19th Century American Business Leaders - Robber Barons or Captains of Industry?

The 19th century was a time of great change in America. Over the century the American population grew significantly and the the economy developed across the American continental landmass from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As the economy grew, more recognisably modern companies came into being. Here, Richard Bluttal returns and considers whether leaders of some of the largest companies were robber barons or captains of industry: Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller.

John D. Rockefeller in 1895.

On February 9, 1859, Henry J. Raymond, editor of the New York Times, said something strange about Cornelius Vanderbilt. Raymond didn’t like Vanderbilt, a steamship tycoon with such a vast fleet he was known as the Commodore, then the highest rank in the United States navy. In an editorial titled “Your money or your line,” Raymond blasted him for taking a large monthly payment from the Pacific Mail Steamship Company in return for Vanderbilt’s foregoing competition on the sea lanes in California. “Like those old German barons, who from their eyries along the Rhine, swooped down upon the commerce of the noble river and wrung tribute from every passenger that floated by,” Raymond wrote,” Mr.Cornelius Vanderbilt …..has insisted that the Pacific Company should pay him toll, taken of all of America that had business with California.” Though Raymond never used the phrase “robber barron”, his editorial was the first known of the metaphor in American journalism. This phrase conjures up greedy individuals running around destroying competitors, and rigging the market. What is strange is that this is not what Raymond meant. Raymond attacked Commodore for pursuing a “competition for competition’s sake, competition which crowds out legitimate enterprises.

Large enterprises

Starting in the middle of the nineteenth century the first true enterprises began to emerge. After the Civil War, geography and the idea of entrepreneurship influenced the growth and expansion of the United States. As the United States transformed into an industrial society with little regulation of business, it was possible for small numbers of men to dominate crucial industries. The five keys to America’s industrial success were; superabundance of land and precious resources, excellent natural and manmade systems of transportation, invention and technology, a growing supply of labor, and superb industrial organization. Its soil, forests, wildlife and minerals provided the basis for economic activity for its early peoples. Tribes followed buffalo on the Great Plains, others developed economics based on woodland game, marine animals or fish from its many rivers and two oceans. In the 1800’s settlers found cooper, lead, gold, silver nickel and zinc far below beneath the soil, the country was rich in these minerals and had immense deposits of high quality ore, great resources of petroleum and in the West a natural treasury of gold, silver and cooper. As to our natural resources, there were huge amounts of fossil fuels, coal and natural gas reserves. The internal natural waterways became the fastest way to transport goods, cities sprang up such as New Orleans on the Mississippi river and Chicago on Lake Michigan. Cities like Boston and Philadelphia developed as trading centers at transportation crossroads. Moving west, cities developed across the landscape. Physical features influenced growth of cities- St. Louis at the juncture of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. In the late 1800s better means of transportation encouraged concentration of industries in cities, all fueled by the abundance of natural resources. One major influence that drove America’s technological development was the spectacular expansion of the nation’s boundaries, population, and economy. The territorial size of the United States quadrupled from 1800 to 1900, a nation spanning the continent from Atlantic to Pacific. Within these decades we acquired Florida from Spain and the Oregon Territory from Great Britain. In 1869 we purchased Alaska from Russia and then the Hawaiian Islands. The census of 1800 recorded a total population of 5.3 million people; by 1900, the United States was home to more than 75 million. The need to connect and supply this expansive nation encouraged the development of innovations in transportation, communication, and manufacturing.

Over the course of the late 1800s, entrepreneurs like Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan helped to shape the growth of American industry. Some people saw them as Captains of Industry because they were inventive, hardworking and led the way in the rise of American business. Others saw them as Robber Barons because they were ruthless and self-centered entrepreneurs whose aggressive business practices destroyed the smaller competitors and drove many companies out of business. The men who were called robber barons were often portrayed in a positive light, as “self-made men” who had helped build the nation and in the process created many jobs for American workers. However, the public mood turned against them in the late 19th century. Criticism from newspapers and social critics began to find an audience. And American workers began to organize in great numbers as the labor movement accelerated.

Events in labor history, such as the Homestead Strike and the Pullman Strike, intensified public resentment toward the wealthy. The conditions of workers, when contrasted with the lavish lifestyles of millionaire industrialists, created widespread resentment.

Even other businessmen felt exploited by monopolistic practices as it was virtually impossible to compete in some fields. Common citizens became aware that monopolists could more easily exploit workers.

There was a public backlash against the lavish displays of wealth often exhibited by the very wealthy of the age. Critics noted the concentration of wealth as evil or weakness of society, and satirists, such as Mark Twain, derided the showiness of the robber barons as “the Gilded Age.”

Cornelius Vanderbilt

As a boy, the younger Vanderbilt worked with his father on the water and attended school briefly. When Vanderbilt was a teen, he transported cargo around the New York harbor in his own periauger. Eventually, he acquired a fleet of small boats and learned about ship design. Cornelius Vanderbilt initially made his money in the steamships business before investing in railroads. In 1817, Vanderbilt went to work as a ferry captain for a wealthy businessman, Thomas Gibbons, who owned a commercial steamboat service that operated between New Jersey and New York. The job provided Vanderbilt the opportunity to learn about the burgeoning steamship industry. In the late 1820s, he went into business on his own, building steamships and operating ferry lines around the New York region. Shrewd and aggressive, he became a dominant force in the industry by engaging in fierce fare wars with his rivals. In some cases, his competitors paid him hefty sums not to compete with them. (Throughout his life, Vanderbilt’s ruthless approach to business would earn him numerous enemies.)

Vanderbilt fervently believed in laissez-faire economics, using it to great advantage in crushing his rivals. After a lifetime on the sea, he shifted all focus to railroads in 1863. Cornelius Vanderbilt gained control of most of the railroad industry. He offered rebates to customers and refused service for people traveling on competing railroad lines. He lowered the rates on his railroad in order to gain more business. He drove competing railroad companies out of business and bought up their railroad lines. Small railroads were swallowed up by Vanderbilt’s massive corporation. Vanderbilt led the drive for consolidation and gained control of most of the railroad business. Vanderbilt also tried to “corner”, or completely control, the stock in the Erie Railroad Company, leading to a dispute between railroad millionaires. He encouraged these battles because he usually won and benefitted. His control of the New York railroad system led to the development of what is now Grand Central Station, and one of the nation’s first giant corporations, N.Y. Central & Hudson River Railroad. Vanderbilt also used his money to help others. He donated money to colleges and universities and helped to develop churches. He lived modestly, but his children built a number of mansions (many on Long Island), which came to symbolize what was known as the “Gilded Age.”

Andrew Carnegie

In 1892 Andrew Carnegie’s steel mill in Homestead, PA was threatened to grind to a halt over a worker’s strike. Workers wanted to unionize over incredibly unsafe working conditions, and Carnegie didn't want this because it meant shorter hours for the workers, which would result in less steel being produced, and would cost him money. As a result he sent his most trusted assistant to Homestead to deal with the situation. Mr. Frick decided to hire Pinkertons to protect the plant from any strikers who may destroy the factory. Pinkertons were armed guards who were mostly former soldiers, and were viewed as a paid military force. They were known to be tough for anyone who hired them.

Below are the letters from Frick to Carnegie

My Dear Mr. Carnegie, I have arrived in Homestead in investigate the labor strike, and things are as good as they could be right now. I have hired 300 Pinkerton to protect the plant against any striking workers who may damage it. They will arrive on Tuesday, and should quell any unrest. The local newspaper is not reporting the current labor situation favorably, and seem shocked that we would attempt to guard and protect our property! In response I had an article published in all of this evenings papers alerting them of our response to the strike, and I think that our position within the community is well defined. We shall, of course, keep within the law, and do nothing that is not entirely legal. Yours truly, Mr.Frick

Frick, Cable just received. All anxiety gone since know you stand firm. Never employ one of these rioters. Let grass grow over work. Must not fail now. You will win easily. Next trial only stand firm. Law and order work. I could support you in any form. (Western Union Cable Message from Scotland.

With the arrival of the Pinkertons on July 6, violence immediately broke out. Strikers were throwing rocks at the armed Pinkertons, and they fired back into the crowd with their guns. In response 5,000 men from a neighboring mill arrived at Homestead to help defend the fallen workers. This event turned so chaotic that the state militia had to be called the following day to try to end the violence. By July 18 the entire town was placed under martial law. In the end 12 were killed, 23 wounded, and the Homestead plant remained without a union. Carnegie’s reputation was permanently damaged by the Homestead events.

Andrew Carnegie helped build the formidable American steel industry, a process that turned a poor young man into the richest man in the world. In 1865, Carnegie helped form the Keystone Bridge Company, a company that replaced wooden railroad bridges with steel. After meeting Henry Bessemer, the inventor of a new iron-to-steel converter, on a trip to England in 1873, he became convinced that the future of American industry was in the manufacture and use of steel. On his return to Pittsburgh, he built the J. Edgar Thomson Steel Mill near Pittsburgh using the ideas being developed by Bessemer in England. The "Carnegie Empire" was born. In 1899, Carnegie consolidated all of his holdings into the Carnegie Steel Company, making it the largest steel company in the world. In 1901, he sold the company to J.P. Morgan's United States Steel Company for $250 million, and from that point on, Carnegie devoted himself full-time to his various philanthropic projects.

At a time when America struggled -- often violently -- to sort out the competing claims of democracy and individual gain, Carnegie championed both. He saw himself as a hero of working people, yet he crushed their unions. One of the most successful entrepreneurs of his age, he railed against privilege. A generous philanthropist, he slashed the wages of the workers who made him rich.

J.P. Morgan

One of the most controversial figures of the 19th century was J.P. Morgan, a banker and financier who was instrumental in the formation of several major corporations. While Morgan was incredibly wealthy and influential, there is debate over whether he should be classified as a robber baron or a captain of industry. Those who view Morgan as a robber baron point to his involvement in the creation of monopolies, his manipulation of the stock market, and his ruthless business practices. However, others argue that Morgan was simply a product of his time and that he helped to fuel America’s economic boom in the late 19th century. Ultimately, the debate over whether Morgan was a robber baron or a captain of industry is a complex one. However, there is no denying that he was one of the most important and controversial figures of his time.

His millionaire father, Junius, made his fortune by investing other people’s money and helped found modern investment banking. When John Pierpont, or JP, was a child, Junius had him handle a million dollars in cash, however, there is no denying that he was one of the most important and controversial figures of his time.

