fighting at Fredericksburg.

1863

Both armies would go into winter quarters after Fredericksburg. The fighting would be resumed on May 1 at Chancellorsville. In a daring move Lee would divide his army and win what was said to be his greatest victory. However, Lee would suffer the devastating loss of Stonewall Jackson. Taylor would praise God for their victory, writing, “Surely the hand of God was on our side, never was it more plainly demonstrated. . .”

In the latter part of June 1863, Lee in, an effort to move the war out of Virginia, began moving his army into Pennsylvania. This would eventually result in the Battle of Gettysburg beginning on July 1, 1863, when the opposing forces would clash west of the city. This would be the beginning of the battle that would be the turning point of the war. The first day’s fighting would be a decisive victory for Lee. The fighting on July 2, which Taylor described as “disjointed” took place on the Union left at the “Round Tops” and at the center of the Union line. Both Confederate assaults were turned back.

On July 3, just before 3 o’ clock, the attack on Cemetery Hill began, with 13,000 Confederates led by George Pickett’s division. A small group of Confederate soldiers, led by General Lewis Armistead, reached the Union line but were soon pushed back. The day was a total loss for Lee. After the war, Taylor would write, “After the assault on the enemies works on the third of July, there was not any serious fighting at Gettysburg. The day passed in comparative quiet.” After Gettysburg, there was no fighting of any consequence for three months. During this lull, Taylor travelled to Richmond to see Bettie and would return with a promise to marry.

1864

Both armies would remain inactive for the most part through January and February. On January 7, 1864, Taylor had been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, assuming more responsibility and was in reality Chief of Staff.

In March of 1864, Ulysses S. Grant was made General in Chief of all Union forces. The Federal army of more than 141,000 was on the north bank of the Rapidan River in Virginia. Lee’s army of 50,000 was on the south bank. On May 5, Grant moved his army to the south side, exactly as Lee had predicted beginning what would be known as the “Overland Campaign.”

The first battle of the campaign was on May 5 in the Wilderness, in which the Federals would incur twice as many casualties as the Confederates in the confused fighting of the thick forest.

Lee now anticipated that Grant would move to Spotsylvania. Taylor would write, “The general thinks there is nothing to indicate an intention on [Grant’s] part to retire, but rather appearances would indicate an intention to move toward Spotsylvania.”

In the ensuing fighting, Taylor would rally troops to drive back Union forces and recover a vital portion of the Confederate line. He would later write to Bettie, “God has indeed been merciful to me thus far.” The fight would continue until the 20th when Grant began moving to the south and east.

At the end of May, forces reached a crossroads northeast of Richmond known as Cold Harbor. On June 3, Grant attacked a well-entrenched Confederate line which turned into a total disaster for the Federals, suffering 7,000 casualties. After the battle, Grant would begin his move toward Petersburg. Lee would do the same on June 18.

1865

The siege of Petersburg would go on for ten months. The siege would devastate the city. On April 1, 1865, General George Pickett’s Confederate force suffered an overwhelming defeat at Five Forks, which essentially caused the Confederates to abandon Petersburg.

As the evacuation of Petersburg was getting under way, Taylor asked Lee if he could travel to Richmond to marry Bettie. Although Lee was surprised to hear this request at this time, he gave his permission. The wedding took place on April 3, after which Taylor returned to the army.

On April 6, the battle of Sayler’s Creek would take place. It was an overwhelming Union victory and the beginning of the end of Lee’s army.

On April 9, Lee would surrender to Grant at the Mclean House in Appomattox. Taylor could not bring himself to attend, not wanting to see the general humiliated. Taylor would accompany Lee to Richmond and after two weeks leave with Bettie on their wedding tour.

After the war

Back home Taylor would go into the hardware business. On April 30, 1870, he would accompany Lee on his visit to Norfolk. In 1877, he would become president of Marine Bank where he would remain for life. Taylor would belong to a number of Southern organizations dedicated to the memory of the Confederacy. Taylor would also become, “an official court of last resort,” concerning information on the Army of Northern Virginia. Taylor would publish two books, “Four Years With General Lee,” and “General Lee, 1861- 865”, both considered as authorities on Lee.

Some of Taylor’s other interests included serving on the Board of Visitors at Virginia Military Institute and the Board of Directors of the Norfolk & Western Railroad. In community affairs, he would promote waterworks, railroad consolidation, and the development of Ocean View, a resort area on the Chesapeake Bay in Norfolk. He was also influential in the beginning of the Building Loan Associations. He was president of the Ocean View and Hotel Company.

For the Jamestown Exposition, taking place in Norfolk in 1907, Taylor would play a major role in raising funds for the project. In the end the exposition was a financial failure.

Taylor would play a role in the development of Hampton Roads to a major trading center and seaport. He would be a member of the Atlantic Deeper Waterways Association and was chairman of the Virginia area.

Of course, it cannot be forgotten during this time that Walter and Bettie were expanding and raising what become a large family. They would have eight children, the last of which was named Robert Edward Lee Taylor. Lee would write to Taylor on April 13, 1868, saying, “Give my congratulations to Mrs. T. Tell her I hope that when her fancy for girls is satisfied (mine is exorbitant) she will begin upon the boys. We must have someone to work for them.”

In the last year of his life, Taylor became seriously ill, being diagnosed with cancer of the lower bowel. Radium treatments would extend his life, but in the end, it would be the cause of his death. On March 1, 1916, with Bettie and the children by his side, Walter would pass away just before midnight. On Thursday, March 2, the afternoon Norfolk newspaper read, General Lee’s Adjutant Dead, the article read, “Colonel Walter H. Taylor, one of Norfolk’s leading citizens and among her most distinguished citizens passed away last night at 11:35 o’clock at his home, 300 West York Street, following several months of failing health and two weeks of extreme illness.”

What do you think of Walter H. Taylor? Let us know below.

Now read William’s first article for the site on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here.

Moving On Up: 5 Amazing Female Businesses in 19th Century America

19th century America was a very male-dominated society, and it was very difficult for women to have independent lives; however, this did not stop some women breaking the mold. Here, Angie Grandstaff looks at the lives of 5 amazing women who had businesses in 19th century America.

Mary Laveau.

