Spain in the New World: Francisco de Miranda’s Travels in America and Europe

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Venezuelan military leader and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda. Here he looks at Francisco de Miranda’s travels across America and Europe, including his time in revolutionary France.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, and Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here.

A painting of a young Francisco de Miranda. By Georges Rouget.

Having played a small part in the triumph of the American colonies in their revolution, Miranda wanted to see the society that the Americans were building. It was a natural choice for him. He already seemed to be developing his ideas for the independence of the Western Hemisphere from Europe. A society built upon liberal, enlightenment principles fit into his worldview. Being a highly literate man, Miranda would keep a diary during his travels. This record of his impressions and observations of the early United States is invaluable to any researcher and is one of Miranda’s best historical legacies.

On June 10, 1783, Miranda landed at New Berne, North Carolina. He would travel throughout the United States, seeking to meet not only the biggest players in the revolutionary saga but also the common folk as well. He was impressed that the lower-class whites and the wealthy would mix at common events (he did not mention what the views of the slaves at the events were). From the south, Miranda would journey north to visit the American capital Philadelphia. While in the city, he would insist on staying at the Indian Queen Inn, the same inn where Jefferson supposedly wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Armed with letters of introduction from those he met in the south, Miranda would put his natural charm and wit to work to ingratiate himself into Philadelphia high society. Since word of his status with the Spanish government had not caught up with him yet, he was wined and dined by members of the American government as well as foreign ambassadors and prominent citizens looking for Spanish contacts. Encountering George Washington, Miranda would say that he could not make a firm judgment on the man, due to his “taciturn” disposition. Lafayette, Miranda would find to be overrated. Leaving Philadelphia, Miranda would go to New York and meet two people who would influence his later life: Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton. Paine will become important later. Hamilton and Miranda were very much alike. Both men were bursting with energy and ideas. Both men believed that they had a destiny to lead their respective peoples. Both were highly intelligent and literate. Until Hamilton’s death, Miranda would continue to think of Hamilton as a friend.

After touring upstate New York and New England, Miranda’s past was beginning to catch up to him. Word from Spain had begun to filter into the United States. Instead of being an innocent victim of slander that Miranda had passed himself off as, he was in fact a deserter who was sentenced to lose his commission, pay a fine, and face exile. Miranda could no longer pass himself off as a lieutenant colonel of the Spanish Army. This change of status proved to be liberating in a way. When Miranda arrived in Boston, he used his letters of introduction to meet General Henry Knox, the future first Secretary of War under the Constitution. Miranda, Knox, Samuel Adams, and other men of the Boston merchant community would become intimate friends and form a discussion group. Over brandy, Miranda would spellbind these men with his ideas for the liberation of South America from the Spanish. Once Miranda saw all he thought he could see, as well as met all who were worth meeting, it was time to leave. While Miranda wanted to see the great experiment in action, he knew that at the present time, the United States was utterly incapable of furthering his plans for an independent South America. For this, he had to go to Europe.

Miranda Tours Europe

The Grand Tour was a trip around Europe that many upper-class people took as something like a right of passage after their schooling had been completed. It gave the young person a sense of worldliness and provided exposure to the cosmopolitan nature of 18th and 19th-century European upper-class society. Miranda, being a colonial, had not had the chance to go on the Grand Tour. He would rectify his missed chance. After reaching London, he would set out for the Netherlands and see the Continent.

As a man with command of many languages and being extremely well read, Miranda was able to ingratiate himself with the high society of each country he went to. His good looks and high wit were also helpful. He seemingly met everyone from Frederick the Great to Catherine the Great. He toured seemingly every city and historical location from Stockholm to Constantinople. Composers, philosophers, writers, and princes were all enthralled by him. He even allegedly had an affair with Catherine the Great, although this was never confirmed.

These contacts were not merely social for Miranda. It was a learning experience, yes, but he was also searching for support for his cause, the independence of Spanish America. Needing money, he would take financial support from them, then commonly called “patronage.” When he would inevitably (in his mind) strike for that independence, he wanted a network of supporters in Europe with their hands on the levers of power and money to give him their support when the time came. He was not simply playing the part of the international playboy gallivanting across the courts of Europe. There was a political dimension to this as well.

During his travels, Miranda would have to keep one eye always open. The Spanish government was still plotting to have him arrested. Through the Spanish intelligence network in Europe run through their national embassies and consulates, the Spanish would constantly attempt to arrest Miranda and bring him back to Spain. They knew what Miranda was doing, undermining their rule in the New World. In the end, the Spanish would fail to capture him due to a series of fortunate escapes as well as the influence of powerful friends. To protect Miranda, Catherine the Great would even make him a member of the Russian diplomatic service, thereby extending him diplomatic immunity.

For five years, Miranda would travel Europe. His travels would leave an indelible mark on those he met. In 1789, he traveled to France. Seeing the country, he despised what he saw as the backwardness of the peasantry. He wrote about visiting Versailles and feeling humiliated as he was forced to kneel upon seeing King Louis XVI. Miranda was not a fan of the French governmental system, and seeing it firsthand only made him despise it even more. He would leave France and return to London to begin lobbying the British government to support him.

Revolutionary Times

Miranda had a great deal of admiration for the British people and the balanced constitution of Great Britain. Although Miranda would remain a committed republican throughout his life, he would always recognize the inherent genius of the British governing system. Much of his admiration of the system itself would be tempered by seeing that system operate up close in his dealings with British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger.

Miranda would bombard Pitt with plan after plan and scheme after scheme to liberate South America from Spanish rule. All he would need, he would tell Pitt, was money…and men…and arms…and ships, etc. Miranda was the ideas man, the brains of the operation. All of the material support would have to come from elsewhere, and where better than the richest government on the planet, the British. Pitt would always keep Miranda close enough to use him. Occasionally throwing out hope to Miranda would keep him around just in case war with Spain would break out and he might in some way be useful. For over a year, Miranda would act out the same song and dance with the British government until he could bear it no longer. He decided he would go back to France.

Why go back to France, a country Miranda held in little esteem? Because, during his time in London, the French Revolution had broken out. The people had limited the powers of the King and were overthrowing society through the National Convention. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, authored by his friend Thomas Paine, captivated him. Here was a revolution, freeing the people and ushering in the glorious millennium of human freedom.

Arriving in 1791, Miranda would find France at war with almost all of its neighbors. The powers of Europe found the prospect of a revolutionary and trending radical republican France upending hundreds of years of tradition, as well as the balance of power on the continent, terrifying. The revolutionaries needed anyone with military experience to help secure the revolution from foreign powers whose stated goal was to overthrow the Convention and restore the powers of the king. Miranda had military experience and was made a general and ordered to take command of troops as part of the Army of the North.

With the Allies coming over the Rhine and looking to take Paris, the French needed victory. The Battle of Valmy, while being little more than an artillery duel, led to an Allied retreat. This victory was blown up in republican propaganda and was the victory that saved the Revolution. All the men involved became heroes and were declared military geniuses, and this included Miranda.

With his military reputation sky-high, Miranda was given command of a wing of the Army of the North. He was ordered by the commander, General Dumouriez, to invade the Austrian Netherlands (roughly modern Belgium) and the Netherlands. He would take Antwerp and exact a £300,000 “loan” on the city. With Dumouriez in Paris, Miranda was ordered to occupy Maastricht by the National Convention. An Allied counterattack would lead to a rout on the part of Miranda’s army. Dumouriez would return to try to salvage the situation, but it was beyond saving. Miranda had suffered a humiliating defeat. Dumouriez, however, believed the situation could be turned around. He would reorganize his forces and counterattack. At the Battle of Neerwinden, Miranda was in command of the left wing of the army. He was ordered by Dumouriez to attack the Austrian right wing. The Austrian commander, the Prince of Coburg, reinforced his position and the battle went back and forth for several hours. When the cavalry of Archduke Charles was sent in to press the attacks home, Miranda’s command was broken, and the men began to flee. Despite all of his best efforts, Miranda was unable to rally his men. Dumouriez, learning of the shattering of his left wing, ordered the army to retreat.

The Radicals Turn on Miranda

For Miranda, the defeat at Neerwinden was very ill-timed. The Revolution was taking a dark turn. The siege mentality of the National Convention was turning into political paranoia as the different factions were turning on each other. The faction he was associated with, the Girondins, was in decline, while their rivals, the Jacobins, were ascendant. In April 1793, Miranda was arrested. His old commander, Dumouriez, recognizing the cut-throat nature of revolutionary politics, denounced Miranda and stated that the blame for the defeat in the north could be laid almost entirely in Miranda’s lap. Miranda was accused of criminal incompetence and cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Then the situation became even more confused. Dumouriez, seeing the way the Revolution was turning, decided to try to overthrow the Convention and restore a previously discarded constitution. Counting on the loyalty of his troops to himself personally, Dumouriez negotiated with the Austrians to stop their advance in order to free up the Army of the North to march on Paris and suppress the Convention. As it turned out, the troops were not loyal to Dumouriez personally, and he was forced to flee across enemy lines and defect to the Coalition. Back in Paris, the first reaction amongst the radicals was that of course, Miranda had supported his old commander Dumouriez in his treason. This flew in the face of all logic since it was Dumouriez who was trying to destroy Miranda’s reputation. Despite this, the paranoia of the Jacobins, and their leader Robespierre, knew no bounds. Miranda would be brought to trial for both sabotaging Dumouriez’s chances at victory as well as allegedly supporting the same man’s treason.

On April 8, 1793, Miranda was interrogated by the Convention’s War Committee. The questioning of Miranda and his fitness for command as well as his actions gave him the opportunity to address the committee and state his case. All of the learning, literary training, and military studies that Miranda had focused on his entire life led to this moment. Against all odds, he was able to defend himself so well before the War Committee that he was able to escape the guillotine. He showed the logic of his actions, proved the accusations of cowardice to be false, and attacked the judgment of Dumouriez. He even commented on Dumouriez’s negative opinions of the members of the Convention, just for good measure.

In May 1793, Miranda appeared before a Revolutionary Criminal Tribunal, which again investigated the charges against him. Witness after witness would appear before the tribunal to support Miranda. Even Thomas Paine would take the stand in Miranda’s defense. The defense attorney, Chaveau-Lagarde, would point out to the jury all that Miranda had sacrificed for the freedom of the French people. He showed that Miranda was a man with an international reputation for integrity and was known as a lover of mankind and a freedom fighter. The letters of introduction from men such as George Washington, Joseph Priestly, and Benjamin Franklin were introduced to prove Miranda’s devotion to republicanism. Although the process would take too long in the judgment of Miranda, he was acquitted on all charges and released. The jury had unanimously returned a verdict of not guilty.

In Revolutionary France, no one was truly safe. In July 1793, the most radical leaders of the revolution began to consolidate their power in the lead-up to the Great Terror. On July 5, Miranda was arrested again, this time at the order of the Committee of Public Safety. The Jacobins were determined to destroy their Girondin opponents, and Miranda was one of the most prominent. This time, imprisonment would not be the same. Whereas before, Miranda had been incarcerated for only a few weeks, this time, he would sit in prison for much longer. Even after the fall of the Committee of Public Safety and the defeat of the Jacobins, Miranda was still not released. Only after a year and a half, in January 1795, would Miranda finally be let out of his dungeon.

During his time in prison, Miranda had begun to lose faith in the Revolution. He would begin to write and speak to his contacts about how the Revolution had lost its initial ideals. He opposed “spreading the revolution” through military conquest and expressed his skepticism of the French government. He would write a pamphlet calling for the reformation of government to create more checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and tyranny. Given Miranda’s international connections and reputation, it could not escape the French government that he had to be taken seriously. On October 21, 1795, the Convention ordered Miranda to be arrested yet again. Although this order would be rescinded, the French government was growing very tired of Miranda.