JP Morgan wastaught early to avoid risk. Morgan escaped military service during the Civil War by paying $300 to a substitute to fight for him. During the war he bought five thousand rifles at $3.50 each and sold them on at $22 apiece. The rifles were `defective and some shoot off the thumbs of the soldiers, firing at them. Later, a congressional committee noted this but a federal judge upholds the deal and Morgan is exonerated.

At face value, Morgan contributed greatly to American industry. He invested in Thomas Edison and the Edison Electricity Company; helped to create General Electric and International Harvester; formed J.P. Morgan & Company; and gained control of half of the country’s railroad mileage. He also created the first billion-dollar company, U.S. Steel. At one point in his life, he was a board member of as many as 48 corporations. However, Morgan engaged in some unethical and anticompetitive practices to ward off competition. For example, he was believed to head a money trust that controlled the banking industry and was commonly considered a figurehead of Wall Street. He also created a monopoly by slashing the workforce and their pay to maximize profits while eliminating the competition. Workers’ wages were often as low as a dollar a day or less, and conditions for employees were poor, with increased fatalities even as wages grew.

Despite the numerous negatives associated with how Morgan built his wealth, some of his actions did benefit the United States and society. For example, his wealth was so vast that he was able to help bail out the federal government twice during an economic crisis, first in 1895 and again in 1907.

John D. Rockefeller

Industry during this time could not have expanded so quickly in the United States without the nation’s rich supply of natural resources. In 1859, Americans discovered oil as a valuable new resource. Titusville, Pennsylvania, where the first oil strike occurred, brought hundreds of prospectors to western Pennsylvania in search of oil. Among those was John D. Rockefeller. He did not choose to drill for oil, but instead built an oil refinery to purify the oil so that it can be used. Rockefeller believed competition was wasteful and used his profits to buy up other refineries, creating Standard Oil Company of Ohio. He was a brilliant entrepreneur yet shrewd businessman. He did whatever he could to get rid of his competition, including slashing his prices to drive out rival oil companies. He forced railroad companies, who wanted his business, to give him secret rebates and lower his shipping costs. He had an advantage over his competitors. Rockefellers Standard Oil Trust created a monopoly over the oil industry, controlling almost 95% of oil refineries. Although criticized by journalists for his corrupt business practices, he was able to improve his public image throughout his life by philanthropy or giving his money away to charitable causes. He funded organizations and churches that assisted freedmen in the south. He also created colleges and universities for African-Americans. He also provided money to medical institutions.

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

Now read Richard’s piece on the history of slavery in New York here.

The Mexican War of Independence: The Changes of the 1810s - Part 4

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 the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at what happened during the Mexican War of Independence with the important figure of José Morelos - and how things didn’t turn out quite as the rebels intended.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, how Hidalgo continued the war here, and the impact of José Morelos here.

Am portrait of King Fernando VII of Spain. By Vicente López Portaña.

Changes On Both Sides of the Atlantic

The year 1815 brought many changes to the struggle for independence in New Spain. The death of Morelos brought confusion as to who would be the primary leader of the revolution. Morelos had known how to groom younger officers into becoming leaders. The problem was so many, such as Matamoros, were already dead. The rebels needed a leader to rally around. After his victory over Morelos, Viceroy Calleja had offered amnesty to all rebels, and many would take him up on his offer, all seeming lost.

Another change was the conditions in Spain. In 1814, the French were finally driven across the Pyrenees. Napoleon abdicated after the occupation of Paris and his Spanish royal prisoners were freed. The long-awaited King Ferdinand VII was able to return to his capital (literally no one wanted Carlos IV back) and he would lead Spain to a glorious future of freedom and liberal politics. Except…he wouldn’t. Ferdinand was not the man his supporters thought he was.

Ferdinand the Reactionary

The Spain of 1814 was governed by the Constitution of 1812, born in the fires of the Peninsular War. This constitution limited the powers of the monarch, created a legislature that would represent all Spaniards on both sides of the Atlantic, and provided for guarantees of rights to all citizens. After all, this constitution and the person of Ferdinand VII were what the Spanish had just fought a six-year occupation for. In town after town, the people of Spain rapturously turned out to greet their longed-for monarch. All the conflicting classes, groups, juntas, and political factions were united. What possible reason could anyone want to fight against the new Spanish government that offered the colonials everything they could hope for, freedom, a liberal constitution, and the lifting of racial restrictions?

It only took a few weeks after his return to Madrid for Ferdinand to discard the constitution and restore absolute rule. He had proven to be far more reactionary than anyone could have feared. Barely a week after the end of the constitution, liberal leaders in and out of the government were arrested in a wide sweep. Ferdinand had even allowed the Jesuits to return. The united front with which Spain could have faced its fractious colonials was gone. Now Spain would see a continuation of the chaos of the war years.

War Exhaustion Grips Mexico

The situation in New Spain was little better than what was seen in the mother country. The rebels were forced to fight a guerrilla campaign against the forces of the Viceroy. Outnumbered, outgunned, and without any financial resources, the rebels were forced to extract supplies and money from the populations of the areas they operated in. This led to a great deal of economic devastation and needless deaths.

For the royalists, their situation was not much better. The great treasure fleets were a thing of the past. Spain was a chaotic mess led by a man who seemed to combine the fecklessness of his father with the corruption of Godoy. Despite their battlefield victories, the royalists were unable to finish off the rebels, who could retreat into the vastness of the desolate countryside. Lacking money and support from Spain, the royalists were forced to take food and supplies from the local populace. Many royalist commanders, receiving little to no support from Mexico City, set up their own fiefdoms throughout the colony, making themselves answerable to no one.

In many cases, the people of New Spain would be forced to contribute to both sides at the barrels of their guns, leaving nothing left for themselves. New Spain was dying by its own hand. The fight between the rebels and the royalists after the death of Morelos was carried out with a brutality that led many to disregard causes and ideologies and fight simply for hate’s sake.

New Rebel Leaders Arise

For two men, the war was still about the ideals of Hidalgo and Morelos. Vicente Guerrero was the right-hand man of Morelos. He was a man who still believed in freedom and independence for Mexico. A man who showed so much integrity during the war, that when the new Viceroy, Juan Ruiz de Apodaca, wanted to coax Guerrero to surrender he dispatched Guerrero’s own father, who was a royalist, to try to convince him. Guerrero turned down his own father, convinced of the justice of his cause. Guerrero would be made General in Chief of the rebels and fought battle after battle against the royalist forces. While successful time and again, he lacked the men and resources to deal a killing blow.

José Miguel Fernandez also believed in the dream. He came to see himself as the embodiment of the struggle for independence. In time, he would be known more famously as Guadalupe Victoria, taking this name symbolizing the fight for freedom.  Victoria would also gain several victories against the royalists.

From 1815 to 1817, these two leaders would lead a semi-successful partisan war against the royalists. Hitting isolated towns and garrisons hard, they would quickly retreat back into the mountains or the jungle. Despite these victories, the rebels were not capable of driving the Spanish from Mexico. For all the problems the royalists had, they were still better armed, trained, and provisioned. The only advantage the rebels seemed to possess was mobility. Neither side could achieve anything like a decisive victory that could affect the outcome of the war.

The Royalists Hit Back Harder

In 1817, the royalists decided to concentrate on Victoria, operating in the area around Veracruz. Striking hard and fast, the royalists hammered Victoria’s forces, retaking all the cities he had occupied. Victoria’s army was destroyed, and he himself had to hide in the jungle with only a few followers for several years. With one threat defeated, and seemingly out of the war, Apodaca now concentrated on Guerrero. Royalist troops were thrown at Guerrero’s rebels, but they were never able to pin him down. What the royalists were able to do was, through battle and attrition, whittle down Guerrero’s forces and so devastate the countryside in his area of operations that his effectiveness was limited.

By 1819, Apodaca could fairly accurately report to Ferdinand’s government that he did not need any more troops from Spain. From the Viceroy’s seat, the insurgency may still linger on, but the war of independence was over. There was a less than zero chance that Guerrero would be able to victoriously march into the Zocalo with his army and win the war. Events in New Spain, however, would be overtaken by events in Old Spain.

Fire From the Rear for the Royalists

As mentioned earlier, Ferdinand VII restored absolute rule in 1814. By 1820, Spanish liberals were either in prison or in hiding. They groaned under the heavy hand of Ferdinand and his neo-absolutist rule. Dissatisfaction was high, and the constant wars in the colonies were driving discontent even higher. In order to deal with the rebellions in the New World, Ferdinand had ordered a force to gather in Cádiz and sail for the Americas to put down the rebels once and for all. Ferdinand wanted to take no chances. Despite the war in New Spain seemingly being won, he would reinforce his colonies, finish off the rebels, then his troops would move colony by colony destroying rebel armies until the colonials were finally suppressed. On New Year’s Day, 1820, troops in the city led by Colonel Rafael del Riego staged a revolt demanding the return of the Constitution of 1812 and the end of absolutism. Riego’s army began marching into the interior to gather supporters when another uprising took place in Galicia. From these two seeds, the rebellion grew throughout Spain. By March, the liberals approached Madrid and even surrounded the royal palace. Ferdinand saw the writing on the wall and agreed to restore the constitution and surrender many of his own powers.

Back in 1812, the Supreme Junta in Spain had ordered the old Viceroy, Vanegas, to implement the Constitution. Vanegas was a liberal, so he was not necessarily opposed to many of the high ideals contained therein. What he did oppose was independence for New Spain. Vanegas was more far-sighted than the Supreme Junta. He recognized that the implementation of liberal ideas in New Spain would inevitably lead to independence. The Supreme Junta missed this and believed that no one truly informed of the guarantees of the Constitution would oppose it.

Vanegas knew the Constitution of 1812 made his job virtually impossible. He suspended its implementation soon after, using Morelos’ rebellion as justification. By the time news reached Spain about this, the new government of Ferdinand approved heartily. Vanegas was replaced by Calleja, who decreed in August 1815 that the Constitution was dead. This was how the political situation in New Spain sat for several years.

A Time for Questions

When, in 1820, the liberal Constitution came back, many of the royalists were horrified. They were conservative by nature and political outlook. They had spent the better part of a decade fighting against the liberalism that the rebels embodied. Now, they were being told by the government that they had put their lives on the line for, that the liberal ideals were the right ones. This new, liberal Spain was not one they were willing to fight for.