Women and work. It has been a long and winding road, but women are making progress. They are getting closer to equal pay and opportunities. If we look back to the 19th century, it was a quite different situation for women. It was a time when women were essentially property and African American women were legally property until 1863. Any money or property that women inherited or possessed was technically her husband’s or father’s. She could not vote and had very few rights.

Education was extremely limited and very few colleges or universities existed that would accept women. There were a small number of women who broke through despite challenges like Elizabeth Blackwell who was the first woman to receive a medical degree in 1849. Lucy Sessions was the first African American woman to graduate college in 1850. These educational opportunities were afforded to wealthy women, usually white, so Lucy Sessions was a rare exception during that time.

Lower class white women, single women and women of color always had to work. It made no difference if it was the 19th century, 18th, or 17th. They made their way as servants, paid companions or prostitutes. Women earned money by sewing, knitting and laundry services. Now there were some instances when a husband or father died, the wife or daughter stepped up to run a business, saloon or farm. This was also rare.

The Industrial Revolution led to the creation of factories, which could mass-produce products. Some of these factories would employ women when they could not find enough men to work. There was a great benefit to employers who employed women.  Female employees earned significantly less than men, which meant more money for the owners. Women were paid half or one third of the salaries paid to men. The conditions in factories were dangerous and the hours were long. Women would work twelve to fourteen hours a day in factories with little light and ventilation.

The goal for most women during the 19th century was surviving. Thriving was not an option and for most women not even something they would even dream of. The focus was how to survive each day, to provide food and shelter for themselves and their children. But there were some women who dared to dream for more. There were women who were able to look beyond surviving the day. They wanted to thrive, to move up. This was not an easy task in a male dominated society. But some women had the strength, courage and vision to look beyond what was and reach for more. Here are 5 women who moved up and became successful businesswomen and entrepreneurs in the 19th century.   

Belle Brezing

Belle was born in 1860 and raised in Lexington, Kentucky. She was an illegitimate child to a woman who had abusive partners and husbands. Her mother worked as a prostitute occasionally to help feed her children. At the age of 12, Belle began a relationship with a man who was 36 years old.  The age of consent was 12 at that time. She married another man at age 15 and had a child but the husband disappeared shortly after. Belle was 15, a mother and facing eviction. She did what many women did at the time to feed herself and child - she became a prostitute. She was determined to do more than survive. She worked for two years, saving money to open her own house.  Her first brothel was a success. Belle was well known in Lexington and had earned quite a reputation. She used this to her advantage. A charge of keeping a bawdy house was brought against her while she owned her first brothel but the governor at the time pardoned her, and the charge was dismissed. She opened a second brothel in the early 1880s.  As Belle’s reputation grew so did her connections and bank account. William M. Singerly, a Philadelphia businessman and newspaper publisher, gave her a loan to open a third brothel. This would be Belle’s finest. She went all out to make it a grand establishment. This brothel was the most popular and most expensive in the area. Her clientele were successful men from the upper circles of society. Belle made her way using her brain, skills and connections to create a successful business that allowed her to thrive. 

Marie Laveau

Marie Laveau was born in New Orleans in either the late 1700s or early 1800s. Her actual birth year is disputed. Marie was a wise woman who knew how to take advantage of her talents and use them to help her thrive wherever she was. Laveau married and had several children; many died during different yellow fever outbreaks in New Orleans. Her husband disappeared and was later declared dead. Marie had to support herself and her children, so she pursued work as a hairdresser. She was successful with African American and white clients. Her African American clients gave her a lot of gossip about the white upper-class families they worked for. New Orleans during the 19th century was a place where Voodoo was a popular and practiced religion. All levels of New Orleans society believed in Voodoo and would consult Voodoo conjurers or priestesses about all areas of their lives. Marie worked with a well-known Voodoo conjurer and began to build her own reputation. The information she gained while working as a hairdresser came in handy when clients sought her out for spiritual consultations. People would come to her for advice on their personal and professional affairs. She was able to prosper financially as a hairdresser and through her work as a Voodoo priestess. She became known as the Voodoo Queen and would regularly hold Voodoo rituals and ceremonies. Marie’s abilities led to her widespread fame and her magical powers were feared by the locals. Her reputation continues to this day with thousands visiting her gravesite in New Orleans.     

Mary Ellen Pleasant

The early life of Mary Ellen Pleasant is unknown. There are accounts that she was a slave but by the 1820s she was in New England working in a shop. It is rumored that Mary Ellen helped slaves escape bondage on the Underground Railroad while in New England. She was a woman who stepped up and stood out even during her early years. Her first husband was a successful carpenter and contractor. He left Mary Ellen a considerable inheritance when he died that allowed her to move out west. She headed to San Francisco when the Gold Rush was starting with her second husband. She used her inheritance to buy properties and invest. She owned boarding houses and laundry services. She would even work as a housekeeper in wealthy homes. All of this was done with one goal - to help her move up. Mary Ellen was savvy. She used her businesses, her work in people’s homes, to gain information about investment opportunities and ultimately influence.  Mary Ellen continued her work as an abolitionist, and she used her wealth and influence to help the lives of African Americans in San Francisco and around the country. Her fame spread and she was known as Mammy Pleasant. She didn’t like this nickname, but she knew how to use her fame and role to increase her wealth and influence.  

Elizabeth Hobbs Keckley

Elizabeth Hobbs Keckley was born a slave around 1821 in Virginia. We know so much about Elizabeth for a couple of reasons - she was a dressmaker to the White House, serving the Lincoln family and she wrote a biography. The fact that she did this during her life shows what a brave woman she was. This biography gives us insight into the lives of enslaved women and the White House during the Lincoln administration. Elizabeth’s mother was a slave to the Burwell family and her father was Colonel Burwell, who owned and raped her mother. Elizabeth helped her mother with her domestic duties as she grew up in the Burwell household. She was sent to live with other members of the Burwell family. Her life during those years was filled with difficulties and abuse. She gave birth to her only child, a son, George, during this time. His father was a white storeowner who raped Elizabeth repeatedly. In 1842, Elizabeth and her son were sent back to Colonel Burwell’s wife Mary. Mary was living with her daughter and son-in-law Hugh Garland. Financial difficulties led the Garland family along with Elizabeth and her mother to move to St. Louis. Elizabeth offered to use her sewing skills to make money for the financially strapped Garlands to keep her mother from being hired out. Elizabeth’s work as a seamstress helped her gain money and connections. She was able to buy her and her son’s freedom in 1855 through loans of friends and money she obtained as a seamstress. By this time, Elizabeth was a successful dressmaker. She moved to Washington, D.C. in 1860 and built up her dressmaking business by serving the wealthy women of the area. This led to an opportunity to make a dress for the First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. She became the First Lady’s dressmaker and confidante.  Elizabeth’s biography was published after the death of President Lincoln. It led to considerable backlash and the end of her relationship with the First Lady. But it did not stop Elizabeth from thriving.       