Returning to His Roots

In 1797, the French government was prepared to deport Miranda to Guiana. He knew his time in France was up. Before he would leave, however, he would take the opportunity that being around other revolutionary exiles afforded and held what was later called the “Paris Convention.” This meeting between Miranda, José del Pozo y Sucre, and Manuel de Salas drafted an Act of Paris which set out points that would guide the South American independence movements. Independence and friendship with Great Britain and the United States, repayment to Britain for services rendered to the revolution, commercial concessions to Britain, and recognition of Miranda’s leading role in the military aspect of the revolution. These men knew that the South Americans would have a hard time freeing themselves. They needed British support.

With the Act of Paris complete, Miranda prepared to leave France. He came to the country and was filled with disgust for the absolutist French. Seeing the Revolution, Miranda became a convert to the French cause and put his life on the line to defend it. The repayment he received was accusations and imprisonment. Coming full circle, Miranda would leave France bitter against both the country and its people. He had always favored British and American models, but his experiences had only reinforced his early views.

In January 1798, Miranda would leave France and arrive in Britain. Now, at 47 years old, having seen much of the Western world, met many of its leading lights, and had his star rise, fall, rise, fall, and rise again, Miranda would now turn back to the primary thought driving his life, the freedom of Spanish America from colonial rule. No more diversions, it would now be all-encompassing.

What do you think of Francisco de Miranda’s time in America and Europe? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

How Ice Cream Led to Disease in 19th Century London

In the summer heat, having an ice cream is a popular tasty and refreshing treat, and our love for ice cream, whether it’s to enjoy at the seaside or home, is not so different from the intrigue that the Victorians had with the sweet treat. Ice cream was a phenomenon that at first confused many people when served by London street vendors, especially on how to eat such a product and the coldness of the ice cream also caused some alarm as one man described ice cream as a toothache inside their mouth. This article will explore how ice cream became a concern causing transmissions of disease in the late nineteenth century and how the edible wafer cone saved lives on London’s streets.

Amy Chandler explains.

An early 19th century depiction of French noblewomen eating ice cream.

The use of ‘ice cream’ was not strictly groundbreaking in the nineteenth century, as forms of sweet iced products were available as early as the seventeenth century. During the Georgian period, many ice-cream parlours were established and sold a variety of flavours such as “chocolate, pistachio, pineapple, jasmine, artichoke, candied pumpkin, pine nuts, pear and chestnuts”.(1) These parlours were aimed at the wealthy upper and middle classes who had the finances to purchase and frequent these establishments. Ice cream became more widespread and accessible with Agnes Marshall’s recipe book entitled The book of ices, published in 1885. Ice cream became largely accessible through the second half of the nineteenth century with the boom in the ice trade, which made access and prices affordable for the general public.

Ice cream and the London streets

Ice cream soon became a popular item on the streets of Victorian London, with many street vendors selling a wide variety of flavours costing one penny or half a penny, giving the name ‘penny licks’. The glass containers were small, and customers would lick the bowls clean instead of using a spoon. These glass containers were small and could not hold much ice cream and therefore would only take a few mouthfuls before the glass was empty. The penny lick was a small glass bowl with a thick glass stem that gave the illusion that the bowl was deep and filled with much more ice cream than in reality. For some, it may have been disappointing when they realised how little dessert they were given while the ice cream vendor earned more money. The literary phrase ‘penny for your thoughts’ denotes the idea of discussing what is on one’s mind or offering to discuss a troubling subject. In the nineteenth century, the average Victorian would get more than thoughts for a penny when buying these penny lick ice creams as these glass vessels were carriers of disease. These penny licks were also on the thoughts of medical professionals who were outspoken on the unsanitary nature of selling ice cream that caused the transmission of diseases. These bowls were licked clean by the customer and ‘rinsed’ in a bowl of stagnant water full of sewage from the River Thames, and then the vendor would reuse the bowl for the next customer. This process meant that while the glass was sustainable and reusable, it was becoming the cause of disease from the customer’s use to the water used to ‘clean’ the penny lick.

Henry Mayhew, an investigative journalist, interviewed the labourers and working class in a variety of occupations to gain a record and overall image of the working class in the 1840 to 1860s. In one interview, Mayhew spoke to an ice cream vendor where he explained the “many difficulties attending the introduction of ices into street traffic” as the customers had a “confused notion” on how the “ices was to be swallowed”.(2) Due to the confusing way of enjoying an ice cream, the popularity was gradual, and some “enterprising sellers purchased stale ices from the confectioners” to sell on and make a profit.(3) Therefore, even when ice cream caused a stir and confusion, some entrepreneurs saw a way to make a profit. Mayhew’s interview also emphasised the lack of knowledge and skill vendors had with dealing and making ice cream, and some vendors “could only supply water” when offering ice cream”.(4) One vendor was sceptical whether ice cream would take off in the streets because he’d “seen people splutter when they’ve tasted them for the first time” and described the feeling of eating ice cream for the first time as it “got among the teeth and make you feel as if you got tooth-ached all over”.(5) The general public’s reaction to ice cream was mixed with confusion and delight but was slow to take off, but over time became popular with the recipe accessibility and affordable prices.

Ice cream and the spread of disease

Many medical professionals were sceptical about the selling of ice cream due to its risk of disease transmission, for example, an article written by Dr Andrew Wilson published in the Illustrated London News in 1898, highlighted concern for the general public’s health. Wilson notes that “in the interest of public health, we enact laws for the prosecution of the grocer who sells adulterated foods”, but there are no measures in place to control the “power of spreading disease broadcast which the unlicensed and irresponsible ice cream man possess[es]”.(6) Wilson continued to list the reasons why the ice cream vendors should be controlled including that these vendors lived in the “poorest and dirtiest parts of our cities”, ingredients such as milk were “kept in premises the reverse of sanitary” and finally stating that the glasses used to serve ice cream were “licked by every child” and are the “media for conveying disease of serious nature”.(7)

Furthermore, an article published in the Bristol Times and Mirror in 1894 suggested the health risks that ice cream posed, but suggested it was not because of the way it was consumed and sold but the way the product was made and stored. The press suggested that “when flour, eggs, milk, sugar and flavourings essences are stored in foul and close, evil-smelling sleeping rooms, the innocuousness of the delicious compound is open to grave suspicion”. The foul smells of the room suggest the lack of cleanliness that the product was manufactured in, which causes the health risk. The press continued to highlight several deaths resulting in the consumption of ice cream, suggesting that the way ice cream was made, through the way “eggs are pierced at each end and then blown by the mouth” to empty the contents, contributed to the deaths. The intact eggshell was sold to shooting galleries for upper-class gentlemen to practice shooting.(8) This article in the newspaper pleads that “all street vendors shall be registered” and the standard and purity of ice cream to be assured as the “poor British public goes on quietly submitting to be[ing] poisoned”.(9) This statement emphasises the lack of knowledge and understanding the general public had about the transmission of disease and how their everyday lives were impacting their health without their knowledge.

During a Parliamentary debate regarding the sale of ice cream in the streets and how the consumption of ice cream caused deaths, several samples of water and ice cream were taken from a vendor for investigation. Dr Klein, in 1894, examined these samples and concluded that the samples had traces of sewage matter and other organisms that contributed to illness and death. Due to this revelation, attention was brought to Parliament to the “danger of mouth-to-mouth infection to children sucking ices successively out of the same glass”, while also suggesting whether the measures enforced by the Public Health Acts and the Sale of Food and Drugs acts are inefficient in the “control or prohibit the sale of poisonous compounds such as theses ices”.(10) The investigation concluded that the current public health acts passed to improve sanitary conditions were not sufficient enough to prevent further illness from occurring. While the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875 prohibited the sale of products such as food and drugs that were not of the “proper nature, substance, and quality”.(11)  However, this act was not extending far enough to regulate how food was served.

Furthermore, a solution was needed to resolve the growing number of cholera and tuberculosis outbreaks and other communicable diseases relating to the sale of penny licks. The solution was an edible cone made of a wafer, which is the familiar serving of ice cream we have now and the penny lick became illegal in 1926. Agnes Marshall’s recipe book included an edible cone recipe but it was not until 1902 that Antonio Valvona patented a machine for making wafer cones.(12)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the accessibility of ice cream to the general public on the Victorian streets of London became a curiosity but also a danger as the general public was unaware that they were getting a lot more than they paid for in the form of disease. Italian influence and culture of ice cream making from Italian immigrants after the 1848 revolutions in Europe introduced flavours and processes that were not seen before in Britain. The Italian influence created a solution that reduced cholera outbreaks and improved the sanitary conditions amongst ice cream vendors.

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

Now read Amy’s article on the Great Stench in 19th century London here.

Bibliography

Bristol Times and Mirror, ‘Notes of the day’, Bristol Times and Mirror (12 Oct 1894).

HC Deb 23 June 1898, vol 59, cols 1223.

Marks, T. ‘Ice cream: the inside scoop’, 9 July 2020, The British Museum blog < https://blog.britishmuseum.org/ice-cream-the-inside-scoop/ >.

Mayhew, H. London labour and the London poor: Volume 1. (London, Griffin, Bohn, and Company, 1861).

Moss, R. ‘The complete history of ice cream cones’, 13 May 2020, Serious Eats < https://www.seriouseats.com/ice-cream-cone-history >.

Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, s6.

Wilson, A. ‘Science Jottings’, Illustrated London News (16 July 1898).

References

1 T.Marks, ‘Ice cream: the inside scoop’, 9 July 2020, The British Museum blog < https://blog.britishmuseum.org/ice-cream-the-inside-scoop/ >[accessed 20 June  2022].

2 H. Mayhew. London labour and the London poor: Volume 1. (London, Griffin, Bohn, and Company, 1861),p.207.

3 Ibid.,p.207.

4 Ibid.,p.207.

5 Ibid.,p.207.

6 A. Wilson, ‘Science Jottings’, Illustrated London News (16 July 1898).

7 Ibid.

8 Bristol Times and Mirror, ‘Notes of the day’, Bristol Times and Mirror (12 Oct 1894).

9 Ibid.

10 HC Deb 23 June 1898, vol 59, cols 1223.

11 Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875, s6.

12 R. Moss, ‘The complete history of ice cream cones’, 13 May 2020, Serious Eats < https://www.seriouseats.com/ice-cream-cone-history >[accessed 21 June 2022].

Shaka Zulu and Great Man History

Shaka kaSenzangakhona, or Shaka Zulu, came to rule a sizeable part of southeast Africa in the first half of the 19th century. But was he an example of Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory of History? Cale Gressman considers this question.

A depiction of King Shaka Zulu in the 1820s. He is holding an assegai and heavy shield.

Historical Perspectives: How We Interpret the Past

How do historians craft history? There is no simple or easy way to answer this question, as there is a near-infinite number of ways to interpret events in our past. However, there are a multitude of different historical perspectives that can be incredibly useful in framing how a historian views the past. One of these comes from the 19th-century historian Thomas Carlyle. Carlyle is famous (and infamous) for a number of his ideas, however, he is probably most famous for his theory of history. This is the Great Man Theory of History. This theory of history holds that most of history can be explained by the influence of great men or heroes as he terms them. They, with their cunning, superior intelligence, etc… shape the world around them to move history forward.

Needless to say, this theory of history has largely been discredited, with historians instead focusing on other theories less focused on individual rulers and thinkers, but instead on groups and systems as a whole. This seems reasonable. It does not matter how mighty or brilliant a ruler is, if the system they work in does not work or the people under them refuse to comply, then that’s all she wrote. However, there are some individuals in history that give one pause, because they seem to be the archetype for the Great Man Theory. One of these is Shaka Zulu.

Shaka Zulu: a Biography

Born in 1787, Shaka Zulu rose from obscurity to become the overlord of his little piece of the world. This little piece of the world was the southeast of Africa, which at this point in time was composed of hundreds of different African kingdoms, clans, and tribes. Born into the rather insignificant Zulu kingdom, Shaka would soon make the name Zulu synonymous with power and resistance to colonialism.