In 1820, the revolution was nearly dead. Guerrero was driven deep into the mountains. Victoria was still eating bugs in the jungles around Veracruz. The people were exhausted. The country was devastated. Most of the true believers were dead or in hiding. It had seemed that all the years of fighting and struggle had been for nothing. Militarily, the rebels had lost.

For the royalists, it had seemed a lost cause too. Sure, they had won on the battlefield. Yes, the rebels were still fighting, but they were disorganized bands not much more organized than outlaws. It was ideologically where they had lost the war. They had fought for the ideals of dios, patria, y rey; God, Fatherland, and King. Now, through no fault of their own, those ideals were thrown out the window by rebels in Madrid who were attempting to undermine everything they had done for almost a decade. What was the point of fighting against the liberalism the rebels were trying to establish in New Spain when their very government, seemingly their very king, they were fighting for was telling them that liberalism was the new order of the day?

It was a time for choosing in New Spain, for all of the combatants. Where did your first loyalty lie? To the king? To Mexico? To New Spain? To liberalism? To conservatism? To republicanism? To monarchism? For everyone fighting in New Spain by the dawn of 1821, the answer to that question would put to the test all of the major players. They would all be held in the balance.

What do you think of the 1810s in Mexico and the impact from changes in Spain? 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.

Korea in the 19th Century - Conflict between China and Japan

During the second half of the 19th century, many political powers - European and Asian alike - had their attention concentrated on a kingdom that was famous for being isolated. Its location and resources were the obvious features that would make it an easy target for invasion. The land of Korea was so secluded from the outside world that it had earned the title of the ‘Hermit Kingdom’. As we focus on the happenings in China and Japan, we can’t leave out the land for which they were fighting. What were the circumstances in Korea while China and Japan had been strategizing to gain authority over her?

If you missed them, you can read Disha’s article on the First Sino-Japanese War here, and how the war may have led to the collapse of the Qing dynasty here.

A depiction of the 1882 Imo Mutiny.

Confucianism and Korean society

The foundations of Korean society were laid over the principles of Confucianism. Violation of any ritual practice was considered a greater offense than breaking a law. It was believed that a ruler who did not carry out the traditional rites in a proper fashion was unfit to rule. (1) Soon, Confucianism gained a societal aspect to it, rather than just a religious one. It came to be regarded as a way of life - a system through which all institutions of society could be run smoothly.

Confucianism idealized a society that was organized into classes. As a result, Korea had been a rigidly hierarchical society since the Koryeo times. The demarcation was done into the yangban and the common people. The yangban were the elite classes at the top. They were scholars of Confucianism and were trained from their childhood to become a part of the government. (2) They were entitled to several liberties that the common folks were not - one of them being tax exemption. (3)

Koreans were pleased with Korea’s identity as ‘little China’ because they believed China was the center of all that was under heaven. (4) China was a cultured land unlike Japan which no longer properly executed the venerable practices of Confucianism. This, along with the adoption of western ways, led Japan to be perceived as an inferior state. Furthermore, the Japanese didn't even conduct civil service examinations, so how could they employ good government officials? (5) In other words, they were no better than the barbarians from the West.

The 1881 Mission to Japan

Korea had remained secluded for centuries, earning the title of ‘Hermit Kingdom’. The Treaty of Kanghwa modified this status, as one of the main conditions of the treaty was allowing free trade to Japanese merchants and opening up three Korean ports. As the kingdom gradually lowered its walls of isolation, Japan’s modernization made an impression on Korea. Although, not all of it was positive.

To study the practices of modernized Japan, King Kojong sent a group of courtiers to Japan in 1881. These courtiers were ardent followers of Confucianism and also from the yangban classes. (6) The kind of Confucianism they witnessed in Japan had them scrunching their noses. No matter how unimpressed they were, they couldn’t help but admire the orderliness and prosperity there. (7)

The older members of the mission were not so keen on having the same reforms made in Korea. Contrary to their thoughts, modernization in Japan had a significant impact on the younger members. Having been exposed to new ideas, the urge to bring about change in the governance of their home state became stronger in these individuals. More than eighty books of reports were made that described various features of Meiji Japan in detail. (8) A special unit was also created under Lieutenant Horimoto Reizo, a Japanese official, to modernize the Korean army. (9)

Imo Mutiny

Around the same time, tensions started rising in the Korean army. The Korean soldiers did not particularly like the new reforms done under the Japanese unit. Moreover, there had been a delay in their payment. Rice was used as currency in those days and they found out that they had been given contaminated rice. As a result, the frustrated soldiers started a revolt against the crown in 1882.

The Imo Mutiny acted as a foothold for the Qing dynasty to reestablish its power in Korea. The incident brought Chinese troops into Korea. The Chinese now exerted their dominance by meddling in Korea’s affairs. The incident led to a visible division of the Korean administration into pro-Japanese and pro-Chinese factions.

The pro-Chinese were the older yangban who valued “Eastern learning” and were mostly from the Min clan. They made up the Sadae party meaning “serving the great”, which in this case was China. Interestingly, the Min clan was partial to the opinion that there was a need to modernize Korea with western weaponry while maintaining its comfort as a Chinese protectorate. On the other hand, the pro-Japanese were led by the younger yangban. These reform-pursuing individuals then formed an organization called the Kaehwa Party (or the Enlightenment Party). (10) Kim Ok-kyun and Hong Yeong-sik were some of the prominent leaders of the Kaehwa party.

The Gapsin Coup

The Treaty of Kanghwa omitted to mention Korea as a Chinese protectorate. To counter this move, the Chinese had begun persuading Korea to sign treaties with the West (11) to prevent any Japanese interference. After the Imo Mutiny, they were fairly certain that it was not so easy to snatch Korea away from them after all. So, when China clashed with the French in 1884, some of the Qing troops stationed in Korea since the mutiny were withdrawn.

The leaders of the Kaehwa Party saw this as an opportunity to liberate Korea from external and internal power plays. Their main objectives were the end of the yangban dominance in the administration and ending Korea’s identity as a Chinese tributary state.

A banquet was organized by Hong Yeong-sik for celebrating the inauguration of the new postal administration. (12) It was held in the presence of King Kojong on December 4, 1884. The event gave way to the king being held captive under the eye of Japanese guards and the killing of many pro-Chinese officials. This was the inception of a three-day coup, called the Gapsin coup, supported by Japan. It was executed under the leadership of Kim Ok-kyun.

Though it was quite ambitious, the coup fell short of fulfilling its purpose. The Chinese troops arrived in Korea at Queen Min’s request and vanquished the Japanese forces. The Li-Ito Convention put a pause to the bloodshed by removing both Chinese and Japanese troops from Joseon territory, albeit temporarily.

The Sino-French War concluded with the Qings having to cede Annam (Vietnam). In addition to the constant anti-dynastic rebellions and an inefficient government, another new problem now posed before the declining Qing dynasty was that of losing tributary states. China had lost Annam to the French and Burma (Myanmar) to the British. (13) It would be an utter disgrace for the Qings to lose suzerainty over another territory as the reputation of the dynasty worsened. This proved to be a grave situation as the focus shifted towards Korea which was still on Japan’s radar.

While the coup was suppressed and China had managed to regain Korea as a tributary, it did not remain so for a long time. The Tonghak Rebellion in 1894 went on to challenge Korean authorities. The situation got so out of hand that as a last resort Korea had to ask for Chinese intervention. The intervention, seen as the violation of the Li-Ito Convention, once again brought China and Japan to the battlefield.

What do you think of Chinese and Japanese conflict over Korea? Let us know below.

Now read Disha’s article on the Hitler Youth here.

Bibliography

Chung, Chai-sik. “Changing Korean Perceptions of Japan on the Eve of Modern Transformation: The Case of Neo-Confucian Yangban Intellectuals.” Korean Studies 19 (1995): 39–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719138.

Hahm, Chaihark. “Ritual and Constitutionalism: Disputing the Ruler’s Legitimacy in a Confucian Polity.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 57, no. 1 (2009): 135–203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454666.

Huh, Donghyun, and Vladimir Tikhonov. “The Korean Courtiers’ Observation Mission’s Views on Meiji Japan and Projects of Modern State Building.” Korean Studies 29 (2005): 30–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719526.

Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905.” Chapter. In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, 11:70–141. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Seth, Michael J. A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.

References

1 Chaihark Hahm, ‘Ritual and Constitutionalism: Disputing the Ruler's Legitimacy in a Confucian Polity’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454666.

2 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Choso˘n Society’, 176-177.

3 Ibid, 167.

4 Chai-sik Chung, ‘Changing Korean Perceptions of Japan on the Eve of Modern Transformation: The Case of Neo-Confucian Yangban Intellectuals’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719138.

5 Ibid.

6 Donghyun Huh and Vladimir Tikhonov, ‘The Korean Courtiers’ Observation Mission’s Views on Meiji Japan and Projects of Modern State Building’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719526.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Korea in the Age of Imperialism, 1876-1910’, 235-236.

10 Ibid, 238.

11 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 102.

12 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Korea in the Age of Imperialism, 1876-1910’, 238-239.

 13 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 101.

The Mexican War of Independence: Morelos Arrives - Part 3

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 the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at what happened during the Mexican War of Independence with the important figure of José Morelos - and how things didn’t turn out quite as the rebels intended.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, and how Hidalgo continued the war here.

An 1865 painting of José Morelos. By Petronilo Monroy.

The beginning of the Mexican War of Independence was dominated by the person and personality of Miguel Hidalgo. Even today, in both the historiography and the popular imagination, the character of Hidalgo and his role in starting the journey to independence is glorified and memorialized. The role of a “great leader” would characterize the history of the War of Independence, and its phases can be broken down into eras with the name of the preeminent leader attached to them. With the passing of the first phase of the war, now the second phase began, and with it, a new leader.

Morelos’ Formative Years

The second phase also began the way the first did, with a priest. José Morelos was born in Valladolid, a town later renamed Morelia in his honor. He grew up in a family of limited means, and upon being old enough, was put to work. He learned to be a teamster, driving mules along local roads. Like most children born in conditions of near poverty, he dreamed of something more. Unlike most, he did something about it. He would read every book he could find. He taught himself skills that no teamster would dream of needing. He was preparing himself for something more.