Mary Ann Magnin

Mary Ann Magnin was born Mary Ann Cohen in Holland in 1850. Her family moved to London, and she married Isaac Magnin there in 1865. Mary Ann and her husband moved to San Francisco in 1875 looking for a better life. She needed to help support her growing family, so she used her talent for sewing as many women did during the 19th century. But Mary Ann had a vision for something grand. She opened a store where she sold her creations. She specialized in baby clothes, women’s lingerie and clothing. She named her store I. Magnin after husband Isaac. It would have gone against the societal conventions of the time to name her business after herself. But her husband took little interest in his wife’s business. Her eight children helped with the business though. The girls were put to work sewing and the boys worked in the store.  Mary Ann had a good head for business and knew that she would make the most profit by catering to the wealthy women of the area. She sold bridal gowns and high fashion clothing from Paris.  Her store was set up to impress her wealthy clientele. Mary Ann was dedicated to her growing business. Eventually, I. Magnin had locations up and down the West Coast. Mary Ann would turn the business over to her sons at the turn of the century but was still involved.   

Conclusion

All these women had many things in common. They knew how to take their skills and talents to move up in a male dominated society. This took brains, bravery and belief. At a time when most women were just looking to survive the day, these women had the fortitude to aim higher. Belle, Marie, Mary Ellen, Elizabeth, and Mary Ann all gained financially and became famous in their time. They stood as examples to the women around them of what could be.     

What do you think of these amazing women? Let us know below.

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

Sources

Lewis, Jone Johnson. "A Brief History of Women in Higher Education." ThoughtCo, Aug. 27, 2020, https://www.thoughtco.com/history-women-higher-ed-4129738.

“Women in the Industrial Workforce.”  Ohio History Central, https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Women_in_the_Industrial_Workforce

“Belle Brezing. A Short Biography of Lexington’s Most Famous Woman”.  University of Kentucky, Special Libraries Research Center, https://libraries.uky.edu/libpage.php?lweb_id=341&llib_id=13

Lewis, Shantrelle P.  “Marie Laveau”.  Britannica, June 11, 2021.  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marie-Laveau

“Marie Laveau”.  History of American Women.  https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2012/07/marie-laveau.html

“Mary Ellen Pleasant”.  National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/people/mary-ellen-pleasant.htm

Hudson, Lynn M. (2003).  The Making of “Mammy Pleasant”: a Black Entrepreneur in 19th Century San Francisco.  University of Illinois Press.  

Mann, Lina.  “From Slavery to the White House: The Extraordinary Life of Elizabeth Keckly”.  The White House Historical Association, Sept. 14, 2020.  https://www.whitehousehistory.org/from-slavery-to-the-white-house-the-extraordinary-life-of-elizabeth-keckly

Kahn, Ava F.  “Mary Ann Cohen Magnin”.  Jewish Women’s Archive.  https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/magnin-mary-ann-cohen

The Modern Greek State: 1827-1862 – A Bad Start

On March 25, 2021, the modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece. This article covers the period from 1827, when Ioannis Capodistrias was appointed governor of the New Greek State, until 1862, the year of the deposition of King Otto I. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

A depiction of King Otto I, leader of Greece from 1832 to 1862.

Introduction

Following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, the Greek world did not dissolve. It remained organized around its church, with its own aristocracy in Constantinople, serving in the Ottoman administration, and in local communities, responsible for maintaining order and collecting taxes. It also had its own armed groups of kleftes and armatoloi, men that had served in foreign armies, experienced sailors and war ready navy.

This organization of the Greeks was utilized before and during the War of Independence initiated in 1821, when an internal crisis of the Empire required Ottoman forces to fight against the ambitious Ali Pasha of Ioannina. Despite the Ottoman crisis, the time was not favorable. The turbulent period after the French Revolution and the horror of the Napoleonic Wars that followed, made the European powers hostile against any movement that could reignite the previous turmoil. 

Nevertheless, astonishing Greek victories during the first two years of the war and Ottoman atrocities against civilians caused a wave of support for the Greeks among many Europeans. These Philhellenes collected and disposed money and other resources for the success of the war or even came to Greece to fight side by side with the Greeks. In their eyes the rebels were children of antiquities’ Greats, fighting to free themselves from the Ottoman yoke. (Kakouri, 2019) (Kostis, 2018)

The bad start begins

One would expect that the Greeks would try to build on this favorable turn of events. They did not. After 1823, the leading groups of the war (repatriates, local elites and chieftains) engaged in a civil war, fighting for privileges and power in a state that did not even exist yet. At the same time, the sultan agreed with Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt to send the latter’s son Ibrahim to suppress the revolt in Greece. 

The Greeks, preoccupied with their own rivalries, had very little to oppose Ibrahim. The turn of events though is another lesson in the primacy of the dynamics of the international system over the forces at the disposal of one of its lesser members. Conflicting interests between Russia and Great Britain regarding the integrity of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the Protocol of London, co-signed by France, granting autonomy to the Greeks.

The critical issues of the definition of the borders of the autonomous state and obtaining resources for its organization would be tackled by Ioannis Capodistrias, the first governor of the modern Greek State. He was elected by the third National Assembly on April 6, 1827 for a term of seven years. (Evaggelidis T. , 1996) (Divani, 2010)

Ioannis Capodistrias

Ioannis Antonios Capodistrias was born in Corfu in 1776 to a noble family of the island and was a distinguished diplomat at the service of Russia. He arrived in Greece in January 1828 knowing that he had to act fast. The European Powers were proceeding with their plans and French forces were to drive Ibrahim out of the Peloponnese. If Greece wanted to have a say on the definition of its borders, Greek forces had to pursue gains in Central Greece also. Furthermore, law and order had to be restored and basic state functions needed to be established so that Greece could claim (some) self-determination. 