Shaka’s real name was Sigidi kaSenzangakhona, so it should be obvious why we know him as Shaka. He was born of an apparently illicit love affair between his father Senzangakhona, chief of the Zulu, and his mother Nandi, a daughter of a Langeni chief. This affair went over like a lead balloon and after a brief sojourn in Senzangakhon’s court, Nandi was driven out. She, fortunately, found refuge with her people, the Langeni. However, Shaka would later be given to the Mthethwa chiefdom and became part of the court of their chief Dingiswayo, who welcomed this foreign boy into his court.

Shaka would make a name for himself on the battlefield in his early adulthood when he was drafted into the military of the Mthethwa tribe. Herein he discovered his latent talent for war and tactics and quickly rose up the ranks of the Mthethwa to become one of Dingiswayo’s commanders. After the death of his father, Shaka would receive permission and aid from Dingiswayo to seize the Zulu throne from his senior brother Sigujana. Shaka would achieve this goal and even carve up some more surrounding territory to add to the Zulu domain, including that of the Langeni. While his skill as a commander was proven, it still remained that Shaka was still the vassal of Dingiswayo.

This all changed around 1818 when the Mthethwa and the Ndwandwe went to war. Herein, Dingiswayo was captured by the Ndwandwe’s leader Zwide and later killed. According to some accounts, this might have been a bid on Shaka’s part to obtain the Mthethwa throne, but this is unconfirmed. What did occur is that Shaka immediately assumed control of the collapsing Mthethwa state after the death of their chief. Desiring to be rid of yet another rival, Zwide and his forces that same year invaded Shaka’s realm, but were subsequently routed, and the Ndwandwe was ultimately absorbed into the Zulu kingdom. There were no major rivals left in the area, so Shaka did what I guess a Shaka does and continued to conquer.

The result of these conquests is that the Zulu would now rule most of Natal and KwaZulu. With no major rivals, Shaka and his apparently unstoppable army would demand the submission of all of the surrounding chiefdoms. If they agreed, they were allowed to maintain local administrative control. If they did not, they were either annihilated wholesale or driven off their land. This resulted in a series of mass migrations from the region that resulted in perhaps as many as one million deaths, as entire people groups were forced from their homes and collided with other groups. The effects of these migrations were felt as far as the Zambezi River in modern-day Zimbabwe.

The Zulu Kingdom under Shaka would quickly morph into a Spartan-like military state. All young men would reside in military settlements completely separate from women until such a time as they had earned the right to marry. Unmarried women would receive much the same treatment. The cattle that the Kingdom’s economy was reliant upon were largely centralized by Shaka and his subordinates. In 1824, the British of the Cape Colony in the western part of South Africa would come into contact with the Zulu. Sensing an opportunity for trade and the potential of more and greater weapons Shaka allowed them to build Port Natal to conduct said trade.

Shaka was a cruel leader. Killing at the slightest provocation, his actions did not engender him to those around him. It is no wonder then that in 1828, a mere ten years after taking the Zulu throne, he would be assassinated by his half-brothers and bodyguard. The system that Shaka had built was a rigid militaristic society so formidable that it would in later years go head to head with the might of the British Empire. While they would ultimately lose this engagement, the Zulu and their founder would go down in history as a symbol of African military prowess and strength.

An Example of Great Man History?

The case of Shaka Zulu does give one pause. Here is a relative nobody (yes he was technically nobility, but that did not exactly benefit him due to his mixed blood and illegitimacy) who managed to create a military system that defeated the British for a time, who were at the height of their colonial power. Here was a guy so ruthless that he managed to transform the entirety of southeast Africa, displacing and eliminating entire people groups, all without the intervention of colonial powers. This set of events is not a common event. Yes, you will have great leaders within every group and population, but rarely one that is so transformative and deadly.

The reason for the mention of the lack of colonial intervention is that throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the power balance globally was affected dramatically by the presence of either Europeans themselves or by their technology, particularly weapons. New Zealand exploded in violence during the so-called Musket Wars (1807-37) between the various groups of Maori. As the name would belie, the introduction of firearms was a big component. The Comanche stampeded through most of West Texas during the late 18th century creating what some have referred to as Comanchura or the Comanche Empire. This was the result of them adopting the horse and becoming what could be quite reasonably argued the best light cavalrymen in the world at the time. Horses were not indigenous to the Americas.

Shaka did not rely on colonial intervention or really any of their technology, unlike the other examples listed. He modified existing weapons, tactics, and social structures to meet his ends. He was the revolution; revolution did not come to him. Perhaps it is time to reexamine the Great Man Theory of History. Not entirely, but it at least should not be sold down the river wholesale. Individuals can make a significant impact on the world around them. Perhaps it is better to try to look at history in such a way as to measure the impact individuals, no matter their status, have on history and the world around them.

What do you think of Shaka Zulu? Let us know below.

Sources

Cockshut , A.O.J. “Thomas Carlyle.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1 Feb. 2022, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Carlyle.

“The Great Man Theory of Leadership Explained.” Villanovau.com, Villanova University , 10 Sept. 2021, https://www.villanovau.com/resources/leadership/great-man-theory/#:~:text=The%20Great%20Man%20Theory%20was,biographies%20belonging%20to%20great%20men.

“The Musket Wars.” New Zealand History, Ministry of Culture and Heritage , 11 Sept. 2015, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/new-zealands-19th-century-wars/the-musket-wars.

Ricks, Thomas E. “'The Comanche Empire': A Book That Changed How I Understand Our History.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 18 July 2016, https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/the-comanche-empire-a-book-that-changed-how-i-understand-our-history-2/.

“Shaka Zulu.” South African History Online, SAHO , 9 Nov. 2020, https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/shaka-zulu.

Major General Gordon and the Pursuit of Empire in North Africa

Charles George Gordon, known for exhibiting extraordinary courage and fearlessness in battle, would die a hero’s death in 1885. At the time of his death, he had gained international fame for his service in the British army, ability to inspire others, and his staunch commitment to his faith. Here Marvin McCrary looks at Gordon’s role after China, notably in Sudan in the 1870s and 1880s.

If you missed it, read part one on Major General Gordon in China here.

A depiction of Major General Gordon in Khartoum.

Upon his return to England the question in the minds of everyone was what was next for Charles George Gordon. Gordon was posted to Gravesend in October 1865, as the Commandant of Engineers in charge of renovating the Lower Thames in Gravesend and Tilbury. Shortly after his arrival, Gordon received news that his father was dying. Taking a leave of absence, Gordon hurried to father's bedside and nursed him until he died. This personal tragedy, coupled with the death of one of his brothers, would have a profound effect on Gordon and the development of his stance towards religion. What had been at one time a more superficial approach to faith, Gordon became resolute in his determination to emulate Christian charity in thought as well as deed, and he returned to Gravesend a different person. Gordon's official duties occupied him from morning until the afternoon, after which he threw himself into charity. He visited the sick and dying, gave money to the poor, and taught at the local school. The street urchins were special objects of his concern–he bought them clothes, fed them, nursed them when they were ill, and found them meaningful employment around town. He went on to found, and partly finance, a charitable society aimed at alleviating the plight of itinerant workers. Given his official status in Gravesend, Gordon had many opportunities to enjoy a busy social life, but it would appear that he chose to shun these in favour of what he saw as a higher calling. Reflecting on his time in Gravesend, Gordon would later record in his journal that the years he spent there were the best of his life.

To Africa

Unfortunately, such idyllic times were not meant to last, as circumstances beyond his control would find Gordon having to take up yet another task in the far reaches of the British Empire. In 1882, British forces occupied Egypt to safeguard their investment in the Suez Canal; the canal considerably shortened the trade routes to India and the East. The British set up a colonial administration under Khedive, similar to a viceroy, Isma’il Pasha. The Khedive was known for his lavish spending, as well as his desire to turn Egypt into an extension of Europe. This caused outrage among large numbers of Egyptians, who blanched under what they saw as unwarranted foreign interference in Egypt’s affairs. In occupying Egypt, this led to British involvement in neighboring Sudan, which had been occupied in turn by the Egyptians. Cut off from the civilized world, Sudan was a poverty-stricken land of disease, slavery, and corruption. Although Egypt was committed to the abolition of slavery, the revenue which slavery generated was too tempting for officials to ignore.

In 1871, Gordon had been promoted to full colonel and became the British commissioner on the Danube Commission. In the hopes of diverting foreign eyes, Isma’il  asked for the British to appoint Gordon to the position of governor of Equatoria province in 1873, which was then comprised much of what is today South Sudan and northern Uganda. When offered the same salary as the previous governor, Gordon surprised the Khedive when he asked for a more modest salary of £2,000 per annum. Gordon swept like a whirlwind throughout the province, weeding out corruption, combating injustice, and exposing oppression, ultimately upsetting the slave trade. Through his efforts to ban slavery, Gordon had come into conflict with an Egyptian official. Having thoroughly exhausted himself, Gordon informed the Khedive that he did not wish to return to the Sudan, and he chose instead to return to Europe. The departure of Gordon left a power vacuum the likes of which his successor did not have the capacity to fill, as the officials settled old scores upon the inhabitants of the towns and villages along the Nile. The people withered under the yoke of corruption, providing kindling for the fires of rebellion.

Uprising

In 1882, the year of the British invasion of Egypt, the Mahdi, a messianic Muslim leader, dedicated to a Jihad, or holy war, to cleanse Islam of its impurities, had united various groupings in the Sudan and threatened the whole basis of the Egyptian overlordship there. As more and more Egyptian forces fell back upon Khartoum, at the junction of the Blue and White Niles, the British government came under considerable pressure to solve the crisis. The rise of Mohammed Ahmed, a former boat-builder’s apprentice, who believed himself to be the long-awaited Mahdi, was born of the latent fanaticism within Islam. Like Hong Xiuquan a few decades earlier, Ahmed was able to take advantage of the poverty and hopelessness amongst the people, striking a cord in the minds of those who would listen to him, driving them to action and self-sacrifice with the promise of salvation.

In London, the uprising became a matter of intense political debate, but there was no clear-cut solution as to the best course of action. On one side, there were those who advocated for the abandonment of the Sudan and the withdrawal of British forces from Egypt. The opposition argued against a withdrawal from Egypt, as they saw Sudan as a strategic safeguard to allow Britain to protect her interests along the Canal. Ultimately, the government needed someone to conduct an orderly withdrawal of British and Egyptian troops down the Nile. In Britain, everyone except the Government saw Gordon, a major general by this time, as the natural choice to go to the Sudan as Governor General. Amongst Gordon’s supporters were army officers, evangelical clergymen, Egyptologists, philanthropists and businessmen. Even Queen Victoria and her cousin, the Duke of Cambridge, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, counted themselves among Gordon's ardent admirers. As John Waller writes, Prime Minister William Gladstone was reluctant to call upon Gordon, but in the hopes of placating the public clamor, Gladstone asked Evelyn Baring, British Agent-General in Egypt, whether Gordon would be of any use. Baring had a few days earlier recommended to the British Government that the Sudan be evacuated; any usefulness that Gordon might have would clearly be linked to the supervision of such a withdrawal.

Sudan

At the beginning of 1884, Gordon had no interest in the Sudan, having been approached by King Leopold of Belgium to serve as governor of the Congo. Gordon was prepared to accept and resign his pension, but was later convinced otherwise. Gordon’s good friend, Adjutant General, Sir Garnet Wolseley, was instrumental in changing Gordon’s mind. Wolseley was opposed the Gladstone’s policy in Sudan, and after meeting with Wolseley at the War Office, Gordon left convinced that he had to go to Sudan. Hoping to disentangle himself from the agreement he had made with Leopold, Gordon would subsequently go to Brussels to settle the issue, which left the latter furious. Gordon set out for and arrived in Khartoum in February of 1884 with orders to begin an evacuation of troops. Baring was known to have had his reservations about Gordon, considering his reputation for unpredictability and an inclination for disregarding the rules. Since his earliest days as a student, Gordon possessed an impetuous, headstrong nature which often drew him into conflict with authority figures.