When old enough to work for himself, Morelos saved all the money he could to educate himself. Surviving on scraps of food, and taking all the work that he could find, he was able to save enough money to receive a formal education. He enrolled in the local institution of higher learning, the Colegio de San Nicolás Obispo in his hometown. It was while here that he would come into contact with the most influential figure of his life. Teaching at the Colegio at the same time was Miguel Hidalgo.

While learning at the knee of Hidalgo, Morelos took in all of the Enlightenment learning that would later get Hidalgo into so much trouble. Ideas about freedom, the superiority of reason over superstition, and resentment against social distinctions. Morelos became enraptured by these ideas and would use them as guides for all his future endeavors. Like Hidalgo, he would accept Enlightenment ideals while still maintaining support for the Catholic Church and accepting its beliefs. Morelos would attack what he saw as superstition, like Hidalgo, but he would remain a Catholic until the end.

There was one way in which Morelos would differ from his teacher, and it would be a major, defining point in their characters. Hidalgo had a mind that was undisciplined. He was interested in everything and wanted to learn everything. This lack of discipline would lead to disaster when he neither had the desire nor the capacity to exert control over the baser instincts of his uprising. Morelos, however, was very disciplined. Perhaps it was the discipline required of being a self-made man, or perhaps it was something else. Whatever it was, when Morelos learned, he was able to systematize knowledge and apply it usefully. The importance of this would be seen to full effect later.

After graduating from the Colegio, Morelos was ordained a priest. However, due to his social standing, he was given the lowly position of curate at an even lesser backwater than Hidalgo ended up, the town of Carácuaro. For over ten years, from 1799 until 1810, Morelos would live and work in obscurity, eventually rising to the position of a parish priest. Living in the poor colonial town further fed into the resentment against the colonial authorities that his Enlightenment ideals helped foster. Morelos saw the same inefficiency and oppression in Carácuaro as Hidalgo saw in Dolores. Working and living next to the poor indios and mestizos gave Morelos a personal connection with these groups of people that only proved in his mind the philosophies he believed in.

Joining Hidalgo

When he heard of the rising under Hidalgo, Morelos rushed to join his old mentor. Here was the revolution that men like him had been waiting for. When he finally found Hidalgo, he was just as overjoyed as Hidalgo was. Hidalgo knew the restless genius that lay within Morelos; indeed, Hidalgo had done so much to foster and encourage Morelos’ intellectual upbringing.

Hidalgo was smart enough to know that he could not be in all places at once. He needed trusted lieutenants who could rally the people in the same way he could. Morelos was just such a man. Needing a man to raise the country in the south, Hidalgo directed Morelos to raise an army and operate along the Pacific coast. Setting out from the main army with only 25 men, the core of the next insurgent army grew.

Building a Movement in the South

In building this army, Morelos would show his true genius, building a movement. Hidalgo had raised an enormous army, the size of which New Spain had not seen since the days of the Aztecs. Unfortunately for the revolutionary cause, this army was poorly disciplined and even more poorly equipped. As any person of genius knows, more can be learned from negative examples than from positive ones. Seeing the chaos in the insurgent army convinced Morelos that a strong discipline was necessary for success, a belief that was only reinforced when Hidalgo’s army was destroyed. Further, Morelos knew that if a soldier was unequipped with the necessities of a soldier, he would be worse than useless. That unarmed soldier would simply be a wasted mouth to feed, draining the supplies of the army to no positive effect. Therefore, Morelos would allow no one into his army whom he could not provide arms for.

Morelos knew that a revolution could not be made from vague promises and lofty slogans. Order had to prevail, and law had to be established. On August 19, 1811, Morelos and Ignacio Rayón would establish a junta, the Junta de Zitácuaro. This junta would provide the new Mexican state with a government. It would create the Constitutional Elements, a set of principles that were meant to guide in the creation of a future constitution for the Mexican state. There were expressions for individual rights and the abolition of slavery. It was also still tied to the person of King Ferdinand VII, calling for an independent Mexico with Ferdinand VII as its king. The nation would be governed, not by the king, but by the people through a Congress.

People are led by principles as much as they are led by great leaders. Morelos, a believer in enlightenment philosophy, understood that the movement he was building had to have concrete principles that others could rally around, but also be broad enough to attract the fence-sitters and not chase away the indifferent. This is what the Constitutional Elements did, and they would become the basis of virtually every constitution in Mexico’s history.

Another lesson he learned from Hidalgo’s army was to select the right people to lead with him. Hidalgo had attracted a wide array of dissatisfied elements to his banner. Many of those had radically divergent views of what they wanted from the revolution. This led to the leadership of the insurgent army being at cross-purposes, and when that army began losing, it fell apart quickly. Morelos would not make the same mistake. He was a master at recognizing dormant talent and bringing out the best in others. Men like Vicente Guerrero and Mariano Matamoros were discovered and fostered by Morelos. Rising from humble origins, especially Guerrero, those with true talent were given progressively greater responsibility. Building this leadership cadre would help Morelos’ movement survive its creator.

Morelos Strikes the Royalists

While building his army, Morelos kept active. He would take his men and occupy large swaths of the south, including the city of Oaxaca. He would attack and defeat small units of the Spanish army, providing experience for his troops. Experience with hard marching, field living, and standing in the face of fire would discipline Morelos’ army and give them confidence and pride in themselves. Morelos knew that they would need these qualities when the day came to face the weight of the Spanish army.

Morelos left Hidalgo’s army in 1810. By the beginning of 1812, about 9,000 men were under his command. This was not Hidalgo’s disorganized mob. This was an army of disciplined and well-armed troops ready for campaign. They needed to be ready since it was at this time that the sword of the viceroy, General Félix Calleja, was ready to turn his attention to rooting out the insurgents in the south.

The mere presence of Morelos’ army in the south threatened one of the largest revenue streams of the government of New Spain, the trade with the Philippines. Long a Spanish colony, the Philippines provided Spain with a way to tap into the vast amounts of wealth in the Far East. Since going through the Indian Ocean and around the Cape of Good Hope would be too dangerous, the trade from the Philippines had always been routed through the city of Acapulco, on the west coast of New Spain. It was in this area that Morelos operated, and if he could interdict the wagon trains that brought goods and treasure from Acapulco through Mexico City and then on the Veracruz, the tenuous financial supports that held up the viceroyalty would crumble.

Calleja: the Antithesis of Morelos

The man who would be Morelos’ nemesis and lead the campaigns against him, Félix Calleja, was also a man of exceptional talent. It was he who finished off Hidalgo. He had also defeated Hidalgo’s rebels in the north and he had fought in dozens of campaigns against the Indians. He was also a man of iron discipline and believed in supporting his soldiers with better food and equipment. In many ways, Morelos and Calleja were reflections of each other through a dark mirror. The best Spain had to offer would face the best Mexico could offer.

In February 1812, Calleja would strike. Morelos had fortified the town of Cuautla, and Calleja wanted to destroy this base. He further hoped that he could pin down the insurgents and destroy them in one siege. What Calleja did not count on was that he was not facing insurgents anymore, but a rebel army that could stand up to him. Both sides recognized the importance of the city and their respective positions. Calleja brought in 7,000 reinforcements to support his main army of 5,000 men. Morelos brought in as many troops as the rebels could muster, about 16,000, and fortified the town further. For Calleja, this was perfect. If he could catch the rebels in a siege, he could destroy them all at once. After surrounding Cuautla, he ordered a direct assault, believing that insurgents like those in Hidalgo’s army could not stand up to his trained regulars. The assault failed after a bloody back and forth. Morelos had trained his troops well and had even brought cannons for support.

Calleja was still unconcerned. Time was on his side since he was not the one surrounded. For the rebels, conditions inside Cuautla deteriorated. Food began to run out. As time went on, fear amongst the civilian populace set in. Calleja had a well-deserved reputation for brutality. By the common rules of war at the time, the longer a city resisted, the worse the city would be punished if the invader conquered. Murder, plunder, and rape were the least of what could be expected when the Spanish took the city. Morelos knew that he had to do something, but he was not willing to just give up and surrender.

The only possible solution for Morelos was to break out from the city and attempt to get away. At 2:00 am on May 2, 1812, after a siege lasting almost two months, the rebel army attacked Calleja’s lines. Complicating matters was that many of the civilians of the city, fearing Calleja’s wrath, broke out with the rebel soldiers. While most of the soldiers and men of Cuautla managed to escape, the women and children were not so lucky and would be killed indiscriminately by Calleja’s men. Unfortunately for Morelos, one of those men who was captured was Leonardo Bravo, one of his most trusted lieutenants.

Morelos Brings Success Militarily and Politically

Freed from defending a fixed position, Morelos showed his brilliance as a strategic commander. He operated in the mountains hitting Spanish positions repeatedly. In only a few months, he was able to return to Cuautla and push further toward Veracruz. Understanding the economics of warfare, Morelos occupied the tobacco-growing regions west of Veracruz and destroyed the government storehouses full of tobacco. The monopoly on tobacco was one of the main revenue sources for the viceregal government, damaging Calleja’s ability to logistically support his army.

The mentality of the two men facing each other, Morelos and Calleja, can be seen in the fate of two hundred prisoners taken. A detachment under Nicolás Bravo captured two hundred royalist troops in a lightning strike. Morelos, desirous of getting his friend back, and understanding the poetry of the son freeing the father, offered to Calleja to exchange the two hundred prisoners in exchange for one man, Leonardo Bravo, who had been sentenced to death for treason. Calleja refused and had Bravo executed forthwith. Morelos, finding this out, ordered the younger Bravo to execute all two hundred of the royalist prisoners. Bravo, however, would show himself more merciful than either of the antagonists and release all the prisoners.

Defeat brings dissension, and among the royalists, everyone was blaming the viceroy for their troubles. Calleja was victorious wherever he was, but he could not be everywhere at once. The army was beginning to suffer from insufficient pay and supplies. The government seemed to be collapsing. The Audiencia complained to the latest Spanish government in Cadiz, which authorized the replacement of Viceroy Venegas with the only man who seemed to have the spine to defeat the rebels and end the war once and for all, Calleja himself.

Taking control, Calleja would reorganize the entire New Spanish army, providing more consistent pay and supplies. Inefficient people were purged from the government. Needing more money, he seized the assets of the Inquisition, which had been abolished by the Spanish Junta, but this had never been enforced in New Spain. Wasteful spending was cut, and corruption was punished in the exceptionally cruel way that Calleja was known for. All people of any amount of European descent would now be subject to conscription. More than creating efficiency, Calleja was showing the people of New Spain that the royalist government could support the country and the army, and was a viable alternative to the rebels, offering order in place of the rebel’s freedom.