The new Governor worked hard and in a short time managed to reorganize the army, so achieving significant territorial gains in Central Greece. (Malesis, 2018 ) At the same time Great Britain opted for an independent Greece to work as a counterbalance to the Russians who emerged victorious out of a new Russo – Ottoman war (April 1828 to September 1829). Indeed, with another protocol signed on February 3, 1830 Russia, France and Great Britain recognized the independence of the modern Greek State.  

Capodistrias did not only sow the seeds for a national army and navy or deal with foreign policy. In a very short time, he managed to eliminate piracy and improve public safety. He created a national bank and issued national currency, the phoenix. He introduced the farming of maize and potato, products unknown to Greeks at the time, and established an Agricultural School. He also established a Military Academy, monitorial schools and orphanages. He oversaw the imposition of taxes and tariffs. Justice was to be administered by State Courts.

Capodistrias’ was aware of the power games between local elites and anticipated their reaction. In order to restrict their freedom of movement, he succeeded in suspending the force of the constitution voted during the 3rd National Assembly in 1827. The reorganization of the army also aimed at breaking the bonds between the soldiers and local chieftains. At the same time, although Capodistrias made sure that entrusted persons, like his brothers, assumed key positions in the state mechanism, he also appointed some of the elite members to government bodies, like the Senate, or as officers in the army in order to gain their support. 

The Greek notables were seeing ulterior motives in most of the governor’s actions though. He wanted to cut the bonds between the soldiers and their leaders (reorganization of the army). He wanted to keep the people uneducated (Capodistrias considered that, during the first years of the New State, it was more important for the Greeks to learn to read and write and established monitorial schools, but not universities). And finally, he wanted to become a lifelong leader of Greece (suspension of the constitution, appointment of family members to key government positions). Capodistrias’ position was further undermined by the Protocol of 1830, commanding that the independent Greek State would be ruled by a hereditary monarchy. Thus, his rule was temporary. 

 The opposition did not restrain itself to verbal accusations against the government. In fact, it undertook surprisingly harsh actions that were against the interests of Greece - and not only its government. The most striking perhaps was the seizure of principal ships of the Greek fleet by admiral Andreas Miaoulis, a hero of the War of Independence. In order to limit Capodistrias’ abilities for naval operations, in July 1831 Miaoulis blew up the ships bought with the limited resources of the State to guarantee its security. 

Another revolt took place at Mani, in southern Peloponnese, where Petrobey Mavromichalis, another hero of the war was a key figure. Relations between the Mavromichalis clan and Capodistrias were tense because of the attempts to create a centralized state. Mavromichalis was arrested by Capodistrias, found guilty for high treason and put in to jail. The imprisonment of Petrobey brought Konstantinos and Georgios Mavromichalis, the son of Petrobey, to Nafplio, where they were put under police supervision. Nevertheless, they managed to bring their guards to their side and on the morning of September 27, 1831 they assassinated Capodistrias at the entrance of St. Spyridon Church, where he was going to attend Sunday mass.

After the Governor’s assassination the country fell into chaos. The struggle for power intensified as the politico-military factions were antagonizing to better position themselves in view of the arrival of Otto, the second son of King Ludwig of Bavaria, who was appointed by the Great Powers as King of Greece. (Evaggelidis T. , 1894)

King Otto I

What exactly was the state that the Bavarians were called to rule? At the eve of its independence, Greece’s area was 47,500 square kilometers, which is 35% of today’s area. Its population was about 800,000. Out of 30,000,000 hectares of arable land, only 500,000 were cultivated. With the exception of the island of Naxos’ emery, the rest of the country’s mineral wealth (marble, lignite, porphyry, silvery lead etc.) was also not exploited. 

After ten years of war, Greece was also lacking the necessary infrastructure to support its economy (roads, bridges, railways etc.). The merchant fleet was strong but transporting the goods to and from the ports was expensive.  It goes without saying that the country’s industry was also non-existent. However, small investments would suffice to boost sectors like the textile industry, where spinners could be substituted with imported machines.   

Thus, the continuation of Capodistrias’ work was necessary for the country’s potential to be realized. The administration’s mechanisms should set a stable framework to boost domestic and attract foreign investments (organization of the banking system, rationalization of taxation, creation of land registry, restoration of order etc.). The Bavarians, upon arriving in Greece, had a loan of 60,000,000 francs at their disposal, which could help this effort. Their undertakings had poor results though. (About, 2018)    

The struggle between the previous regime and the local elites was known to the Bavarians. King Otto, therefore, distrusted the Greeks. When he arrived, he brought with him his own army of 3,500 German mercenaries and filled the state mechanisms with foreign officials.      

Otto relied on the army for the consolidation of his sovereignty. During the first decade of his reign, military spending made up 50% of total public expenditure. With another 26% going to the repayment of the public debt there was not much left for social policy, e.g., education, or public works to boost the economy. In fact, in 1843 Greece was no longer able to serve the public debt and strict fiscal controls were imposed by the lenders. (Kostis, 2018)

With the army and state mechanism full of foreigners, the Greek chieftains turned to banditry for a living. They often enjoyed the protection of the politicians who used them to embarrass the government on a local scale, portraying their actions as acts of resistance against a repressive monarchy. This kind of political patronage extended to officers of the regular army who were underprivileged compared to their foreign colleagues.

The result was the first major intervention of the army in politics. The Revolution of September 3, 1843 was initiated by units located in Athens. The movement did not aim to overthrow the monarch. The participating military and political elites demanded the removal of the Bavarians from the state institutions and a constitution limiting royal power. Otto had no option but to comply. (Malesis, 2018 )    

The years of constitutional monarchy did not change much though. The Greek elites gained better access to state institutions (Parliament and Senate) and the monarch used the same ‘clientele’ approach against them. All elections after 1844 were won by the government that staged them, an indication that constitutional rights were violated by the parliament majority (e.g., by annulling rivals’ votes) for the promotion of their own interest. There were incidents where state sponsored violence was used by the monarch to promote his preferred candidates, in which case, the opposition often resorted to banditry to ensure their political survival.