Gordon may have considered his prior experience in help to suppress the Taiping Rebellion beneficial in his struggle against the Mahdi. Coupled with his belief that he was in Sudan as an instrument of God’s will, led to Gordon taking the initiative. Gordon did not obey his orders, because, his journals reveal, he believed that a shortage of suitable boats made evacuation too dangerous. It could be argued that the agreed upon instructions were both overly optimistic and woefully vague. Gordon would perhaps have been better served if he had made withdrawal his foremost concern, but his attempts to somehow reconstruct alternative Sudanese rule as an obstacle to the Mahdi, meant that he delayed withdrawal, and also precipitated a determined and full-scale Mahdist assault upon Khartoum. Altogether, he seemed to confirm the misgivings of those who did not have much faith in him to begin with. Indeed, it seemed as though the government which had appointed him with much trepidation now became exasperated with Gordon’s perceived self-righteousness.

When the Mahdi besieged Gordon in Khartoum in 1884, the government was implored by everyone, including Queen Victoria, to send a relief mission. They refused until October 1884. Gladstone, the prime minister, was furious at Gordon for, apparently, disobeying his orders. The relief column reached Khartoum 2 days after it fell to the Mahdi in late January of 1885. How exactly General Gordon met his end, no one is quite sure. Some think he was killed along with the rest of the garrison; others think he was captured and executed in the camp of the Mahdi. Official records suggest he was captured and a ransom was asked for, and when it was refused, Gordon was killed. In either case, the death of Gordon was met with public mourning. Whether he was desirous of a martyr’s death or not, Gordon’s heroic death ironically provided him with the stardom he had so actively tried to evade during his lifetime. Statues were erected and schools named after him. Copies of his journals, personal reminiscences about him, and biographies sold in their millions right up until the First World War.

What do you think of Major General Gordon’s life? Let us know below.

Now you can read Marvin’s series on the origins of the Mormon Battalion here.

Author’s Note: When I originally outlined what I would like to write about Gordon, I did not intend to examine his life after China, but throughout my research, I found his story to be compelling. It was his personality and character which I found most interesting, and it is hoped that this will serve as inspiration for future study about a great hero. For a more comprehensive and thorough examination, I highly recommend John Waller’s biography.

Sources

Barthrop, Micheal. War on the Nile: Britain, Egypt and the Sudan 1882-1898. New York: Sterling Publishing, 1986.

James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1997.

Waller, John H. Gordon of Khartoum: The Saga of a Victorian Hero. New York: Atheneum, 1988.

Major General Gordon in China and the Taiping Rebellion

Charles George Gordon, known for exhibiting extraordinary courage and fearlessness in battle, would die a hero’s death in 1885. At the time of his death, he had gained international fame for his service in the British army, ability to inspire others, and his staunch commitment to his faith. When Gordon volunteered to serve in China, he was faced with an insurrection the likes of which remains one of the bloodiest rebellions in world history. Marvin McCrary explains.

Gordon shortly after the Crimean War.

Charles Gordon was born in Woolwich, a district in southeast London, England, in 1833. He was the son of a Royal Artillery officer — one of a fairly large brood of children — but the family was closely-knit, and very happy. The young Gordon was especially fond of his sister Emily, but her death at age 16, was a great blow to him. In 1848, Gordon entered the Royal Military Academy (in Woolwich) as a Gentleman Cadet, intending to follow his father into the Royal Artillery. However, a lack of discipline prevented this, and he graduated in 1852 as a second lieutenant in the Corps of Royal Engineers. The corps considered themselves the professional elite of the British army, and were posted all over the world to build bridges, railways, quays for ships, design buildings, and undertook siege work. This would prove to be the ideal environment for Gordon, who had shown himself to be brave, impetuous and restless while at the academy. It was agreed that the role of the military engineer would make good use of these traits.

Crimea

In 1853 Gordon was converted to faith in Christ through the efforts of a fellow officer who would become one of his closest friends. His faith would become an integral part of his character throughout the rest of his life. That same year, the Crimean War broke out. The conflict pitted Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia against Russia, whose ruler sought to expand Russian influence over the Middle East and the eastern Mediterranean at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Gordon managed to persuade the War Office to give him a post to the Crimea, despite his parents' insistence that it would be best for him to remain in England. Although aware of the dangers, Gordon knew that engineers were badly needed at the front, where the ill-equipped soldiers were making due in shockingly primitive circumstances. Adequate shelter was nonexistent and supply services hopelessly snarled. Gordon was put in charge of collecting and shipping wooden huts, which he would erect in the Crimea.

According to author John H. Waller, Gordon was in his element in the Crimea. His first task involved building huts which would serve as winter quarters for Allied troops. Gordon took the hardships of winter in his stead. He compared the British soldiers to children who, unlike the French, did not look after themselves. Officers froze to death in the night, while others were smothered by the smoke from the charcoal fires which had been started for warmth. There was palpable need, Gordon recognized, to put the huts up in a hurry. Once he completed this task, he managed to get the dangerous and unenviable job of mapping the Russian trenches along the frontlines. Many young, promising officers were killed during this operation. In a pensive letter written in 1883, Gordon would later reflect upon his surprise and disappoint  that he was spared an early death. One could say that Gordon’s remarks carried with them the sobriety of one who had become wearied by the unrelenting din of war.

China

Gordon’s fierce determination would see him decorated for bravery by the French, and mentioned in dispatches by the British. However, at the conclusion of the conflict, Gordon found himself restless. Gordon would write in his journal that he found the gentility of English society unsuitable to a man of action such as himself. The British press covered the conflicts faced by the British Empire thoughout Asia, and the Sepoy Rebellion in India was on the front page. The crisis faced by the Qing in China, was secondary, although increasing anxiety from the government in regards to British trade interests would soon warrant direct intervention. Gordon once again put forward a request at the War Office to be sent to China, hoping to satisfy his thirst for adventure. As Gordon prepared for his departure, his heart racing at the prospect of a new challenge, he had not yet fully comprehended the depth of the crisis he would soon face.

After coming to power in 1644, following the collapse of the Ming Dynasty, the Qing dynasty was ruled by a series of individuals who deftly handled domestic and foreign affairs. However, by the latter half of the nineteenth century, China experienced a series of famines, natural disasters, and economic difficulties. Farmers were heavily overtaxed, rents rose dramatically, and peasants started to desert their lands in droves. The countryside was rife with banditry, all the while, the government had become increasingly corrupt. The influence of government was especially weak in the south, where local clans dominated and anti-Manchu sentiment was strongest. These factors provided fertile ground for the seeds of rebellion.

Gordon arrived at Tianjin in September of 1860. The China which he would have seen was a remnant of its former self—a once mighty empire teetering on the edge of collapse, as rebels ravaged the countryside. Originating in Guangxi, the Taiping were led by Hong Xiuquan, a former village schoolmaster. Decades earlier, in 1843, after carefully reading a pamphlet he had received from a Protestant Christian missionary, Hong would declare that he had a divine mission to rid China of evil, including the Qing government and Confucianism. This was a crucial aspect which would set the Taiping apart from previous rebellions, as they sought not only to replace the ruling dynasty, but desired a fundamental change to traditional Chinese society itself. In a wider context, Hong’s aspirations to the divinity of Christ could imply a claim of equality between white and non-white peoples.

Events in China

Gordon shared the belief held by many European foreigners, that the Taipings were confessed Christians with good in them. Gordon, a devoted Christian himself, would later dispense with this notion after witnessing the atrocities which the Taiping committed in the name of God, as well as the Taiping leadership’s perversion of Christian teachings. As Gordon moved throughout the countryside, where the dead served as a grim testament to the Taipings brutality, he felt sympathy for the peasants, and could understand why they blamed the missionaries for instigating the Taiping rebels.

Gordon was present in 1860, during the occupation of Beijing and destruction of the Summer Palace, or Yuanmingyuan, which had been built by the Qianlong Emperor. The destruction of the palace was ordered by James Bruce, the 8th Earl of Elgin, and the British High Commissioner to China. Elgin said that this measure was undertaken in response to the torture and killing of several British envoys and their escorts. The British forces would occupy northern China until April 1862, then withdraw to Shanghai to protect European interests from the encroaching Taiping army.

Shanghai merchants had been far from comfortable over the course of the Taiping Rebellion. They found they could not rely on the imperial troops, and there was still a degree of mistrust for the “foreign devils”. It was amongst this atmosphere of uncertainty that the prominent merchants and imperial officials sought to raise a mercenary force for the defense of the city. A militia of Europeans and Asians was raised for the defense of the city and placed under the command of an American, Frederick Townsend Ward. Initially a militia which lacked much in the way of formal training, Ward would later reorganize the force, calling it the Ever Victorious Army. Upon their arrival, General Charles Staveley, commander of the British forces in northern China, decided to clear the rebels within 30 miles of Shanghai in cooperation with Ward, and the area was fairly cleared of rebels by the end of 1862.

Ward would suffer a fatal injury when he was shot by a deserter. He had served his Chinese masters with valor, which endeared him to the Chinese, who praised his bravery. Ward’s successor was another American named H. A. Burgevine. The British army had already expressed reservations about cooperating with unregulated militia. Under Burgevine, these concerns were throughly justified, as the mercenaries looted with abandon, revealing a serious lack of discipline. The governor of the Jiangsu province, where Shanghai is located, requested that Staveley appoint a British officer to command the contingent, believing that a British commander would set higher standards. A certain Captain Holland was placed in command, but unsuited to his position, as 16 officers and 450 men were killed or wounded in a subsequent engagement, leading to one of their greatest defeats for the Ever Victorious Army. In response, the troops were clamoring for the reinstatement of Burgevine.

Leadership

Holland’s failure would be Gordon’s opportunity. Staveley would select Gordon, at the behest of the Chinese officials, who had been promoted to Major General in December of 1862. Gordon had once again impressed his superiors with his performance in the field and his demonstrated ability to get along with the Chinese. Gordon’s family was not especially enthusiastic about his new command. His father did not like the idea of an Englishmen leading a foreign army to benefit a non-western, non-democratic government, and his mother was fearful of his life. Gordon, to allay the concerns of his family, promised he would not be rash. Despite his reluctance, Gordon became commander of the 3,500-man peasant force. Gordon injected discipline and steel into the force. The EVA became a feared force and was instrumental in ending the rebellion. Gordon led the EVA into battle from the front carrying only a walking stick. Gordon refused to allow the EVA to loot captured cities as they had under their American commanders. The EVA mutinied, but Gordon suppressed it by shooting dead one of the ringleaders, and then threatening to shoot one of the mutineers an hour until the mutiny was over.

During the next 18 months Gordon's troops played an important role in suppressing the Taiping uprising. Suzhou was captured by the EVA in 1863 after the Taipings surrendered to Gordon when he offered them a safe passage. Unfortunately, Gordon was away on business when the Manchus had the leaders of the Taipings executed. This action was offensive to Gordon, who believed in the chivalric code to remain good to one’s word. Gordon was furious and promptly resigned his command. He only returned after being implored to by the British and being promoted to the rank of Mandarin in the Chinese army, a rare privilege.

Although given a nearly impossible job, he executed it with great courage, faith, and extreme integrity. He had refused the 100,000 gold pieces offered to him by the Tongzhi Emperor, which thus served to reinforce Gordon's reputation as being incorruptible. Gordon's involvement was critical to the Qing government’s ability to successfully drove the Taipings out of all of their major strongholds, quelling the uprising in 1864. Gordon would return to England in January 1865, where an enthusiastic public had already dubbed him 'Chinese Gordon'. The heroism which Gordon displayed during his lifetime would solidify his position as one of the greatest soldiers of the nineteenth century.

What do you think of Major General Gordon in China? Let us know below.

Now you can read Marvin’s series on the origins of the Mormon Battalion here.

Sources

Micheal, Franz and Chung-li Chang. The Taiping Rebellion - History and Documents Volume 1 : History. Seattle: University of Washington, 1966

Waller, John H. Gordon of Khartoum. New York: Atheneum, 1988.

A History of Beer in America: Five of the Oldest Breweries in the USA

Beer has been made for thousands of years around the world. Many cultures, nations and people contributed to the beer we drink today. America’s history with beer began with Native Americans. Their beer was made from maize. It was a recipe they shared with the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. Coincidentally, the Pilgrims only stopped at Plymouth Rock because they ran out of beer.