In 1813, Morelos’ army would see further success. Launching repeated hit-and-run attacks, time and again the royalists would be routed. He would even take Acapulco itself, depriving the viceregal government of its base on the Pacific. Clearly, Morelos was taking advantage of the opportunity presented by Calleja’s focus on governmental reform and not on the army. During this time of success, Morelos felt emboldened and wanted to begin creating not just a rebel government, as had been done earlier with Rayón. As Morelos put it “it is time to strip the mask from independence.” Until this time, the rebels, even under Hidalgo, had been fighting under the assumption that Ferdinand VII would still be king of Mexico. Morelos was never happy with this formulation, and now, at the peak of his success, he began pressing for a republic. He called the Congress of Chilpancingo, which met on September 13, 1813, and directed reforms, including removing all aristocratic and priestly privileges, racial equality, universal manhood suffrage, fair taxation, and opening service to men of all ranks. For the time, this was a radical formulation to base a government upon. Most importantly, the Congress passed Mexico’s declaration of independence. Unlike Hidalgo, who gave himself grandiloquent titles, the most Morelos would accept was “servant of the nation.”

Calleja Hits Back Hard

When Calleja had finally built the army he wanted and reorganized the government, he did not directly confront Morelos in the south. The rebels in the south were beginning to act as if they had already won. Calleja was down, but not out. Like Morelos, he knew that his newly raised army would have to be bloodied before the real confrontation took place. So, instead of attacking south, Calleja led his army north and struck at those who had thrown in their lot with the rebel leader.

The campaign in the north was no contest. The drive and ruthlessness of Calleja could not be stopped. The silver mines were immediately captured, providing an instant infusion of cash for the viceroy. Any and all groups of rebels were dealt with ruthlessly, with the commanders almost invariably being executed. When word reached Calleja that some Americans had crossed the border into Texas, he sent troops north and the Americans were crushed, scurrying back across the border. Anyone living in the province who had supported the Americans, Calleja ordered their throats to be cut. The 1813 campaign for Calleja was a long one and covered vast distances, but in the end, it was successful and by the new year, Calleja was ready for the final showdown with Morelos.

Morelos, consumed with the Congress of Chilpancingo, had not initially responded to Calleja’s advances. Rising from political concerns, Morelos decided to take his army and march on Michoacán. The target of Morelos’ campaign was Valladolid, which Morelos intended to proclaim his capital. Due to the royalist garrison in the city, he was obliged to surround it and proceed with a siege. Calleja, in response, sent an army to relieve the garrison.

It All Comes Tumbling Down

Upon arriving at the rebel camp, the royalist army prepared to strike. One member of the royalist army was a young colonel of cavalry, almost as ruthless as Calleja himself, Agustín de Iturbide. Iturbide, learning from spies and prisoners that the rebel troops were to blacken their faces so they could identify themselves during battle, Iturbide had his troops blacken their own faces. Then, violating his orders, Iturbide led his troops in an insane attack into the heart of the rebel army, aiming straight for Morelos’ headquarters, located at the top of a hill. The chaos and confusion caused by this attack broke all discipline in the rebel army. The attackers could not be royalists, some thought, no one would be stupid enough to attack like this. They had to be rebels who were betraying their own. Groups of rebels began firing into each other, and others broke and ran. Matamoros, Morelos’ best commander, tried to rally some troops but was defeated, captured, and shot. The army that Morelos had spent so much time building and training was gone.

Calleja, not one to pass up an opportunity, struck. He immediately began ordering his various forces throughout New Spain to attack any rebel forces they could get their hands on. City after city fell, including Chilpancingo, the site of the rebel Congress. Acapulco fell without a shot being fired. Hermenegildo Galeana, Morelos’ best commander now that Matamoros was gone, was captured and beheaded by the royalists.

Morelos had been the driving force behind the creation of the Congress of Chilpancingo. Now, it would be his downfall. As the most prominent and important leader of the rebels, he received all the honors when things were going well. Over two years, Morelos had taken a broken group of insurgents and transformed it into a movement that had declared itself an independent republic and had achieved many military victories. Now, it was Morelos who would receive all of the blame. The congress, now calling itself the Congress of the Republic of Anáhuac, demanded that Morelos resign from command of the army. He did, and the most brilliant of the rebel leaders was removed in this most trying time.

To handle the crisis, the political leaders of the Republic did what political leaders do best, issue meaningless proclamations backed by little but words. A new constitution was issued in October of 1814 but would never be implemented. The proclamation of new rights did not deter Calleja. He advanced further faster. Michoacán fell in its entirety. The royalist army was closing in. Congress had to flee. They needed troops to protect the congressmen. None were available since the bulk of the army was either fighting the royalists or had deserted and were at home. The members called on Morelos to escort them. Being an honest man with a sense of duty, Morelos agreed.

While escorting the congressmen, royalists found the convoy at Texmalaca. Morelos told his companions to save themselves and scatter. He took a few men and acted as bait for the royalists to let everyone else escape. Morelos was captured soon after by a man who had once fought in his army and changed sides. Morelos was brought to Mexico City under guard. Calleja would not make a spectacle of his new prisoner and had him smuggled into the city quietly.

The End

Just like Father Hidalgo, Morelos was a priest, and therefore, his captivity would be governed by the church, not the viceregal government. He was examined and interrogated for forty-six days. Morelos was not a man who took his vow of celibacy as a priest seriously and confessed to a few minor priestly infractions. The Inquisition had him defrocked, just like Hidalgo, and turned over to the secular authorities for punishment for treason. He was executed by firing squad on December 22, 1815.

The death of Morelos was a tragedy for Mexico. He was the genius of the Mexican War of Independence. Whereas many leaders of revolutions have goals that they want to attain, Morelos had a vision. He had a vision of a nation free of racial and class distinctions, free of foreign domination. A vision of a free people, with rights granted by God that no one else could take away. A vision of an orderly government that was balanced and not under threat from strongmen. When ordered to resign, he did. He was consistent in proclaiming the rights of the people of Mexico and understood the importance of merit, regardless of background.

With the death of Morelos, men of fewer principles would control the war of independence. Without Morelos, the vision of Mexico, strong and free, would melt away. A towering man without a desire for personal enrichment or power, he was the only person with the ability to stand above the rest and lead Mexico to something more. Instead, it would be to men of the next, lower, rank in ability, men who were jealous of each other, and feckless in their pursuits of wealth and power. The death of Morelos was the death of the vision. The greatest tragedy though was that no one quite knew it yet.

What do you think of the time of José Morelos in the Mexican War of Independence? 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.

Brigham Young and the Struggle for Religious Freedom in the 19th Century

In the decades preceding the American Civil War, the United States found itself facing an identity crisis. The principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as espoused by an earlier generation began to come under threat from the same institutions erected to protect them. It seemed that in the agrarian democracy Americans were building, there were many who felt marginalized and ignored. As the nation continued to expand and leaders wrestled with the existence of slavery the Union, the question of religious freedom remained.

Marvin McCrary explains.

Brigham Young while Governor of Utah. By Charles Roscoe Savage.

Exodus

By the 1850s, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had a significant presence on the American landscape. Members of the church were known as Mormons, the name deriving from the Book of Mormon, a set of holy scriptures which served as the keystone of the religion. The Latter-Day Saint movement had been founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith who, while not possessing much of a formal education, seemed endowed with great oratorical skill and personal charisma. Smith declared that where other churches had strayed, his would restore the faith as it had been conceived by Christ himself. Over the next few years, church membership would grow rapidly, drawing the ire of those settlers who felt threatened by the Mormons' practice of settling in concentrated numbers and voting as a bloc. Such instances often led to conflict and violence, and Joseph Smith’s life would be cut tragically short when he found himself jailed in the town of Carthage, Illinois under false pretenses in 1844. During a raid on the jail, an anti-Mormon mob shot Smith and his brother to death. He was only 38 years old.

The fledgling religious movement entered a time of great uncertainty, as they had not anticipated losing their leader so suddenly. The ruling body of the church, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, took control of church affairs in the interim, until it was determined who would be best suited to succeed Smith. It was a man named Brigham Young, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who would become the next leader of the church in 1847. Like Smith, Young was a man of humble origins from the Northeast. Young was noted for his strong determination, straightforwardness, and unyielding faith. In 1846, Young led the beginnings of what would become an exodus of “Saints'' (the preferred term used by members, especially after 1834), determined to establish their faith beyond the reach of both American laws and resentment. In July, 1847, Brigham Young beheld his first glimpse of the Great Salt Lake Valley. The historian Leonard J. Arrington wrote that church leadership knew about the area from trappers' journals, explorers' reports and interviews with travelers familiar with the region. Having endured much persecution for the sake of their beliefs, the Saints undoubtedly believed they could finally enjoy a semblance of peace, and the swath of untamed wilderness would become a new Zion for the Saints. Young believed that the isolation of Utah would ensure the Saints the right to freely practice their religion. Many of the pioneers had Puritan ancestry, and felt a strong bond with those earlier settlers, who had likewise been forced to leave their homeland in search of a land where they might know freedom.

Brigham Young understood that the Saints could not "leave the political orbit of the United States", nor were they desirous to do so. The Saints possessed an unwavering belief that personal liberty as written in the Constitution should allow one the right to exercise faith without infringement, despite the lack of support and recalcitrance they witnessed from the American government. When gold was discovered in California in 1848, thousands began moving westward on trails that passed directly through the territory which had been settled by the Saints. This proved a double-edged sword, as not only did this  bring plenty of opportunities for trade and commerce, it also served as a catalyst towards ending the Saints’ isolation. Barely had the dust settled from the wagons of their arrival, did the church leadership sought to put forth a proposal that the territory be incorporated into the United States as the State of Deseret. The name “Deseret” came from a term in the Book of Mormon for honeybee; it signified industry and cooperation. This spoke to the Saints’ desire to make their new Zion as large and industrious as possible, while not seeking to infringe upon territory important to others, such as California and New Mexico.