To defuse the situation internal problems needed to be ‘exported’ somehow. This is the time of the Great Idea (Megali Idea), when the Greek State portrayed itself as the champion of all still enslaved Greeks with the mission to free them by conquering the territories remaining under Ottoman occupation. Ironically, at the same time, during the meetings of the National Assembly for the adoption of the constitution of 1844, special care was taken to expel and exclude heterocthons (Greeks from abroad settled in the New State) from government positions as their education and distance from local elites made them hard to manipulate. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )

Thus, the King supported uprisings of the Greeks in Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia during the Crimean War (1853 – 1856). As a result, France and England, now allies of the Ottoman Empire against Russia, identified Greece with the latter and occupied Piraeus and Athens in April 1854. The Greek insurgents eventually withdrew from the Ottoman territories and the humiliating occupation ended in February 1857. The three political parties of the time, carrying the names English, French and Russian, from the corresponding power they relied on for support, were dissolved after 1854.

The opposition against Otto reached its culmination point in 1862. In October, mainly low-ranking non-commissioned officers of the army supported the uprising that led to the overthrow of Otto. The king was touring the country at the time to gather support, as he was aware of the opposition’s movements. He never made it back to the capital. After consulting with the ambassadors of the Great Powers, he was persuaded to leave the country. Doubts were cast regarding the people’s participation in the uprisings of 1843 and 1862 though. Indeed, it would not be surprising if the common people, also systematically abstaining from the national elections, were preoccupied with a much more important issue at that time. Namely, their survival. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )   

Conclusion

Bad use of available resources, very moderate attempts to develop the country’s economy, oligarchy conflicts, distanced citizens and ‘clientelism’, overweening ambitions and foreign intervention. These are the main characteristics that undermined Greece’s potential during the War of Independence and the first thirty years of the modern Greek State. Their effects remain to this day.

What do you think of the early years of the modern Greek State? Let us know below.

Now read part 2 on the Modern Greek State - 1863-1897, bankruptcy and defeat here.

References

About, Edmond. Otto’s Greece. Athens: Metaixmio (in Greek), 2018.

Divani, Lena. The Territorial Completion of Greece (1830-1947), An Attempt at Local Lore.  Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek), 2010.

Evaggelidis, Triffon. History of Otto, King of Greece (1832-1862). Athens: Aristidis Galanos (in Greek), 1894.

Evaggelidis, Trifon. Ioannis Capodistrias, The history of the Governor of Greece. Athens: Livanis (in Greek), 1996.

Kakouri, Athina. 1821 The Beginning that Was Not Completed, When and How the State that We Live Today was Created. Athens: Patakis (in Greek), 2019.

Kostis, Kostas. History’s Spoiled Children, The Formation of the Modern Greek State. London : Hurst & Company, 2018.

Malesis, Dimitris. “… let the Revolution Begin”, Great Idea & the Army in 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek), 2018.

What was Britain’s Victorian-era New Poor Law?

The New Poor Law was introduced to Victorian-era Britain in 1834. It replaced the long-standing Old Poor Law as a major piece of social legislation aimed at the poorer people in the country. Here, Chloe Dickinson tells us about the law.

A depiction of poor people coming to a workhouse for food. Source: Wellcome Trust, L0006802. Available here.

The Victorian era seems like a distant memory when we think about the past, but, in fact, it is our close ancestors who lived through the turmoil of the reign of Queen Victoria. Indeed, two key aspects of the life of a pauper were begging and life in the workhouse. In images of the time, the wealthy were shown as cowering away from the paupers who begged, selling the idea that there was a deep divide between the wealthy and the poor. Conversely, in workhouses there were dividing walls to keep inmates separate and large outside walls to prevent life on the outside from creeping in. Cruelty, turmoil, and instability are three words that spring to mind when historians think about the New Poor Law; cruelty because of the deprivation and despair it pushed people into and turmoil and instability because of the strong Anti-Poor Law Movement. So, what was the New Poor Law? How did it come to be? What where the key components? Read on to find out.

The Sampson Kempthorne workhouse design for 300 paupers.

What was the New Poor Law?

To put it plainly, the New Poor Law (Poor Law Amendment Act) is the most important piece of social legislation enacted in Britain. Inaugurated in 1834, the New Poor Law was a radical attempt to overhaul the entire system of poor relief and touched almost every aspect of life and labor from the moment it was implemented.[1] Not only were life and labor affected, but wages, housing, settlement, medicine, and education were all influenced in one way or another. No two counties throughout England and Wales experienced the New Poor Laws components the same. For example, the agricultural South, which had previously used outdoor relief to a great extent felt the cruelty of the New Poor Law more than the industrial North, where there was a high turnover of employment. 

The New Poor Laws key principles were: 

·      The reorganization of local parishes into large Unions 

·      Well-regulated workhouses within each Union

·      A new central body was to be set up to monitor the New Poor Law (Poor Law Commission 1834-1847, then rebranded as the Poor Law Board) 

·      The setting up of Boards of Guardians in each Union and paid officials to administer and grant relief

Something that really brings the New Poor Law to life, is a snippet from a well-loved and famous book – A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (1843): 

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”[2]

The fact that the ‘gentleman’ states that he wishes that the Union workhouses were not operating displays a sense of contempt for the practice. But, on the other hand, we have Scrooge, who is all for the workhouses. Here, Dickens has cleverly integrated both sides of the New Poor Law debate at the time of its operation. The way in which Dickens illuminates the concerns and support of the New Poor Law really highlights the instability of political and social opinion at the time. 

How did it come to be?

The Old Poor Law, established in 1601, was in place for over two centuries. However, by the time the nineteenth century came, poor rates (a local tax to fund poor relief) were exponentially high, there was tension between social classes and many people of wealth saw there to be abuses of the relief system. Thus, in 1832, a Royal Commission was set up to fully investigate the Old Poor Law and its ‘abuses’ and make recommendations for its amendment. The Poor Law Commissioners, along with their Assistant Commissioners sought out evidence throughout the country on how the Old Poor Law operated. However, it is widely accepted by historians that the Commissioners actually sought out evidence to fit their already preconceived ideas. This can be seen through the fact that the questionnaires that they sent out to towns and parishes mainly went to southern rural parishes. These rural parishes saw high levels of outdoor relief, particularly in the form of child allowances, and the topping up of wages to able-bodied workers. These components of the Old Poor Law, according to the Commissioners, warranted the term abuse. They, and many others, conceived the idea that the giving of outdoor relief to able-bodied paupers to be unjust and an abuse of the relief system in place. Ideally, they wanted able-bodied paupers to be relieved inside the workhouse, where they would ‘earn’ their relief. In 1834, two years after the Commission was set up, the famous Report of the Commissioners was published. Its thousands of pages consisted of the ‘evidence’ that they had collected and included the proposal of the New Poor Law.