Beer was a necessary staple because water was just too dangerous to drink. Most households made their own beer well into the 1800s and it was a drink for all ages. Wealthy early Americans built their own brew houses on their land. There were many different recipes depending on the ingredients a family had on hand. Fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices might make it into the mix of grains, hops, water and yeast. Of course, these beers taste different now, but the basic recipe is the same.  

Angie Grandstaff tells us about beer in the 19th century and five of the oldest breweries in the USA.

Anheuser-Busch brewery in St Louis, Missouri in the late 19th century.

Beer in the 1800s

Since most early Americans made their own beer the need for commercial breweries wasn’t big. Brewing beer was a local affair because beer did not travel well. Beer was stored and served in wooden casks. By 1810, there were 140 breweries in America. The 1800s brought many changes to American life.

The Industrial Revolution led many families to urban areas and away from their farms. German, Irish and British immigrants flooded into America. Their homelands had very strong beer cultures so the demand for beer was high in the mid 1800s. Advances in science and technology after the Civil War allowed breweries to mass produce beer. 

Transformation and Prohibition

Immigrants had a profound effect on beer. The original American beer was a heavy, British style ale. German influence led beer to become a lighter lager. This beer became the beer of choice for many Americans. There were 1,800 breweries in America in 1900. Business was booming.

Prohibition of alcohol in America changed everything. Prohibition was law from 1920 to 1933. It put many breweries out of business for good. The ones that survived had to get creative during those years to stay afloat. Breweries sold near beer, soft drinks, malted milk, fruit juices and more. After Prohibition, big breweries like Budweiser, Miller, Coors and Pabst dominated beer sales. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that breweries truly started to rise again.

Brewing in America has evolved with the influence of many different people, innovations and laws. Here are the five oldest breweries still in operation today who had a big impact on beer and brewing in America.

The Oldest Brewery in America: Yuengling

Most of the early American breweries are gone except Yuengling. Yuengling Brewery was founded by a German immigrant, David G. Yuengling. He landed in Pottsville, Pennsylvania in 1823 and changed his name from Jüngling to Yuengling. He started his brewery in 1829. It was originally named the Eagle Brewery and its label still bears the image of the original eagle today. Yuengling wanted to embrace his adoptive home by using the eagle in the name for his brewery.

Yuengling Brewery faced a devastating fire in 1831 but they rebuilt and prospered. David G. Yuengling had two sons. The eldest went to Virginia to start his own brewery and the second oldest didn’t join the Yuengling brewing business until 1873. That is when Eagle Brewery officially became Yuengling Brewery. Yuengling opened other breweries in the northeast during the late 1800s. Their production stayed steady but limited. Therefore, even today you can’t buy Yuengling everywhere. The original beer recipe has remained the same since its beginnings. While many breweries have changed owners many times, Yuengling Brewery is still a Yuengling family business.

Milwaukee Beer Giant: Pabst Brewing Company

The Pabst Brewing Company started as a family business in 1844 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The brewery was started by Jacob Best Sr. who retired in 1853 and left the brewery in the hands of two of his sons, Jacob Jr and Phillip. Their partnership didn’t last long because of financial difficulties. Phillip was left in charge of the brewery and he brought in his own reinforcements, his son-in-law Frederick Pabst and Emil Schandein. They became partners and brought a fresh perspective to the brewery which was now called the Phillip Best and Company.

Pabst and Schandein helped the struggling brewery thrive through changes with transportation, the science of the brewing and most significantly marketing. The name changed again when Phillip retired and Schandein passed away to Pabst Brewing Company. The innovative marketing strategies kept this brewery successful. Pabst’s ads were in everything from newspapers, magazines, theater programs and train schedules. They put the Pabst name on calendars, cigar cases, matchboxes and notepads. Pabst became Pabst Blue Ribbon after they won a gold medal at the 1893 Chicago Columbian Exposition.

Pabst faced much competition from Schlitz, Miller and Anheuser-Busch in particular. They stayed in the game with their marketing and new brewing innovations like selling canned beer in 1935. Pabst purchased other breweries around the country to help them expand production. Today Pabst is using contract brewing with MillerCoors instead of doing their own brewing. Their willingness to change and use new innovations helped Pabst beer survive.

Many names, many families but still brewing: Minhas Brewing

The Minhas Brewing company began as Monroe Brewery in 1845. The brewery was started by Mr. Bissinger in Monroe, Wisconsin. It was a small operation which originally produced only a few hundred barrels per year. The brewery changed hands in 1850 with the new owner, John Knipschield, expanding enough to hire two men to do the brewing. 

In 1857 the brewery was taken over by George Esser and John Hermann. Hermann lived in the brewery during this time. They expanded by building an underground beer storage cellar and adding a lager to the beer brewed. Prior to this, the brewery only brewed ales. Esser and Hermann dissolved their partnership when Esser became upset over Hermann’s fiancee visiting him at night. Esser’s memoirs state that they threw lots over who would keep the brewery. Hermann won. In an attempt to expand production, Hermann started using a horse to help power the brewery.

The brewery changed hands twice more between 1861 and 1885. The owner in 1885 was Jacob Hefty who took on his brother-in-law, Albert Blumer Sr. as his partner. Blumer became the sole owner in 1892. He took the one-horse brewery and rebuilt the plant, equipping it with modern machinery. Albert’s sons took over in 1918 and boosted production from 1,500 barrels a year to 12,000.

The brewery was bought by Carl O. Marty in 1938 because he wanted the storage space for his cheese manufacturing company. He sold the beer operation to Joseph Huber who worked as a brewer worker for Blumer. He changed the brewery name to Huber Brewing. Huber and his son Fred kept the brewery going when so many breweries were going out of business. Fred sold the brewery in 1985 only to buy it back in 1989 and sell it again in 1994 to Dan Weinstein. Weinstein and his family expanded the brewery until they sold it in 2006 to Canadian business mogul, Manjit Minhas. This brewery has had a very interesting history but despite all the twists and turns, it has been brewing at the same location since 1845.

American Icon: Anheuser-Busch

Eberhard Anheuser bought a struggling St. Louis brewery in 1860. His daughter married Adolphus Busch, a German immigrant, a year later. Adolphus joined his father-in-law in the beer brewing business. So begins the story of an American beer icon. Adolphus had big dreams of taking his beer nationwide and looked to the innovations of the day to expand the brewery. He used refrigerated railcars to transport his beer plus incorporated pasteurization in the brewing process.

Most beer being brewed were ales, but some breweries were branching into lagers, which were lighter beers. Anheuser-Busch introduced their lager, Budweiser in 1876. This beer became the king of beers and a national beer due to Busch’s efforts. Advertisement helped Anheuser-Busch dominate beer sales. The famous Budweiser Clydesdale horses, which are still seen in advertisements today, were introduced in 1933. The horses were a gift from Adolphus III to his son to celebrate the end of Prohibition. They also sent wagons led by the Clydesdales around New York to deliver beer to the governor, Alfred Smith and former President Theodore Roosevelt to further celebrate the end of Prohibition.

Prohibition and World War II affected Anheuser-Busch’s production but following the war the company entered a significant era of progress. August A. Busch was president during this time. His nine national brewing networks increased production from 3 million barrels to 34 million barrels a year. Anheuser-Busch became America’s number one brewer and it still is today.

High Life: Miller Brewing Company

Frederick Miller was born in Germany and spent his formative years in France studying. He had a reputation of acting and dressing like a Frenchman but eventually won over Milwaukee with his beer. Miller came to America in 1854 with his family to escape unrest in Germany. He traveled to Milwaukee and bought Plank Road Brewery from one of the Best brothers of Pabst Brewing. Miller opened his brewery in 1855. There was heavy brewing competition in Milwaukee, but Miller held his own. He opened saloons and beer gardens plus expanded sales to other towns like Chicago.

The family continued to expand through the late 1800s. In 1903, they introduced their flagship beer, Miller High Life. Like Pabst and Anheuser-Busch, Miller Brewing excelled at using advertising to boost sales. Miller High Life was called ‘the Champagne of Bottle Beer’ in advertisements. The Girl in the Moon was put on the bottle in 1907 and is still there today. Miller Brewing sponsored sports broadcasts, radio and television shows to help get their beer in the public eye. They were also instrumental in bringing a major league baseball team to Milwaukee. In 1953, the Braves moved from Boston to Milwaukee and Miller Brewing paid for the scoreboard and advertising rights in the stadium.

The 1950s and 1960s saw much expansion and growth for Miller Brewing. Frederick C. Miller and his son were killed in a plane crash in 1954. This would eventually lead to the company moving out of the hands of the Miller family. In 1970, the tobacco giant, Phillip Morris bought Miller Brewing. Their advertising prowess led to the very popular advertising campaigns - “If you got the time, we got the beer”. Plus, the Miller Lite campaign of “Taste great…less filling”, that had celebrities debating over what is best about Miller’s Lite Beer.

Miller Brewing has expanded and remained the number two brewery in America by diversifying their brand and acquiring other breweries. Miller owns Lowenbräu, Molson’s, Foster’s, Kronenbourg, Beamish, Stroh’s and Leinenkugel. As mentioned in the history of Pabst, Miller is also the contract brewer for Pabst beers. The company merged with Coors Brewing in 2008. Miller Brewing is now MillerCoors as they head into their next chapter.

Back to our roots

Beer in America started in homes and small local breweries. Today, we have come full circle. An estimated 1 million Americans are brewing beer at home. Millions more are heading down to their local brewery for a pint. This is the golden age of beer with more than 9,000 breweries in America. The variety available today would astound those early brewers. Beer has been a staple in American life since the country’s beginnings. It continues to be consumed by millions and its future looks bright.   

What do you think of beer in America? Let us know below.

Now read Angie’s article on 5 incredible pioneering female pilots here.

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

References

https://www.beerinstitute.org/news-media/additional-beer-resources/beer-american-history/

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/a-concise-history-of-americas-brewing-industry/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/03/532250762/how-the-story-of-beer-is-the-story-of-america

https://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/literary-cultural-heritage-map-pa/feature-articles/yuengling-american-tradition

https://emke.uwm.edu/entry/pabst-brewing-company/

https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Article/CS538

http://minhasbrewery.com/our-history

https://www.anheuser-busch.com/about/heritage/

https://www.moaf.org/publications-collections/financial-history-magazine/77/_res/id=Attachments/index=0/Article_77.pdf

https://beerhistory.com/library/holdings/millerhistory.shtml

https://emke.uwm.edu/entry/miller-brewing-company/

Life of a West End Seamstress in 19th Century London

The concern with workplace health and safety and workers' rights has been discussed for decades. Throughout British history, there have been many attempts by workers, to create unofficial trade unions to improve their working situation. During the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), the question of whether our working environments are safe, necessary and improve an individual’s productivity has been asked. The pandemic saw many people begin the transition into the work from home (WFH) structure as many offices and buildings could not cater to social distancing measures, efficient ventilation or isolate the spread of disease. Of course, many were unable to transition to a WFH strategy and had to continue to travel to their place of work. Organisations were faced with the challenge of managing the spread of disease, protecting workers from illness, and work productivity.

Health and safety in the workplace is not a new phenomenon brought about by the pandemic but one that is rooted in British history. Workers endured gruelling labour and toil with poor living and working conditions, with a lack of government reform to protect workers and their families from injury or even death. It was not until the Health and Safety at Work act of 1974 that was introduced to protect workers and their rights. Although throughout the nineteenth century, there was a gradual progression towards improving the working lives of many Victorians, for example, the Factory Act in 1833. This article explores how the living and working conditions of seamstresses in nineteenth-century west end London became pushed into public discussion and Parliament's reluctance to pass reforms to ease the lives of seamstresses.

Amy Chandler explains.

Seamstresses in 19th century France.