Establishing Zion in the Mountains

The Saints believed that a state run by their own leadership would be able maintain their hard-fought religious freedom. There were concerns amongst the membership in regard to whether the territory would be governed by men of their own choosing, or federal government officials who would be sent from Washington, as was customary. The proposal put forth by the Church would be rejected by the federal government. Congress was reluctant to allow the creation of a state encompassing such a large area as it had been proposed; the State of Deseret would have included both the Great Basin and the Colorado River Valley. It was believed that only a carefully crafted compromise could provide satisfactory resolution. The Compromise of 1850 would assuage the growing tensions over slavery, while also satisfying the needs of settlers in western territories. It was felt that territories added to the United States after the Mexican-American War (1846-48) should be given the choice to decide for themselves whether they would enter the union as a slave state or a free state. With regards to the Saints in the Salt Lake Valley, Congress did not like the name “deseret” as it sounded too much like “desert,” therefore, it was proposed that the territory be reduced and named Utah, the name taken from the Ute indigenous people.

The establishment of western territories was inextricably tied to the issue of slavery. By the 1850s the United States had become a nation divided by specific regional identities. The South held a pro-slavery identity that supported the expansion of slavery into western territories, while the North largely held abolitionist sentiments and opposed the institution’s westward expansion. In the summer of 1850, Millard Fillmore became president when Zachary Taylor, a hero of the Mexican-American War, died unexpectedly. In response to the efforts of Thomas L. Kane, a man who had proven himself friendly to the Saints on previous occasions, Fillmore named Brigham Young the first Governor of Utah Territory in 1850, despite concerns about Young’s willingness to cooperate with the government. Kane had first encountered the Latter-Day Saints in 1846, during the early stages of the Mexican-American War. It was under these circumstances that he became convinced of the Latter-day Saints’ sincerity and sympathized with their plight. Although he did not share their religious faith, Kane would become the Latter-day Saints’ most influential outside advocate and adviser, working to secure religious and political rights on their behalf. The granting of territorial status gave the federal government greater authority over regional affairs than statehood, but the Saints were pleased with this development. Unfortunately, it would also prove to be a move which inadvertently set the stage for a clash between the Church and the federal government.

Over the next few years as governor, Brigham Young’s leadership took a theodemocratic approach. Theodemocracy was the fusion of traditional republican democratic principles along with theocratic rule. Young holding both political and ecclesiastical authority was natural and efficient from the view of the Saints, but this practice drew criticism from the outside. Church leaders also grew suspicious of both the character and intent of federal appointees, and a succession of federal officers—judges, Indian agents, surveyors—came to the territory only to have their decisions circumvented or reversed. Federal appointees returned East frustrated, intimidated, or both, and the amicable relationship with the government began to break down. In 1854, Brigham Young's term as governor expired and President Franklin Pierce, taking the reports out of Utah into consideration, wished to appoint someone else. In addition to not having many interested in the position, Pierce knew that Young, despite the nature of his leadership, enjoyed great popularity. Pierce decided to allow him to remain as governor, but Anti-Mormon sentiment would continue to spread, with particular regard towards the alleged practice of plural marriage.

The Saints' embrace of plural marriage was based on a revelation received by Joseph Smith. Following in the example of the biblical patriarchs such as Abraham and Jacob, the practice was instituted among members of the Church in the early 1840s. Brigham Young may have taken his first plural wife in 1842, but he did so with hesitation. Throughout the remainder of his life, Young would adamantly maintain that he had been reluctant to indulge in the practice. He would later write that "I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded.” Although he had misgivings, Brigham also understood that to everything there is a season. He explains further, adding that "it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave." With the passage of time, those members engaged in the practice had overcome their own prejudice and adjusted to life in polygamous families. It has been speculated that probably half of those living in Utah Territory in the mid-1800s experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child. Church leaders would publicly acknowledge plural marriage for the first time in 1852, at a general conference in Salt Lake City. Orson Pratt, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, delivered a lengthy discourse, inviting the members to "look upon Abraham's blessings as your own, for the Lord blessed him with a promise of seed as numerous as the sand upon the seashore." After Pratt finished, Young read aloud Smith's 1831 revelation on plural marriage. The public disclosure seemed to satiate the national interest, but it quashed any hopes for statehood under Brigham Young’s leadership.

Annus Horribilis

By 1857, Young had been serving as governor for several years. Feeding on the tensions between the Saints and the United States government, newspapers from New York to California began reporting that the Saints were seeking the Indians' allegiance in preparation for a clash with the United States. Some accounts were based on briefings from disgruntled officials who had returned to Washington; others, based on gossip, tended toward a more alarmist tone. For example, the National Intelligencer, a Washington newspaper, put the number of the Mormons' Indian allies at 300,000, even though the total Indian population of the Utah Territory had been 20,000 at most. Young would characterize the press coverage as “the prolonged howl of baseless slander." In the spring of 1857, almost every federal official had left Utah. James Buchanan–a tall, stately and stiffly formal man– had been elected in 1856. It would be Buchnan’s misfortune to preside over a rapidly dividing nation. Scarcely had the ink dried on his inaugural address than reports concerning the Saints in Utah turned his attention to the far west.

The election of 1856 had been closely observed in Utah for two primary reasons. It was expected that the new president would appoint a new governor. The second reason was because anti-Mormon sentiments had risen during the election. For example, the Republican Party platform sought to dismantle the “twin relics of barbarism” polygamy and slavery. Buchanan made no speeches during his presidential campaign, and as such, Utahns were curious about the character of the man who would become the next president. "We would much prefer Buchanan to Fremont for President," wrote Young early in the campaign. Upon learning of Buchanan's election, Young declared, "We are satisfied with the appointment of Buchanan as future president, we believe he will be a friend to the good." Such hopeful sentiments were soon dashed, as Buchanan viewed the Saints in Utah as a problem, and he would find someone to replace Brigham Young as governor and bring order.

Buchanan found that there were few interested in the position, just as his predecessor had discovered. Utah was seen as a distant frontier, and the Saints were regarded as “peculiar people” who would bear the yoke of the American government quietly. William Smith, brother of the late Joseph Smith, was among those who had applied, but the man Buchanan eventually chose was Alfred E. Cumming, an experienced administrator, former mayor of Augusta, Georgia, and he was already serving as an Indian-affairs superintendent based in St. Louis, Missouri. Buchanan ordered federal troops to accompany Cumming and enforce federal rule in Utah. It came to pass that travelers passing through the Utah Territory from the Kansas-Missouri border soon brought word that federal troops were on the march. Brigham Young soon found himself in the unenviable position of once again guiding the Saints through yet another crisis. On July 24, 1857, the tenth anniversary of their arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, Young delivered the alarming news: The rumors were true–President James Buchanan had ordered federal troops to march on the Utah Territory. It would appear that 1857 would prove to be an annus horribilis.

The Utah Expedition

In September, Cumming and roughly 1,500 federal troops were about a month from reaching Fort Bridger, which lay approximately 100 miles (160 km) northeast of Salt Lake City. Brigham Young desperately needed time to prepare an evacuation of the city, and so he mobilized the Utah militia to delay the army. Even though they were thoroughly outnumbered, militiamen engaged in guerrilla warfare tactics over the next several weeks, as they raided supplies, burned the grass to deny forage to the soldiers' horses, cattle and mules. In what must have been seen as an act of divine intervention, snowstorms brought the army to a halt. Snowbound and lacking supplies, the troops' commander, Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston, decided to spend the winter at what was left of Fort Bridger, it having been burned by the militia.

The spring thaw began in 1858, and Johnston prepared to receive reinforcements that would bring his force to almost 5,000—a third of the entire U.S. Army at the time. Meanwhile, Young initiated what became known as the Move South, an exodus of some 30,000 people from settlements in northern Utah. Before leaving Salt Lake City, Saints buried the foundation of their temple, their most sacred building, and planted wheat to camouflage it from the invaders' eyes. A few men remained behind, ready to put houses and barns and orchards to the torch if it would keep them out of the soldiers' hands. The Saints, it seemed, were fated to be once again driven from their land, or face extermination. William Hyde recounts the distressing situation, writing in his journal that they prayed for deliverance.Deliverance would come in the form of Thomas Kane, who would once again advocate for the Saints. Over the winter, Kane had set out for Utah to try to mediate what was being called "the Mormon crisis." Kane arrived in Salt Lake City in February 1858, and by the next month, he had secured Brigham Young's agreement to step aside for the new governor in exchange for peace.  While it remains unclear as to the reason, Buchanan never notified Young that he would be replaced as governor, which led many to believe that the Utah expedition was a needlessly expensive venture. In addition, the fact that the federal army had been so easily outwitted by a much smaller force resulted in further humiliation for Buchanan. Seeing a chance to end his embarrassment quickly, Buchanan sent a peace commission westward, offering a pardon to those Utah citizens who would submit to federal laws. Brigham Young accepted the offer that June, ending the Utah War. On April 12,1858, Cumming succeeded Young as Governor of Utah Territory.

Conclusion

Brigham Young would serve as leader of the Saints’ until he passed away in 1877. It was due to his leadership and steadfast determination that the Mormons are to be credited with helping in the settlement and expansion of the American West. Abraham Lincoln, was more successful in establishing a cooperative and respectful relationship between Utah and the federal government. Shortly after his election, Lincoln would remark in a letter to Brigham Young that “if you will let me alone, I will let you alone.” George A. Hubbard writes that was “precisely the kind of governmental policy which the Mormons had sought” since the church was organized some thirty-three years earlier. The Saints ensured the right to religious liberty as they overcame the difficulties placed before them, not only for themselves, but for the sake of all the subsequent generations who would follow in the footsteps of those early pioneers.

What do you think of Brigham Young and religious freedom in the USA? Let us know below.

Now read Marvin’s article on Major General Gordon in North Africa here.

Sources

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

Bushman, Claudia and Richard Bushman. Building the Kingdom: A History of Mormons in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Cornwall, Maria, Camela Courtright, and Laga Van Beek, “How Common the Principle? Women as Plural Wives in 1860,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 (Summer 1993): 149

Hubbard, George A. “Abraham Lincoln as Seen by the Mormons,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31, no. 2 (Spring 1963): 103.

Medicine at Sea in the 18th and 19th Centuries

Even today life at sea can be difficult when there are medical issues. But what was it like in earlier periods? Here, Amy Chandler returns and explores life at sea and naval medicine on board naval fleets throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Hospital Ships in the Second Opium War. Illustration for The Illustrated London News, 21 January 1860. Source: Wellcome Images, here. This file comes from Wellcome Images, a website operated by Wellcome Trust, a global charitable foundation based in the United Kingdom. Refer to Wellcome blog post (archive).