What where the key components?

One of the biggest administrative changes that came from the New Poor Laws establishment was the reorganization of parishes into Poor Law Unions. This new formation of boundaries within counties was essential to the running of the New Poor Law, due to the fact that there was to be a well-regulated workhouse within each Union. Each Union was to have their own set of overseers, named the Board of Guardians. These Boards were to be made up of paid officials who would then maintain the workhouses, grant relief and administer relief to those in need. In terms of workhouses, they were made to keep paupers separated in terms of gender and age – this included separating children from their parents.[3] This was based on the Malthusian and Benthamite principles that were popular at the time, particularly amongst those in government. In fact, these ideas had a great influence on the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and the Report they published.

What do you think about the New Poor Law? Should it have been implemented? Let us know below.

[1] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 1. 

[2] Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (USA: Delmarva Publications, 2015 Reprint), p. 7.

[3] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), P. 38. 

Pope Leo XIII: The Pope who Drank Cocaine Wine

There has been a long and varied line of Popes throughout history. But have you heard about the Pope who drank cocaine wine? Sam Kelly explains.

Mariani wine as drank by Pope Leo XIII.

To people who are not devout Catholics, the history of the Popes might seem dull and uninteresting. But it is filled with bizarre and fascinating characters, starting with the first pope, St. Peter, who was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy of dying in the same way as Jesus. And who can forget colorful characters like Pope Stephen VI, who dug up his predecessor’s corpse, put it on trial, found it guilty, hacked off its fingers, and threw it in the Tiber River? Or Pope John XII, who murdered several people in cold blood, gambled with church offerings, and was killed by a man who found him in bed with his wife? Or Pope Urban VI, who complained he didn’t hear enough screaming when the cardinals who conspired against him were being tortured? Or Pope Alexander VI of the notorious Borgia crime family, who bribed his way into the job, engaged in a litany of corruption including nepotism, murder and orgies, went on to father nine illegitimate children, and whose corpse was left unattended for so long that it became so bloated and swollen it couldn’t fit into its coffin?

There have been plenty of good Popes, too, and one of these was Pope Leo XIII. One of the longest-serving Popes, he remained the head of the Catholic Church until he died at age 93. He was a forward-thinking intellectual whose goal was to reinvigorate the Church, at a time when many Europeans felt it had become irrelevant to their lives because it was stuck in the past. Leo sought to emphasize that religion was compatible with modern life. He spoke passionately about workers having a right to fair wages, safe working conditions, and the importance of labor unions. He was a skilled international diplomat who succeeded in improving relations with a host of countries including Russia, Germany, France and the United States, and he wholeheartedly embraced science and technology. He was the first Pope whose voice was recorded on audio, and the first to be filmed by a prototype movie camera (which he blessed while it was filming him).  

The Most Productive Pope of All Time

But what he is best known for is how insanely productive he was. He wrote more encyclicals than any other Pope in history. An encyclical is a letter from the Pope to all of the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, but more importantly, it is the way the Pope announces his official view on important topics. Encyclicals are deep, thoughtful and expansive, which means they tend to be lengthy. Since the beginning of time, there have been 300 papal encyclicals, and Leo XIII wrote 88 of them. That’s right, this one man wrote 30% of all encyclicals. He wrote on topics big and small – huge concepts such as liberty, marriage and immigration, but he also wrote 11 encyclicals focused wholly on the subject of rosaries. Scholars have always been amazed by his prodigious output, and bear in mind he was an extremely old man, serving as Pope well into his 80s and 90s. Yet he remained a tireless workhorse. Where did he find the energy?

It was probably the cocaine.

Popes have always loved wine. Forward-thinker that he was, Leo XIII brought something new to the mix. He drank wine laced with cocaine. This was not some home-brewed mix he created himself; it was an actual product you could buy in stores – a magical elixir known as Vin Mariani. For Leo, its primary appeal was the energy it gave him. It had a powerful kick that kept the Pope perpetually in the mood to philosophize and pontificate, which is probably what allowed him to write those 88 encyclicals in 25 years.

Leo absolutely loved the stuff and wasn’t shy about saying so. He proclaimed to everyone that he carried the salubrious libation with him at all times in a personal hip flask – “to fortify himself when prayer was insufficient.” Yes, he actually said those words. This being the 19th century, cocaine was neither illegal nor stigmatized. It was viewed with wonder and awe by the European medical establishment. Vin Mariani was seen not only as a health tonic, but as a prestigious and sophisticated beverage on par with a fine vintage wine.  

Many Famous Drinkers of Cocaine Wine

Many famous people were Vin Mariani drinkers. Thomas Edison said it helped him stay awake longer. Ulysses S. Grant drank it while writing his memoirs. Emile Zola wrote testimonials that were reprinted in Vin Mariani advertisements. Even Queen Victoria was a big fan.

Pope Leo loved Mariani-brand cocaine wine so much that he decided he must meet and properly honor the man who invented it. He summoned Angelo Mariani to Rome and presented him with an official Vatican gold medal to congratulate him for his remarkable achievement in the field of cocaine vintnery.

At this point, you are probably thinking I have gone too far. A pope who loved cocaine is a funny idea, and maybe there are some dubious rumors scattered around the Internet that Pope Leo enjoyed the taste of cocaine wine, but there’s no actual proof he did so, right? And he certainly didn’t hand out a gold medal to his drug dealer, did he? After all, it’s not like he appeared in a full-page advertisement touting the benefits of cocaine wine…

No, I’m lying, he totally did.

Angelo Mariani printed up posters advertising the gold medal he received from the Pope. The poster features a huge smiling image of Pope Leo, and next to his picture there is text which reads: “His Holiness the Pope writes that he has fully appreciated the beneficial effects of this Tonic Wine, and has forwarded to Mr. Mariani as a token of his gratitude a gold medal bearing his august effigy.” That’s right, the Pope himself knowingly appeared in a full-page advertisement for cocaine wine.  

Things were simpler back then. 