The distressed seamstress

The industrial revolution took place between 1760 – 1840 and transformed the UK in many ways from the increased number of factories, trade, pollution, and a decline in living conditions. The industrial revolution also increased the chances of developing new illnesses from poor living conditions and lack of sanitation policies. London expanded rapidly and offered a new life for people in the city to find opportunities and employment, however the reality was bleak. Many found it hard to find work and earn enough money to stay in accommodation. Options were bleak, and many women resorted to prostitution or ended up in workhouses; some women were forced into prostitution to earn money on top of their daily employment. During the Victorian period, sewing was seen as a feminine quality and a skill taken up by women of all classes. The occupation of a seamstress was taken up mostly by working-class women and some upper-class women who were unable to become governesses, to support themselves and their families.

The image of the distressed seamstress became a cause celebre, which meant a controversial figure that attracted public attention and interest. The image of the distressed seamstress frequented art and literature in the nineteenth century with Thomas Hood’s famous poem Songs of the shirt 1843, depicting the plight of seamstresses as “fingers weary and worn, With eyelids heavy and red. A woman sat in unwomanly rags, plying her needle and thread”.(1) Hood’s poem continues throughout twelve stanzas revealing the plight of the living and working conditions of the life of a seamstress. Other literary figures attempted to shed light on the lives and hardships of the seamstress, such as Richard Redgrave. Hood’s poem inspired Redgrave to illustrate the figure of the seamstress as a pitiful and lonely figure with no escape to a better life or improved living and working conditions.

The death of seamstress Mary Walkley

In 1863 the course of how seamstresses were viewed changed forever after the death of a seamstress named Mary Walkley, “a workwoman in the employment of Madame Elise, described as Court Dressmaker, of 170, Regent Street”.(2) Women worked all day and night to complete orders, especially during London’s busy social season between April to June, when young women, often called debutantes, would attend social events in hopes of securing a marriage with a wealthy suitor.(3) After investigation, Walkley’s death was caused by “long hours of work and insufficient ventilation” and urgent calls for government officials to “establish by law regulation that might prevent the occurrence of such evils as this case brought to life”.(4)

Walkley's death in 1863 highlights the poor living and working conditions for seamstresses and is an example of what conditions women endured to survive in Victorian London. This particular case caused public outcry and awareness of the shocking conditions in the sweat industry, and there was no parliamentary legislation to change the situation, but public awareness and concern became apparent. Walkley’s case had a public inquest where Dr Lankester assessed the working and living environments. Lankester concluded the overcrowding and lack of ventilation for the number of workers in the space “open[s] up the whole question of the interior conditions of the workshops, workrooms, and sleeping rooms of the metropolitan workpeople”.(5) This situation also raised many questions regarding the “number of hours that persons may be employed in sedentary occupations in ill-ventilated rooms”.(6) Lankester’s report suggested the urgent need for parliamentary legislation to enforce sufficient ventilation and regulation of working hours, as “establishments like those of Madame Elise” were not uncommon throughout London.(7)

The death of Walkley and worker's rights for seamstresses were debated in great depth in the Houses of Commons, for example, Mr Dawson raised the humanitarian concern regarding their work. Dawson asked Parliament to consider if government officials “would give their support to a Bill for defining and limiting the hours of labor, and regulating and inspecting workrooms, alike in the interests of humanity as for the sake of sanitary precaution?”.(8) The debate of Thursday, 25 June 1863 also questioned: “why these establishments should not be placed under proper regulations” such as hours, registration and inspection that were mandatory law for places of employment such as factories, mines, and bakehouses.(9) This case never caused a change in legislation despite public outcry and dress shop owners who desired Parliamentary legislation to reform and recognise the hardship that many endured. Owners of dressmaker shops, like Madame Elise, did have some authority to make changes for their workers, but these were down to personal discretion. Many owners could not afford to regulate working hours as they could lose business to their competitors.

The working class had limited options in terms of choice of occupations due to socio-economic factors. Many workers ended up in the workhouse or following a life of prostitution to survive. Therefore, for working conditions to improve, the authority for change was in the hands of a handful of individuals who were hesitant to pass reforms. Despite there being no official legislation passed, the case of Walkley and the public debates surrounding her death did cause a shift in the public perception of seamstresses. Parliamentary transcripts are evidence of government officials' awareness of the significant difference in workers' rights, such as in factories. Parliament passed reforms to improve the health and safety of workers in factories, such as the Factory Acts of 1833, 1847 and 1850.

After Walkley’s death hit the press, there were questions from the public asking whether Madame Elise, as the owner, should be punished for her ill treatment of workers that contributed to Walkley’s death. This case highlighted a moral dilemma for many employers, as demonstrated by Parliament questions. Sir George Grey emphasised that “masters and mistresses, who are liable to provide for their apprentices food, clothing, and lodging, and have wilfully omitted to do so, are subject, upon conviction, in cases where there has been danger to life or permanent injury to health, to very severe punishment.”(10) Grey shifts the blame from the employee onto the employer for their negligence and ill-treatment of their workers.”(11)

Furthermore, the press reported the general public’s disgust of the working and living conditions.(12) One publication stated that the blame for Walkley’s death was Madame Elise and her debtors, such as duchesses and countesses, where workers were “overworked and poisoned” in Madame Elise’s establishment.(13) The report suggested that these debtors were “often answerable for moral privation and misery” by their “heedlessness and carelessness [… had] often been the cause of many weary hours night work to these poor girls”.(14) The blame was focused directly on the employers and the upper-class customers who placed the social season above public health. Arguably, the upper classes should have gained a conscience and concern for the establishments that they frequented. Madame Elise was unpunished for her negligence, but this situation questioned how workers were badly treated and unprotected by legislation that could ensure workers were protected from injury and death in a place of employment.

Calls for change

Public awareness of the seamstress industry continued to surge in 1906 with The Sweated Industries Exhibition organised by the Daily News. The exhibition aimed to “highlight ‘the evils of sweating’ ” and the public response and attendance were “unprecedented”.(15) The exhibition attempted to create awareness about the poor working and living conditions of seamstresses, whether they worked in a dressmaker’s shop or at home. This exhibition took place over forty years after the Walkley case and illustrates how slow progress for workers' rights, health and safety and reforms were during the nineteenth century. Much Parliamentary legislation and employment rights we are familiar with today took decades to reach the standard that protects workers from exploitation. Therefore, it took over forty years after the Walkley case for the plight of seamstresses to be taken seriously by Parliament and the general public with legislation achieved in 1909 with the establishment of the Trade Board Act that “introduced a legally enforceable minimum wage”.(16)

The Trade Board Act (later renamed the Wages Council in 1945) aimed to regulate the wages for workers in sweated industries such as seamstresses. Board members were representatives of the workers, such as trade unionists, representatives of the employers and government-appointed members. The council had an equal number of representatives from workers and employers and the government-appointed members were fewer.(17) The board proposed the minimum living wage and regularly adjusted the wage based on the state of trade and the cost of living.(18) However, there were ways for employers to avoid having to pay minimum wages through persuading the board that a worker was incapable of performing their expected work through gaining permits for workers with physical or psychological disabilities.(19) During a debate of the Trades Board Act 1909, the extent to which sweated industries suffered was revealed to Parliament. The debate highlighted that workers endured “excessive hours of labour and insanitary state of houses” and that “the earnings of the lowest classes of workers are barely sufficient to sustain existence”, resulting in “ceaseless toil, hard and often unhealthy” work.(20) The legislation proposed in this debate attempted to change working conditions and emphasise that the current wages were insufficient to sustain a healthy lifestyle. Despite this evidence exposing the exploitation of seamstresses, Parliament still were reluctant to pass bills that would even marginally improve the life of seamstresses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the life of a seamstress was slow to change, and legislation was well overdue, in comparison, to progressive change in working conditions for other occupations such as factories. The seamstress was integral to London’s social season and everyday life but was neglected by Parliamentary reform. The image of the distressed seamstress was not confined to the shadows in Victorian London but dragged into the public sphere where the general public attempted to change working and living conditions. In contemporary society, we have an ever-growing issue with the rise of fast fashion that exploits their workers in order to manufacture at a fast pace to ‘cash-in’ on popular catwalk trends.(21) In the same way that London’s social season exploited seamstresses to produce dresses to wear once and never again. Dress shop owners like Madame Elise used the social season as a way to ‘cash in’ on the hysteria of London’s social events and high demand for custom made gowns. The exploitation and high demand of popular trends mirrors the similar problems experienced in the Victorian era. Today, public awareness and the development of social consciousness have caused a shift in products becoming sustainable and ethically sourced to reduce the exploitation of workers overseas.

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

Now read Amy’s article on the Great Stench in 19th century London here.

Bibliography

Crumbie, A. ‘What is fast fashion and why is it a problem?’, Ethical Consumer, 5 Oct 2021 < https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/fashion-clothing/what-fast-fashion-why-it-problem >.

Fleming, R. S. ‘ “Coming out” During the Early Victorian Era: about debutantes’, 9 May 2012, Kate Tattersall Adventures < http://www.katetattersall.com/coming-out-during-the-early-victorian-era-debutantes/ >.

Harris, B. ‘Gender Matters’, The Victorian Web, 10 Dec 2014 <https://victorianweb.org/gender/ugoretz1.html >.

HC Deb 23 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1316.

HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1433.

HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1434.

HC Deb 28 April 1909, vol 4, cols 343.

Hood, T. ‘Song of the shirt’, The Victorian Web, 16 December 1843 <https://victorianweb.org/authors/hood/shirt.html > .

Matthews, M. ‘Death at the Needle: The Tragedy of Victorian Seamstress Mary Walkley’, Mimi Matthews, 20 Sept 2016 <https://www.mimimatthews.com/2016/09/20/death-at-the-needle-the-tragedy-of-victorian-seamstress-mary-walkley/ >.

Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

Warwick Library, ‘The Sweated Industries Exhibition, 1906’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 <https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/1906/>.

Warwick Library, ‘What were trade boards?’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 < https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/boards/ >.

Yorkshire Gazette, ‘The London Seamstress’, The British Newspaper Archive (27 June 1863).

Bibliography

1 T, Hood, ‘Song of the shirt’, The Victorian Web, 16 December 1843 <https://victorianweb.org/authors/hood/shirt.html > [accessed 26 April 2022].

2 HC Deb 23 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1316.

3 R. S, Fleming, ‘ “Coming out” During the Early Victorian Era: about debutantes’, 9 May 2012, Kate Tattersall Adventures < http://www.katetattersall.com/coming-out-during-the-early-victorian-era-debutantes/ > [accessed 2 May 2022].

4 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

5 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

6 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

7 Sun. The Case of Mary Anne Walkley. The British Newspaper Archive (26 June 1863).

8 HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1433.

9 Ibid.

10 HC Deb 25 June 1863, vol 171, cols 1434.

11 Ibid

12 Yorkshire Gazette, ‘The London Seamstress’, The British Newspaper Archive (27 June 1863).

13 Ibid

14 Ibid

15 Warwick Library, ‘The Sweated Industries Exhibition, 1906’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 < https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/1906/>[ accessed 25 April 2022].

16 Ibid.

17 Warwick Library, ‘What were trade boards?’, Modern Records Centre, 15 Feb 2022 < https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/archives_online/digital/tradeboard/boards/ >[accessed 2 May 2022].

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 HC Deb 28 April 1909, vol 4, cols 343.

21 A, Crumbie. ‘What is fast fashion and why is it a problem?’, Ethical Consumer, 5 Oct 2021 < https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/fashion-clothing/what-fast-fashion-why-it-problem >[accessed 3 May 2021].

The Mormon Battalion’s Movement to Western America - Part 3: Mexican-American War

The story of the Mormon Battalion remains an enduring legend. Recruited by the U.S. government from among those heading to Utah to gather with Brigham Young, this group of some 500 men plus women and children undertook a trek across the American Southwest during the Mexican-American War. The battalion is usually consigned to a footnote in the story, but it is a story which looms large in the settlement of California. In that context, the legend of the battalion and how it has found a truly revered place in the history of the Mormon faithful is significant. In part 3, Marvin McCrary looks at how the battalion fought in the war and how it reached San Diego.