Life at sea can be treacherous with unpredictable weather, ever-changing climate and deadly predators that hold the authority of the underwater world. The changing climate, environmental factors and trade expansion throughout history has created an uneasy co-existence between the sea and land dwellers. The climate crisis has altered the habitats and patterns of many sea creatures lives, for example, reports of sharks migrating and swimming closer to shorelines in parts of Australia in the summer months. While in the twenty-first century, we have processes to mitigate risks, in the event of an incident, there are processes to follow to ensure a quick rescue or help when needed through lifeguards, sea rescue services, air ambulances and constant communication routes and satellites to monitor those at sea.

Before modern technology, life at sea was perilous with threats of pirates, sinking, mutiny, and naval warfare created a world away from the control and comforts of land and away from the law. The threat to health caused by disease, poor living conditions and long periods at sea contributed to an environment that killed many sailors. Modern cruise and military ships now have dedicated medical teams, and during the coronavirus pandemic, cruise ships isolated during their voyage with Covid-19 positive patients on board. The crew had the necessary equipment and medicines on board. This advancement gives travellers comfort and peace of mind when travelling for a long time away from land and the familiarity of home comfort to have easy access to medical treatment.

Life at sea

Throughout history life at sea has become an image romanticised by popular culture and is unrealistic. A sailor’s life was hard work full of manual labour, volatile conditions, wet and disease was rife. However, for many men the alternatives to life at sea was equally volatile, miserable, poverty-stricken and hard work, with the only exception that life at sea offered a sense of adventure. By the eighteenth century, London’s port and docks were vital to Britain’s trade and the public were dependent on the wealth and trade it generated. By this point, the Royal Navy was also becoming a significant presence in British politics and economy and required more men to sail and work on the ships. Historians have commented that the majority of recruited men were from the “lower socio economic strata […including mostly] illiterate, the dregs of society” and were seen as “uncouth, rude [and] riff raff”.(1) Some of these men were prisoners for committing minor crimes like pickpocketing, and could choose a life at sea under sanction of the Royal Navy.(2) The rapid expansion of the Royal Navy and the industrial revolution in Britain prompted the need for more men and these types of individuals solved their problem. Men on board would receive three meals a day, a ration of rum (often called ‘Grog’ or ‘Tot’) a day and offered a way to escape their miserable, poverty life on land. Parliament also sanctioned the use of ‘Press gangs’ to recruit men into the Royal Navy when non-violent methods were sufficient, this method granted by the Crown the “right to seize men of seafaring experience” and was intensely enforced during periods of naval battle, for example 1703, 1705, 1740 and 1779.(3)  All ages were recruited into the crew and when boys turned sixteen they became able-bodied sailors. The uniform worn by officers were different to the ordinary crew and the clothes were designed to signal status and emulate the fashion of wealthy men in the eighteenth century, while life at sea, away from the authority of land, was still subject to hierarchy and class bias.

Moreover, the ration of rum was introduced as storing water in wooden barrels did not keep for long periods and other drinks with a low-alcohol level was also difficult to store. Therefore rum was the best option and kept morale up for the men by receiving 10 ounces of rum a day, which reduced to 2.5 ounces in 1850.(4) It was not until 1970 that this daily ration was stopped as the Royal Navy expanded and modernised, the need for crew to be sober was seen as imperative. The manual labour of working on a large ship everyday required a diet to supply enough energy to keep the men fit, healthy and sustained. However, during this period fresh food was difficult to store and preserve for long voyages, therefore salted meat, pickled food and hard biscuits were the normal diet.

The role of the naval surgeon

Throughout history, the surgeon was the main and only person responsible for treating the ill, injured or psychologically distressed on board naval ships. The unpredictable weather, the threat of naval warfare and spending long periods away from land, friends and family created an unstable environment. While these factors contributed to a high mortality rate, the most common killer was disease. Life at sea was “continually hit by lethal epidemics of dysentery, typhus, scurvy, malaria and yellow fever”, that could easily wipe out or weaken the majority of the crew.(5)

There were strict procedures for becoming a ship’s surgeon, such as obtaining a university education and progressing to the lead surgeon. Individuals who trained through apprenticeships assisted at local hospitals or learnt through observation became the first, second or third ship surgeon mates to assist the fully qualified surgeons. University qualified medical professionals were usually privileged members of society who had access to wealth and opportunity to train at a University. There were different types of medical professionals in the eighteenth centuries; the university-qualified physician who was a member of the College of Surgeons, apothecaries, who dispensed prescribed medicine, and surgeons who dealt with external issues, such as amputation or removal of boils.(6) However, when sailing at sea for long periods, the surgeon was in a position that needed to include all three branches of the medical profession and be able to treat all kinds of diseases and injuries. During the voyages and expeditions, the ship was busy and crowded and needed access to all the necessary equipment, weapons and supplies on board, as the time and distance between ports were long. Therefore, the ship’s surgeon needed enough medicine and equipment to treat the ill and injured during these long voyages. Surgeons were required and responsible for obtaining their own set of instruments and treatments in preparation for their journey. This requirement changed in the 1800s as the Company of Surgeons was responsible for approving surgeons of their eligibility to practise and their instrument chest before a voyage. The Royal Navy Regulations of 1731 ordered that medicine chests were locked bearing the “seals of the physician and of the Surgeons’ Company” and no other chests were permitted on board.(7) Official examination of the surgeon’s credentials, medical knowledge and instruments was necessary to ensure the individual had the necessary knowledge to attend to ailments and injuries. Also, this safeguarded the equipment from being stolen and sold for a profit before the ship set sail. Despite the privilege and reputation bestowed on medical professionals on land, this same reputation was not extended to naval surgeons, who were underpaid.

Towards the end of the eighteenth century, the duties and responsibilities of naval surgeons were officially documented in the Regulations and Instructions Relating to His Majesty’s Service at Sea, which was initially published in 1731.(8) Duties included visiting ill patients twice a day and informing the captain of the daily number and name of unwell and injured crewmembers. The Company of Surgeons ordered every ship surgeon to write daily logs and diary entries of their daily activities. The ill or injured were isolated from the rest of the crew in the sick bay, a space below the waterline and away from potential dangers during battles. However, when the epidemics overwhelmed the crew, this space was unsuitable, and surgeons demanded a larger area to house and treat patients. The orlop deck was the most common area for surgeons to work and included their cabin to sleep and eat. This deck was usually the lowest deck on the ship and used to store cables and rope. The orlop was considered the safer part of the ship but was dark, hot and lacked sufficient ventilation, with lanterns being the only light source. This area was extremely noisy during battles as the cannons were located on the deck above and created ear-shattering noise from cannon fire.

It is also important to understand that while the surgeon was an invaluable and life-saving asset on board. Their medical knowledge was informed by the contemporary scientific discoveries of the time of the Four Humours rather than understanding how bacteria caused disease. Medical knowledge during this time focused on Hippocrates’ theory of the Four Humours and was later expanded by Galen. This theory suggested that the human body had four elements connected to the seasons. The elements were blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm. A healthy lifestyle and body meant these elements were in balance, and unbalanced humours caused illness because the body had too much of one humour. Treatments for unbalanced humours included bloodletting. The surgeons would perform and use contemporary medicine and treatments to diagnose the patient. These treatments, in some cases, were lethal and could result in unintentional death, as the use of mercury, no anaesthetics or antiseptics meant many could die from infection or poisoning during surgery. While battle injuries from canon fire and wounds caused by swords were a threat to life, the everyday living and working conditions were equally as deadly.

The Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Wars

Throughout the Napoleonic wars of 1792 to 1815, the British Royal Navy employed roughly 109,846 men, with an average of 3,518 men a year.(9) On average, 1 in 31 men died of disease or accident, and roughly 1 in 405 died in or from wounds caused by battle.(10) These statistics highlighted that despite the threat and dangers of naval combat, the true enemy to was disease. However, the Royal Navy was keen to keep their crews in good health as this meant they could continue sailing for longer and had a complete crew to engage in naval battles and missions. Horatio Nelson, Admiral of the HMS Victory was also aware of the importance of health while sailing and he is quoted to have said “the great thing in all military service is health; and you will agree with me that it is easier for an officer to keep his men healthy, than for a physician to cure them.”(11) An admiral can only lead their crew to victory if they are alive, healthy and have enough of them to engage in battle. Therefore it was in the Royal Navy’s best interest to ensure the working and living conditions were suitable. Even Nelson was not immune to the threats caused by living and working at sea, with reports of him contracting malaria, yellow fever and his death at the brink of victory during the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805.

The HMS Victory had an estimated 820 crew members, and the surgeon in charge was William Beatty, who tended to Nelson after his fatal wound at the Battle of Trafalgar. Beatty served as a naval surgeon for many years before entering the crew of HMS Victory and reported that Trafalgar was his first voyage that involved large-scale fleets in battle. Historians have noted that Trafalgar was a “baptism of fire” that placed his skills as a surgeon and medical knowledge to the test.(12) Nelson is an interesting figure in British history, and historians often remark on his strength of character. A fascinating story of his life and legacy is how despite suffering numerous battle wounds, he still managed to secure victory for Britain at the Battle of Trafalgar. Nelson lost his right arm in the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and because of this injury, he adapted to writing with his left hand, and his writing became even more legible than with his dominant right hand. This adaption highlights that life after battle for many injured was challenging and left the individual with life-altering damage. Furthermore, the amputation of Nelson’s right arm was carried out on board and like many other amputations and surgeries there was usually no other choice but to operate immediately in an attempt to save the patient’s life. The lack of anaesthetics and antiseptic, which were not discovered until the late 1840-60s, meant that many operations were barbaric, unimaginably painful and risky.