Now read Sam’s article on Queen Victoria and the First Opium War here.

References

Drew Kann, “Eight of the Worst Popes in Church History,” CNN.com, April 15, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/europe/catholic-church-most-controversial-popes/index.html

Ishaan Tharoor, “7 Wicked Popes, and the Terrible Things They Did,” The Washington Post, September 24, 2015,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/24/7-wicked-popes-and-the-terrible-things-they-did/

“Leo XIII,” Britannica, updated February 26, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leo-XIII

James Hamblin, “Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda,” The Atlantic, January 31, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-out-of-soda/272694/

Wyatt Redd, “Vin Mariani – The Cocaine-Laced Wine Loved by Popes, Thomas Edison, and Ulysses S. Grant,”Allthatsinteresting.com, January 31, 2018, https://allthatsinteresting.com/vin-mariani

Queen Victoria and the First Opium War

Queen Victoria ascended to the throne of the British Empire in 1837. Shortly after, she was at war with China in the First Opium War (1839-1842). Here, Sam Kelly explains the background to the war, the war itself, and the curious drug-taking habits of the Queen and mid-nineteenth century Britain.

Lin Zexu and the destruction of opium.

Who is the most notorious drug kingpin of all time? Most people would say Pablo Escobar, or perhaps El Chapo. But they would be wrong. More than a hundred years before these men were born, there was a powerful woman who controlled a drug empire so vast and so unimaginably lucrative that it made Escobar and El Chapo look like low-level street dealers. Unlike modern drug lords, she didn’t have to live in a remote jungle compound surrounded by thugs toting machine guns because no one was coming after her. She didn’t have to conceal her ill-gotten gains from the tax collectors because the proceeds from her drug operation were funding the entire country. And she didn’t have to worry about being gunned down in the street or locked away in prison because every single person who was empowered to punish drug crimes was already on her payroll. Her name was Queen Victoria and she was running the British Empire.

Her meteoric rise as a drug lord began innocently enough. It happened because British people loved drinking tea. The average London household was spending 5% of its annual income on Chinese tea, which was not a problem as long as Britain could trade something to China in exchange for all the tea. Unfortunately, Britain didn’t have much that the Chinese wanted. China saw British manufactured goods as inferior and unnecessary. Having nothing to trade, Britain was forced to pay for tea with the currency of the realm, which was silver. Britain was almost literally pouring silver into China’s imperial treasury and racking up massive trade deficits in the process. China was getting rich, and Britain grew resentful. The British Empire was determined to find something, anything, that Chinese people craved.

They found opium. It ticked off all the boxes. It grew natively in India, which the British Empire controlled. It was an amazingly effective painkiller, which meant the Chinese were willing to pay outrageously high prices for it. And most importantly, it was obscenely addictive. People who used opium got hooked almost immediately, which allowed Britain to increase the price as demand grew.

Thanks to opium, the trade imbalance was reversed almost overnight. China was forced to return all of the silver the British had spent on tea, plus a great deal more. Now it was China, not Britain, that was racking up ruinous trade deficits. And millions of Chinese citizens were being transformed into hopeless opium addicts.

China Fights Back

China tried to put a stop to it. It declared opium illegal and banned it throughout the country. However, the British Empire wasn’t ready to give up its lucrative drug operation. If they could not sell opium legally, they would hire drug mules and third parties, pay off corrupt officials, or just plain smuggle it in, whatever it took to keep the money coming in. They even offered free samples of opium to Chinese citizens in a craven attempt to get as many people addicted as possible. From their point of view, it wasn’t personal; it was business, and business was extremely good. Opium sales were now responsible for some 15% - 20% of the British Empire’s annual revenue.  

The Chinese Emperor was determined to wipe out the opium scourge by any means necessary. His viceroy, a man named Lin Zexu, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria, explaining what she was doing was immoral. Opium was illegal in England and punished with the utmost strictness and severity, yet she was flooding China with opium and deliberately getting people hooked. The Queen never saw the letter and when she did not respond to his letter, Lin Wexu decided it was time to take aggressive action. He seized a massive shipment of British opium and ordered his soldiers to trample it under their feet and then dump it into the South China Sea. This time, the Queen responded.

Something you need to understand: Queen Victoria was only 18 years old when she ascended to the throne in 1837. She was new in the job – and under the impression that, as queen, she could do whatever she wanted. So when the Chinese government dumped 2.5 million pounds of British opium into the sea, she reacted like any all-powerful young imperial leader would. She declared war on China in 1839.

It is known as the First Opium War (1839-1842). There was a Second Opium War a few years later (1856-60). British forces laid waste to the Chinese army and slaughtered tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. The Emperor had no choice but to capitulate and sign a one-sided peace treaty that surrendered Hong Kong to the British, opened additional ports for British opium to flood into the country, and granted British citizens who were living in China immunity to Chinese laws. It was an unprecedented blow to the nation’s sovereignty. The esteemed empire of China had been defeated and humbled by a young ruler. China was now perceived as weak by the rest of world, making it ripe for invasion and subjugation by Western powers, Russia, and Japan. And so began China’s tragic “century of humiliation.”  

Queen Victoria Was a Drug User

But why? Why did Queen Victoria choose to bring ruin and shame upon one of the world’s most ancient civilizations simply to preserve her illegal drug smuggling operation? Partly it was due to being given too much power at too young of an age. And partly it was due to the nationalistic impulse to regard British wealth and happiness as more important than the lives of Asian peoples halfway around the world. But it certainly didn’t help matters that she was on drugs. Yes, that is correct. Her Majesty the Queen was not only selling drugs, she was using them.

She used opium every day. Unlike the Chinese citizens who became addicted, she did not smoke it in a pipe. In Britain, the more fashionable way to ingest opium was to drink it in the form of laudanum, comprised of 90% alcohol and 10% opium. Laudanum was available over the counter without a prescription. Doctors recommended it to mothers for their teething children. Queen Victoria drank a glass every night to help her sleep.

Her other drug of choice was cocaine. It was not illegal at the time. Cocaine was brand new on the scene and regarded as a wonder drug. European explorers had witnessed indigenous peoples living on the slopes of the Andes Mountains, who chewed coca leaves regularly and had amazing stamina and were strong and hardy, despite being physically small. European scientists reached the conclusion the same active ingredient from coca leaves would have even greater salutary effects on Europeans who, in their not-so-scientific and racist opinion, were inherently healthier, stronger and more intelligent than their South American counterparts.