You can read part 1 on the origins of the Mormon Battalion here, and part 2 on the battalion’s movement across the western US here.

Philip St. George Cooke.

When John Charles Frémont was tasked with leading expeditions to the west in 1842, his wife, Jessie Benton Frémont, became intensely interested in the details of his travels. Jessie became his recorder, making notes as he described his experiences. Eventually, she wrote and edited the reports into best-selling stories. The stories captured the national imagination as Frémont’s dashing heroism was met with great enthusiasm. The account of the Great Basin was so vivid, that it has been alleged that Brigham Young was convinced that he had found the land long-envisioned by the Saints after reading about it.

The Saints suffered from disease, hunger, and cold while at Winter Quarters in the waning months of 1846, but the unfriendly circumstances merely served to strengthen their resolve. Throughout the spring, the Saints conferred with traders, mountain men, and travelers who were familiar with the Far West. It was decided that a forward expedition would be organized to go to the Great Basin and determine the best place in which to settle. Brigham Young deliberated over the matter, and received inspiration in regards to how the Saints should organize themselves for the journey. The company would be divided into small groups, each with an assigned leader, with special attention given to the poor, the widowed, and to those families which were bereft of a father. Famous frontiersmen such as Jim Bridger and “Black” Moses Harris, who were among those whom church leaders had consulted, noted that the trials the Saints had previously faced would prepare them for greater difficulties which lay ahead.

Exhaustion

In September of 1846, the men of the battalion were facing exhaustion on the long march to Santa Fe. For 3 days, the battalion marched in the unrelenting heat without any water at all, and when water was available, it was often brackish and unsanitary. Complicating the situation were the frequent threats and abuse inflicted upon them by Lieutenant Smith and Dr. Sanderson. The Santa Fe Trail was proving to be perilous, filled with wolves, hostile natives, and the occasional downpour. General Stephen Watts Kearney had met with no resistance from the Mexican forces on his march to Santa Fe, and he ultimately occupied it on August 18, 1846. Kearney had sent word to the Mormon Battalion, asking them to take a faster, more direct route, although it would prove to be more difficult. Despite the  harsh and unyielding conditions in which they found themselves, the men continued their march towards Santa Fe. Eventually, the circumstances would prove too much for some, and Smith ordered a group of fifteen sick families he believed could not make the trek to remain at Pueblo in Colorado. There was already a group of Mormons at Pueblo who had chosen to settle there, hoping to wait out the winter under the leadership of John Brown, who had led a group from the South to the Mountain West. Having to leave family behind was hard on those who would have to endure separation, Smith informed the men that Kearney had ordered that the battalion would be discharged unless they reached Santa Fe in a timely manner.

On October 9th, the weary soldiers were met with salutations of cannon and gunfire as they entered the town. Smith ordered that those who were too feeble would enter the town three days later. The tribute had been organized by General Alexander Doniphan who had assisted the Mormons at a crucial time when they were suffering persecutions eight years earlier in Missouri. The battalion was probably relieved when Lieutenant Smith and Dr. Sanderson departed their company at Santa Fe. It would be Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke, another graduate of the military academy,  who would become their new commander. Unfortunately, Cooke was not too much of a departure from Smith, as he was also disappointed at having to lead a group of inexperienced volunteers. In one of his surviving journal entries, Cooke observes that there were too many families, women, and the number of supplies available was meager. General Kearney had already departed the town for California before the arrival of the battalion, with Cooke being given orders by the general to forge a wagon trail from Santa Fe to California. The rigorous pace wore heavily on battalion members, and in November another group of weak and tired soldiers turned back for Pueblo. While Cooke grew increasingly doubtful about the battalion’s capabilities, historian Dwight L. Clarke writes that it was felt that the Mormons still had a hidden, greater potential that had yet to be seen.

After his departure from Santa Fe, half of Kearney's army fought their way through the Mexican province of Chihuahua, and marched three thousand miles to link up with Zachary Taylor's army at Monterrey. Taylor was already beginning to enjoy rising popularity, and had earned his nickname of “Old Rough and Ready” for his significant victories over larger forces. On September 16, 1846, at the Battle of Monterrey, Taylor overcame a substantial Mexican force and declared an armistice, much to President James K. Polk’s consternation. Polk, a Democrat, was growing increasingly anxious about Taylor’s popularity amongst the Whigs. Taylor would go to engage General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna's fifteen-thousand-man army at Buena Vista on February 22, 1847. When the smoke finally cleared, Taylor's five thousand men had dealt Santa Anna's army a crushing blow. When news of Taylor's victory reached the capital, his popularity soared even higher, and the Whigs began to publicly discuss his name as a possible candidate for the presidency.

Great Basin

In the meantime, things did not get easier for the pioneer company which had decided to set out for the Great Basin. The passes had become increasingly treacherous, and Brigham Young became sick with mountain fever. When the group of long-suffering pioneers arrived at the Salt Lake River Valley in July of 1847, Young asked to have his carriage turned so he could see the whole of the valley. Young rose from his sickbed and deemed that they were in the right place, according to Wilford Woodruff, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Upon Brigham Young’s return to Winter Quarters in the fall of 1847 from his expedition to the Great Basin, he found the remaining Saints had built a thriving settlement. However, Young anticipated the need to abandon it, as the lease on the tribal land would expire in a few months. The Saints then began moving east across the river, and back into Iowa, eventually naming their new headquarters Kanesville in honor of Thomas L. Kane. The emigration of the Saints to the Utah Territory would continue over the course of the next several years.

When the battalion finally arrived at San Diego on 24 January, 1847, the men recorded their joy at sighting the Pacific Ocean, knowing their travail would finally be at an end. The original plan had been for the Battalion to follow Kearney’s route as closely as possible, however Kearney later advised Cooke that it would behoove them to make their way along a southern route. The battalion had covered nearly 2,000 miles, making the march one of the longest in United States military history. The men had walked so much their shoes were worn out.  They had been forced to resort to burlap, pieces of wagon covers, and animal hides to wrap around their feet for protection from the rocks and cold.  The sun was hot in the day and cold at night through the desert, difficult for people with little to no covering. It was described that at times, the ground was so soft and deep that when they lay down to sleep, half of their bodies sank into the cold mud.

Despite having been tasked with the capture the city of Tucson, and being asked to protect Pauma natives in Temecula, the battalion did not see conflict, exactly as Bringham Young had said. The worst incident came when a herd of wild bulls charged the soldiers while they stopped for water at the San Pedro River in the Rio Grande Valley. Aside from a few injuries and loss of some mules, the soldiers walked away intact.

California

The war in California having effectively ended by the time of their arrival, the battalion soldiers were assigned to garrison duty in San Diego, San Luis Rey, and Los Angeles. The town residents were initially against the idea because of the false information which they had heard about them. The men of the battalion built houses and dug wells, using the knowledge about irrigation they had acquired. Previously, the people had to travel a long way for water from a well only 1 foot in depth. The new wells were 30 feet deep and were lined with bricks to keep them in place. When the time came for the Battalion to move on, the town people went to the Army and asked for more "Mormonitos" to come help them.  Most of the soldiers would reach Utah Territory–where Brigham Young and the main body of the Saints had settled–in the late 1840s and early 1850s. Historian Leonard L. Richards estimates that roughly 80 stayed and worked at Sutter’s Mill.  Sutter found the Mormons to be amongst the best laborers, although more expensive than the natives whom he had rented from Maidu tribal leaders. In 1848, gold was discovered by Sutter’s foreman, John W. Marshall. Henry Bigler, a veteran of the battalion, was at Sutter’s Mill at the time and recorded the date of the gold discovery in his journal. There had been a great deal of exaggeration surrounding gold discovery previously, and thus the excitement was met with an understandable degree of skepticism, even amongst the workers themselves. The Mormons tested the minerals, even biting it to check if it was real.  Word reached outgoing President Polk who endorsed the discovery, and thus the Gold Rush would begin in earnest.

The Mexican-American War served as a proving ground for issues which would later come to the fore during the Civil War. Slavery remained an enduring specter which would prove difficult to exorcise, especially as those on both sides of the debate become further entrenched in their views. Zachary Taylor would win the election in 1848, becoming the second of two Whigs (the first being William Henry Harrison) to become president. Unfortunately, just like his predecessor, Taylor died during his term. Brigham Young would become the second President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1847, and served until 1877. It would be under his steady leadership that the Mormons are to be credited as one of the single most important agencies in the settlement of the American West. The march of the Mormon Battalion serves as a vital page to the historical expansion of the United States. They opened roads of great value to the nation, and made influential friends for the Saints. Their determined self-sacrifice demonstrated an unsurpassed loyalty to their country, their people, and their faith.

Let us know what you think of Mormon Battalion below.

Now read about when Mormon founder Joseph Smith met the president here.

Author’s Note: I would like to dedicate this article series to Sterling and Judy Hill, dear friends who continue to embody the pioneer spirit. My sources have been  journal entries written by those who traveled with the battalion, but I am also thankful to friends who graciously shared their family histories with me. The utilization of secondary sources was meant to provide a greater context to the events surrounding the march of the battalion. It should be stated that this was not meant to be an exhaustive study of the Mormon Battalion, and it is more than conventionally necessary to apologize for any shortcomings. It is hoped, however, that this will serve as inspiration for future study.

Sources

Arrington, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. New York: Knopf, 1985.

Clarke, Dwight L. Stephen Watts Kearny: Soldier of the West. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961.

Cowan, Richard, and William E. Homer. California Saints. Utah: Bookcraft Publishing, 1996.

Richards, Leonard L. The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War. New York: Vintage, 2008.

Ricketts, Norma Baldwin. The Mormon Battalion. Utah: Utah State University, 1996.

London’s Great Stench in the 19th Century - Part 2: Bazalgette, Sewers and Stench

Millions of tourists visit London each year to take in the city's iconic architectural sites and attractions. It is hard to imagine that the iconic River Thames was once a site of unbearable stench and disease that choked Londoners. The summer of 1858 was labelled as the Great Stink by the British press and was a result of many years of poor living conditions, sanitation and a lack of public health reforms. The Great Stink was the tipping point that encouraged a change of attitude towards public health from a laissez-faire attitude, where the government did not interfere with public health, to a desire to improve living conditions. A laissez-faire attitude meant that government officials took a step back from interfering with social welfare and let issues take their own shape naturally.

In part 2, Amy Chandler explains how throughout history, the “Thames was effectively the city’s sewer for centuries” as the banks became “dominated by factories, furnaces and mills, all dispensing their foul waste and chemical pollutants into the river”.(1) This article explores how Joseph Bazalgette constructed the London sewer system to clean up the River Thames from sewage. 

If you missed it, part 1 on what caused the Great Stench is here.

An 1828 cartoon: Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water.

What to do about the Great Stink?

The perseverance to improve public health culminated in the Great Stink of 1858 from June to August. The heat wave in the summer of 1858 made the River Thames a bubbling vat of stench and raw sewage that contributed to outbreaks of disease, such as cholera, across London. Throughout that summer, the Thames water levels fell leaving piles of sewage and waste to visibly build up in public view. The build-up of waste was now staring Londoners and government officials in the face. The laissez-faire attitude of avoiding public health problems was no longer an option for Parliament.