Queen Victoria was a particular fan of cocaine chewing gum. It came highly recommended for soothing aches and pains from tooth and gum disease, plus it supplied the chewer with boundless amounts of energy, and for reasons that were unexplainable at the time, it tremendously boosted one’s feeling of self-confidence – just the ticket for a young inexperienced Queen who desired to project a strong assertive image. It was extremely popular with British elites. In fact, Victoria is reported to have shared cocaine chewing gum with a young Winston Churchill. Back in those days, no one knew about the downside of cocaine use. Doctors and scientists genuinely believed it was good for you.

Which brings me to the final twist in this story: Because she believed cocaine was good for you, Queen Victoria refused to sell it to the Chinese. She was happy to sell them all of the opium in the world, despite its devastating effects, but they could not touch her cocaine.

What do you think of Queen Victoria and the First Opium War? Let us know below.

References

Stephen R. Platt, Imperial Twilight: The Opium War and the End of China’s Last Golden Age. Knopf 2018.

Tom de Castella, “100 Years of the War on Drugs,” BBC News Magazine, January 24, 2012, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-16681673

Matt Schiavenza, “How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese History,” The Atlantic, October 25, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/10/how-humiliation-drove-modern-chinese-history/280878/

Ellen Castelow, “Opium in Victorian Britain,” Historic UK, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/

“Did This Beloved Queen of Britain Use Drugs,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/did-this-beloved-queen-of-britain-use-drugs/

“The Opium War and Foreign Encroachment,” Asia for Educators, Columbia University, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm

19th Century War Tourism: After the 1815 Battle of Waterloo

Some people visit the battlefields of the world as tourists; however, such war tourism has a long history. Here, Erica Olson explains how battlefield tourism took place after the 1815 Battle of Waterloo – and how items for sale even included soldiers’ teeth.

Waterloo by Denis Dighton. British 10th Hussars of Vivian's Brigade attacking mixed French troops.

Many history lovers are familiar with Napoleon's Hundred Days leading up to Waterloo and the events of the battle itself, but what happened after is less well known. The battlefield was far from the hallowed mass grave we may expect. An astonishing number of people from various nations, especially England, treated Waterloo as a tourist attraction, treading over the bodies of dead soldiers.

English writer John Scott (1784-1821), traveling only three months after Waterloo, was in a unique position to comment upon the chaotic movement of people throughout Europe at the end of the Napoleonic wars. His 1815 account, Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo, gives us a glimpse into the booming new tourism industry.

According to Scott, English travel to Europe exploded immediately after Waterloo. When asked to sign the guest list for a hotel in Bruges, Scott saw “a host of my countryfolks [sic], of each sex, and every age, profession, residence, and condition, all on the swarm for Brussels.” Some had listed the more precise destination, Field of battle, near Waterloo. Scott was excited to see a list full of familiar English middle-class names such as Johnson, Roberts, Davis, and Jackson, names which “will remain in the archives of the police at Bruges, as the memorials of a most extraordinary time.” What Scott observed was quite a new phenomenon, one that arose after the end of Napoleon’s campaigns: war tourism, on a massive scale.

While tourists recorded “picking objects up” at Waterloo, they probably bought most of their souvenirs from locals, who would have stripped the battlefield of everything valuable within hours [2]. Pistols, swords, and musket balls were especially popular. One notable tourist, Sir Walter Scott, brought back a plethora of such items.

“Waterloo ivory”

A more sinister trade emerged as well. By the early 1800s, Europeans were consuming massive amounts of sugar courtesy of the transatlantic slave trade [3]. Many people had rotting or missing teeth, leading them to seek out individual replacements or full sets of dentures. Historically, dentures were made of elephant, walrus, or hippopotamus ivory, but ivory rotted even more quickly than human teeth. So after Waterloo, scavengers set out for the battlefield armed with pliers, ready to pry out teeth from the mouths of dead soldiers.

Some of the newly arrived English tourists got in on the game. Back in England, the trade in teeth was lucrative, with dentists boasting that they sold genuine “Waterloo ivory”, guaranteed to have come from young, healthy soldiers [4]. Waterloo was the mother lode: more teeth than anyone knew what to do with, just like the mountains of bones, which were ground into the soil as fertilizer – some of the bones were even transported across the Channel to increase the bounty of English fields.

The author of Paris Revisited, John Scott, was surely aware of these morbid activities, as he walked the battlefield himself, yet they didn't dampen his enthusiasm for war tourism. He proudly visited the towns of Flanders, “the great prize-fighting stage of Europe.” As he passed through Bruges, Liege, Malines, Juliers, Tournay, Mons, and Jemappe, he thought of “ famous campaigns, …able military maneuvers, great battles, important treaties, alliances, discords, and devastations” [1]. Death on a grand scale didn't bother him in the least. In his fantasy of war, everyone was heroic and battles belonged in glorious history books.

Scott depicts the mood in Brussels after Waterloo as one of great merriment, where the wounded soldiers coming in for treatment and the tourists coming to see the battlefield “seemed all animated by the influence of a vast holiday.” The joy of being an English war tourist lay in seeing soldiers, just recently come from “the heart of the battle, black with gun-powder and sweat…bleeding, groaning, and dying,” now “out in a pleasurable promenade.” Now that the terror of Napoleon was gone, the British could rejoice. Scott reports that when he went to buy a hat, a British doctor standing nearby told him, “Hats are of no use now but to throw up in the air when we shout!” The influx of tourists were free to view battle as a spectator sport as they turned their eyes away from death and despair. What better place than Waterloo to celebrate?

What do you think of battlefield tourism? Let us know below.

Bibliography

1. Scott, John. Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1816.

2. Plotz, Sophie. “Waterloo: Battlefield Tourism.” National Museums Scotland. Last modified September 20, 2015. https://blog.nms.ac.uk/2015/09/20/waterloo-battlefield-tourism/.

3. Kerley, Paul. “The dentures made from the teeth of dead soldiers at Waterloo.” BBC News Magazine. Last modified June 15, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33085031

4. “Waterloo Teeth.” Age of Revolution. Accessed February 11, 2021. https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/waterloo-teeth-1815-2/