In July 1858, Parliament discussed the “purification of the River Thames” and what course of action to take to solve the problem of sewage flowing into the river. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Benjamin Disraeli, described the river as an “unexpected calamity” for many but that there was always “an observant minority in the community which has expected the catastrophe” for some time. (2) For some members of the public and Parliament, it may have been a shock that London’s population was suffering from cholera and other diseases. But for a select few like Sir Edwin Chadwick and Dr John Snow, concerns of public health and welfare was an imperative thought. The problems of the Great stink was, to a point, inevitable as living conditions were continuing to decline as London’s population expanded and the government continued to avoid passing any bills to improve public health in poverty and disease-stricken areas. It was not until Members of Parliament became affected by the smell of sewage and waste from the river that they felt it was time to take charge of London’s public health. If the Houses of Parliament were not built directly next to the River Thames, it may have been unlikely that public health would have taken a dramatic change in the way that it did in 1858. The smell became so unbearable that it “severely affected [Parliamentary] business” with strong consideration of moving Parliamentary business to Oxford or St. Albans as well as the “curtains were soaked in chloride to attempt to mask the smell”. (3) The Times reported Members of Parliament were frequently seen with handkerchiefs pressed against their noses as their offices overlooked the Thames and became surrounded by the stench. (4)

Many satirical cartoons at the time, such as Punch, illustrated the dire reality of London’s public health. These cartoons often personified the River Thames as ‘Father Thames’ as ill and in poor health because of the pollution and tonnes of sewage forced and filtered into the Thames and drinking supplies were killing the life force of London. In many ways, the personification of the dying River Thames mirrors the deterioration and ill health of the inhabitants in poverty-stricken areas of London. The British government was reluctant to take responsibility for allowing London’s “noble river” to become a “stygian pool, reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors” but Disraeli commented that “this House, in pursuit of health” passed the bill to pump raw sewage into the waters of the River Thames, they ignored the voices of “persons of great authority on such matters” who could predict that such a health calamity was imminent. (5) Disraeli insinuated that this laissez-faire attitude of not interfering with the spread of disease and poor living conditions was the government's fault for not taking more control of the situation.

One method the government attempted in July 1858 was to pour lime chloride into the Thames to remove the smell of sewage and waste. In some ways this was a logical solution given the current scientific miasma theory that disease and illness were caused by bad smells. In nineteenth-century logic, overpowering the smell of the Thames not only stop disease but also removed the horrible smell. However, this was not effective and calls for a sewer system and reforms to purify the Thames was growing amongst Parliament and notable public figures.

On 2 June 1858, the Metropolitan Board of Works made a decision regarding London’s sewage problem and announced that they planned to “defer all consideration of it [the sewers] until the middle of October” and leave the summer period undisturbed with no changes. (6) In response, Sir Benjamin Hall commented on the selfishness of the Board of Works for using the city’s discomfort as a bargaining tool to pressure Parliament to resolve “the engineering and financial arguments in its favour”. (7) The Board of Works previously proposed to build a sewer system but was unsuccessful in receiving enough funds from the government to complete their project. As the city's health deteriorated, and Members of Parliament became increasingly afraid of becoming unwell through bad air, the need to find a solution became heightened. By 15 July 1858, Disraeli passed the Metropolitan Local Management Act that amended the 1855 Metropolis Local Management Act to “extend the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purification of the Thames and the main drainage of the Metropolis”. (8) By 2 August 1858, this act was officially passed after eighteen days and allowed the Board of Works full authority on the project and borrow £3,000,000 to carry out the project and deodorise the Thames in the meantime before work started. (9)

Bazalgette’s construction of the London sewer systems

The Metropolitan Board of Works was given full authority and enough money to start work on tackling London’s waste problem. Joseph Bazalgette was in charge of constructing London’s new sewer system with the plan to create a network of main sewers that was parallel to the River Thames and filter waste and surface water away from the city. (10) The project was overseen by Bazalgette, who took great care and consideration into every aspect of the construction, from personally measuring the lead and cement contents for each brick used within the tunnels. Much of Bazalgette’s work “involved substantial bank extension and infill, reducing the width of the river in the central part of the city.” (11) Bazalgette used a new type of cement called Portland cement that was strong and water-resistant to support the tunnels from collapse and sewage wearing down the interiors. The project required 318 million bricks, 670,000 cubic metres of concrete, and over a thousand labourers to excavate the tunnels. This increase in labour saw brick layers wages increase by 20%. (12)

Aside from building interconnecting pipes and sewer systems from east to west across London that collected waste and rainwater, Bazalgette also built four pumping stations, and two treatment works to manage, treat sewage and pump out the purified liquid into the River Thames. (13) The Abbey Mills Crossness pump station is still operational today and open for public visits. The pumping station is decorated with ornate Byzantine-style architecture and described as The Cathedral of Sewage because of its ostentatious designs that are out-of-place for the nature of the building. Many wealthy Victorians enjoyed ornate architectural designs therefore something as unappealing as a sewage house was designed in an ornate and extravagant style. Furthermore, Bazalgette’s construction of the London sewer system transformed London from below ground and above by building the Victoria, Albert and Chelsea Embankments that narrowed the Thames by 52 acres causing water to flow faster. (14)

The construction of the sewer system transformed London’s landscape, shape and improved the health of the city’s population. Many visitors to London may notice the decadent and intricately designed benches and Dolphin lamp-posts that line London’s popular Thames Embankment. The Metropolitan Board of Works decided to illuminate the new Embankment with electric lights and asked for design submissions. The ornate fish-shaped lamps were designed by George John Vulliamy in the late 1860s. The Board of Works received many designs, one designed by Bazalgette is situated on the Chelsea Embankment. The ornate lamp designs are a visible legacy of the transformation of London from a dirty and disease-ridden city to a cleaner and more sophisticated river where many walk and enjoy the sights London has to offer.

The sewer system is still in use in London today, and it was because of Bazalgette’s forethought that London’s population was expanding rapidly and would continue to grow over time. He, therefore, created the sewer pipes to be larger than necessary to accommodate an increased amount of waste in the future. This forethought has allowed the sewer system to last for over 150 years and is only now undergoing repairs to the tunnels to ensure London’s sewers continue to function efficiently. London’s sewer system today faces something unimaginable to Bazalgette, the fatbergs that block the tunnels of the sewers forcing sewage to pile up within the tunnels. For example, the 2017 fatberg was removed from Whitechapel. There is a certain irony that our modern obsession with cleanliness and the use of products, such as wet wipes and other items of personal hygiene, are now discarded by modern Londoners in a similar way to how the Victorians were keen to dump their waste in the Thames. Both of course are equally disruptive and likely to cause a stink!

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

Now read Amy’s articles on Ignaz Semmelweis’ key contribution to medicine - hand-washing in hospitals here.

Bibliography 

Bibby, M. ‘London’s Great Stink’, undated, Historic UK < https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >. 

Collinson, A. ‘How Bazalgette built London’s first super-sewer’, 26 March 2019, Museum of London < https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/how-bazalgette-built-londons-first-super-sewer >.     

Crossness Engines, ‘Visit Us’, 2022, Crossness Engines <https://www.crossness.org.uk/visit.html >. 

Curtis, S. ‘The River Thames: London’s Riparian Highway’ in: A. Smith and A. Graham, eds., Destination London (London: University of Westminster Press,2019).  

Halliday, S. ‘Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Great Stink’, April 2012, London Historians < https://www.londonhistorians.org/?s=articles >.

Halliday, S. The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis, The History Press, Gloustershire, 2013, ebook, p.1781.

HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

Patowary, K. ‘The ‘Great Stink’ of London’, 14 July 2017, Amusing Planet < https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/07/the-great-stink-of-london.html >. 

UK Parliament, ‘Estimate of expense River Thames Purification Bill 1866’, undated, Uk Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/es-test-gallery-page-dnp/living-heritage2/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/thames/estimatethamespurification/ >.  

1 S. Curtis, ‘The River Thames: London’s Riparian Highway’ in: A. Smith and A. Graham, eds., Destination London (London: University of Westminster Press,2019)p.168. 

2  HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

3  UK Parliament, ‘Estimate of expense River Thames Purification Bill 1866’, undated, Uk Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/es-test-gallery-page-dnp/living-heritage2/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/thames/estimatethamespurification/ > [accessed 22 March 2022]. 

4  M, Bibby, ‘London’s Great Stink’, undated, Historic UK < https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >[accessed 18 March 2022].

5  HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

6  S.Halliday, The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis, The History Press, Gloustershire, 2013, ebook, p.1781.

7  Ibid., p.1789. 

8  Ibid.,p.1798. 

9  Ibid.,p.1853.

10 Ibid.,pp.1880-88.

11 Curtis,op.cit.,p.168. 

12  A, Collinson, ‘How Bazalgette built London’s first super-sewer’, 26 March 2019, Museum of London < https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/how-bazalgette-built-londons-first-super-sewer> [accessed 10 March 2022]. 

13  S.Halliday, ‘Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Great Stink’, April 2012, London Historians < https://www.londonhistorians.org/?s=articles >[accessed 18 March 2022]. 

14  Ibid. 

Controversial Heritage: An Approach to Racism from the Land of Black Pete

In the eyes of foreigners, the Netherlands has a controversial tradition. Every autumn an old man named Sinterklaas (a figure based on Saint Nicholas, patron saint of children and one of the sources of the popular Christmas icon of Santa Claus) with a staff, a miter and a long beard arrives in the Netherlands on a steamboat accompanied by dozens of servants, called zwarte pieten (Black Petes). These Petes have traditionally been painted black, have bright red lips, gold earrings, and curly hair. Black Pete hands out sweets and presents to children. To outsiders this whole tradition has an obvious stereotypical racist character, but for many Dutch people it is an innocent tradition: they say this has nothing to do with racism. In the last ten years in particular there has been increasing criticism of the racist character of Black Pete, both from minority groups within the country and from abroad. This is a very delicate situation in the generally liberal and tolerant Netherlands. Fierce discussions and demonstrations by supporters and opponents characterize the past ten years. Why is this tradition so highly valued and how should it continue?

Bram Peters explains.

Illustration from Jan Schenkman's book Sint Nikolaas en zijn Knecht (Saint Nicholas and his Servant).

Although Sinterklaas is a tradition for children, it’s always the adults who say Black Pete must stay black, not the children. This has to do with the fact that adults have an image from their youth of what Black Pete should look like. Children don’t have those memories. And that’s why it’s so sensitive. Adults feel that a tradition they have only fond childhood memories of may not be passed onto the next generation. Their tradition is under pressure to change and that hurts. Every survey shows that it is mainly older Dutch people who want to stick to the traditional appearance of Black Pete. Younger generations are more open to change.

Over the past ten years you can see that the annual recurring discussion is starting to influence public opinion. The number of Dutch people who are in favor of the traditional Black Pete decreases a little every year, but it is going slowly. International events also influence this shift, for example UN researcher Verene Sheperd’s criticism of the Dutch tradition in 2013 and the worldwide Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Slowly the tradition is changing: every year more Black Petes appear with only some soot smudges on the face rather than full blackface. Other Petes are painted in all kinds of colors.

When something is part of your own culture and tradition, it can be very difficult to understand that it can be hurtful to others. Something that is perceived as racist by others cannot be easily understood for people for whom it is part of their identity. There seems to be a blind spot. In addition, we live in a time when the world is changing rapidly. Globalization, migration and the rise of the internet and social media mean everyone is connected to everyone and old habits and customs are constantly under discussion. Many people experience a loss of identity and tend to cling to the old. Polarization is the result. It is more important than ever to keep in touch with each other and really understand why one wants change and why that change takes time for the other.

Global discussions

Similar discussions about racist heritage are also present in other countries. Take for example the situation in the United States, where statues of so-called Civil War “heroes” such as General Robert Lee are removed and the use of the Confederate flag on government buildings and other locations has become highly controversial. The statues and flag are widely seen by minority groups as symbols of slavery and oppression. And they find the majority of historians on their side. For white residents of the southern states, the situation is sometimes more nuanced. They see these symbols as part of their past and heritage and do not necessarily associate them with racism. The aforementioned blind spot seems to be present here too because most of these people aren’t white power supremacists. It is essential that this group enters the dialogue with the group that do find these symbols racist, even if one may not be used to talk with the other. This will help to get a better mutual understanding and hopefully accomplish a re-evaluation of the controversial heritage that simply exists, even if it will take time. And to make a stand together against the white power movement that is not only openly racist but is even proud of it and cannot be reasoned with.

What do you think about re-evaluating controversial heritage? Let us know below.

About the author: Bram Peters is an historian from the Netherlands. He has a MA in political history from one of the major Dutch universities, and specialized in national identity and traditions, as well as parliamentary history, the second world war and war propaganda. He worked for years as a curator at one of the largest war museums in the Netherlands. He likes to get involved in public debate by writing articles for national and regional newspapers and websites.