Hospital ships in the Napoleonic war

During the Napoleonic War, measures were introduced to provide medical treatment for men injured or ill during their voyages. Ships were far away from land resulting in the sick or injured, and this was a measure introduced since the third Dutch war of 1672 – 74. A hospital ship that would care for, treat and transport long-term sick patients, who could not stay aboard their ship, supported each naval fleet.(13) In 1743, aboard HMS Blenheim the upper and lower decks were converted to house 255 patients, segregated into four areas for “skin irritation, simple fever, dysentery, or malaria”.(14) The ships that were used and converted were usually going to be decommissioned and not purpose-built vessels. Historians have called these hospital ships the “medical command centre of a naval fleet” commanded by a senior surgeon with a university qualification, experience with life at sea and was responsible for the overall health of the crew.(15) The responsibilities included visiting, inspecting and other naval surgeons’ medical chests, journal entries and creating weekly reports for the Admiral on the health and conditions of the ship.(16) While this figure had no authority over individual surgeons – that still resided with each ship’s captain – they could recommend individuals for promotion. The mortality rate decreased with these regular inspections and authority figures on board, and one in particular, Thomas Trotter was pivotal in the ‘Nelsonian’ era. Trotter was a physician in the mid-1790s of the Channel Fleet under the command of Admiral Howe. Trotter reformed medicine and life at sea while he worked on the hospital ship Charon through his persistent suggestion of medical reform, such as improved ventilation, pay and living conditions, and his publication Medicina Nautica (1797 – 1802).

Conclusion

In conclusion, life at sea was a treacherous and unpredictable experience, with the increase in Britain's expansion of the empire, trade routes and exploration, the need for an on board medical professional became increasingly important. The Royal Navy rapidly gained momentum and power in the eighteenth century and required more men to join their forces. The bleak reality for many was not about a choice but the knowledge that their alternative option of a life in poverty and disease ridden living accommodation and a lack of employment was a contributing factor for many to join. However, one of the recurring motifs of history is that medicine can only do so much, but improvement in living and working conditions is vital to improving overall health. Nelson is remembered for his heroic contribution to the Royal Navy and Britain’s maritime legacy, but the crews that served and endured harsh environments are also vital to Britain’s success and should be recognised. Popular culture attempts to romanticise the life of a sailor through comedic and sanitised versions of the past and hide the reality of the harsh and miserable life away from land. While popular culture contributes to the myth that life at sea was a lawless and deadly place of hedonistic debauchery throughout history, there was still a hierarchy and laws to abide by that reaffirmed the class structures that dominated British society.

What do you think of medicine at sea? Let us know below.

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

Bibliography

Brocklis, L, Cardwell, J, Moss, M, Nelson’s Surgeon: William Beatty, Naval Medicine, and the Battle of Trafalgar (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005).

Brown, K, The Seasick Admiral: Nelson and the health and the navy (England, Pen & Sword Books,2015).

Goddard, J C, ‘The Navy Surgeon’s Chest: Surgical instruments of the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic War’, JR Soc Med, vol. 97, no. 4, April., 2004, pp.191 - 197 < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079363/ >.

Hickox, R. All you wanted to know about the 18th Century Royal Navy (USA, Rex Publishing, 2005).

Pappalardo, B, How to survive in the Georgian Navy (London, Bloomsbury Publishing,2019).

Sachs, T.  ‘The Rum the Royal Navy Once Rationed to Sailors…’,Robb Report, 2020 < https://robbreport.com/food-drink/spirits/black-tot-rum-british-navy-ration-for-sale-2939203/ >.

UK Parliament, ‘Press gangs’, UK Parliament, 2022 < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/overview/pressgangs-/ >.

References

1 R.Hickox, All you wanted to know about the 18th Century Royal Navy (USA, Rex Publishing, 2005), p.15. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/All_You_Wanted_to_Know_about_18th_Centur/_sKZ3rZK4dQC?hl=en&gbpv=1

2 Ibid.

3 UK Parliament, ‘Press gangs’, UK Parliament, 2022 < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/overview/pressgangs-/ > [accessed 9 December 2022].

4 T. Sachs, ‘The Rum the Royal Navy Once Rationed to Sailors…’,Robb Report, 2020 < https://robbreport.com/food-drink/spirits/black-tot-rum-british-navy-ration-for-sale-2939203/ >[accessed 9 December 2022].

5 L. Brocklis, J. Cardwell and M. Moss, Nelson’s Surgeon: William Beatty, Naval Medicine, and the Battle of Trafalgar (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005),p.5.

6 JC. Goddard, ‘The Navy Surgeon’s Chest: Surgical instruments of the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic War’, JR Soc Med, vol. 97 (2004),p.191 < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079363/ >[accessed 25 November 2022].

7 Ibid.

8 L. Brocklis, J. Cardwell and M. Moss, Nelson’s Surgeon, p.6.

9 B. Pappalardo, How to survive the Georgian Navy (London, Bloomsbury Publishing,2019),p. 56.

10 Ibid.,p.56.

11 Pappalardo, op.cit.,p.56.

12 L. Brocklis, J. Cardwell and M. Moss,op.cit.,p.viii.

13 L. Brocklis, J. Cardwell and M. Moss,op.cit.,pp.7-8.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid, p.8.

16 Ibid.

The European Revolutions of 1848: A Failed Turning Point

In the year 1848, a series of revolutions swept across the European continent. Motivated by a variety of liberal, nationalist, and other radical ideas, these revolutions were initially very successful in toppling their respective governments. Countries from the great powers of France, Austria, and Prussia to the smaller states in Italy and Germany had their monarchical governments bound by constitutions or replaced by republics. However, within a few years, these new liberal governments were supplanted by counter revolutionaries and replaced by conservative regimes once again.

Nolan Douglas explains.

An 1841 portrait of King Louis Philippe I of France. By Franz Xaver Winterhalter.

Liberalism and Conservatism in the 19th Century

It needs to be understood that the beliefs of liberalism and conservatism in 19th century Europe are far different from how we perceive these ideologies now. At the time, liberalism was a fairly new ideology with a focus on securing individual rights, modernizing feudal systems and replacing them with capitalism, varying degrees of democracy, and constitutional government. The constitution of the United States is an excellent example of what European liberalism looked like in the 19th century. On the other hand, 19th century European conservatism was about order and tradition, focusing on maintaining powerful monarchies and aristocracies with little to no restrictions on their power.

The Conservative Order in Europe

In the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was reorganized at the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna. At the congress, the great powers of Europe, the United Kingdom, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia agreed to maintain a new status quo in hopes of avoiding a repeat of the upheavals of the last twenty years. Because Napoleon had abolished the old Holy Roman Empire, which had previously encompassed what is today Germany, Austria, and the Czech Republic, this territory was reorganized as a loose German Confederation, dominated by Austria and, to a lesser extent, Prussia. France was now a constitutional monarchy under the Bourbon dynasty, the same family which had ruled the country before the 1789 French Revolution. Italy was divided between a number of small states, the most powerful of which were the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and the Papal States (which were ruled by the Pope). The Austrian Empire also controlled the rich provinces of Lombardy and Venetia, containing the major cities of Milan and Venice. Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian foreign minister, was an important architect of the new conservative order in Europe and would be a symbol of the status quo until 1848.

France: A New Republic

Following Napoleon's final defeat in 1815, France was again a monarchy under King Louis XVIII. This new King Louis was the younger brother of King Louis XVI who was executed during the 1789 French Revolution. In the period from 1815 to 1830, France was a constitutional monarchy, but with a very limited electorate I. In 1830, Charles X was overthrown in the 1830 July Revolution and replaced by King Louis Philippe, a more liberal-minded constitutional monarch from the Orléans branch of the Bourbon dynasty. While Louis Phillippe's regime (known as the July Monarchy) was more popular than that of Charles X, many people in France wanted a more representative government. While France under the July Monarchy had a bit more representation in its parliament than the regime of Charles X, only around 170,000 of France's richest men could vote under this more liberal government. In 1832, there had been an unsuccessful republican revolt which was violently crushed by the July Monarchy (this is the revolt depicted in Les Misérables). This massacre further tainted the image of the July Monarchy and Louis Philippe, increasing the desire for a republic.

On February 22, 1848, a pro-republican protest erupted in violence as the government called in the National Guard to break up the crowd. Overnight, Paris was embroiled in Revolution once again with barricades popping up across the city. On February 23, Louis Philippe abdicated his throne, and French republicans began to build the Second French Republic. The constitution of this new republic guaranteed universal suffrage and was initially popular, but would be even more short lived than its predecessor. The Second French Republic was composed mostly of moderate, liberal republicans with a huge majority in the Constituent Assembly, although conservatives and democratic socialists held significant numbers of seats as well. In June of 1848, more radical republican workers rose up in Paris against the republic, believing it wasn't democratic enough. Although these radical insurgents were put down by the government, the fear created by this uprising caused many French people to grow wary of the more radical elements of the revolution. As a result, conservatives began gaining ground in the republic. In December, Louis Napoleon, nephew of the famous conqueror, was elected president. In the elections of 1849, the conservative Party of Order won a majority in the Constituent Assembly, unseating the moderate liberal majority. In December of 1851, Louis Napoleon organized a coup and overthrew the government, establishing himself as a dictator. On 2 December, 1852, the same date as his uncle in 1804, Louis Napoleon was crowned Emperor of the French under the name Napoleon III. Within just a few years, the Second French Republic had met the same fate as the first.

Italy: A War for Unification

The revolutions in Italy began January 12 of 1848 with a revolt in Palermo against the Bourbon King Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies. Within a month, Ferdinand II was forced to grant a liberal constitution in his kingdom or be dethroned. Throughout the spring of 1848, the monarchs of Tuscany, Piedmont-Sardinia, and the Papal States all followed suit by granting liberal constitutions limiting their power. Initially, many Italian revolutionaries hoped to establish a united Italy under the leadership of Pope Pius IX who was seen as a liberal reformer and might be willing to take up the role. Other revolutionaries wanted a constitutional monarchy under the Piedmontese monarchy while more radical revolutionaries hoped to establish a united and democratic Italian Republic. On March 18, the city of Milan rose up against the Austrians in a revolt known as the Five Days of Milan. After five days of fighting, the Austrian troops, led by the Czech Marshal Radetzky, were driven out of the city. During this revolt, another revolt began in Venice on March 22 and a republic was declared in Venetia. The following day, the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, led by King Charles Albert, declared war on the Austrian Empire, beginning the First Italian War of Independence with support from Italian revolutionary volunteers from across the peninsula. While the Sardinians and other Italian revolutionaries had some initial successes and advanced into Lombardy-Venetia, they were ultimately defeated by the better trained Austrian troops under Marshal Radetzky by March of 1849.

While the Austrians fought the Piedmontese and Italian volunteer forces, central and southern Italy were in the midst of their own revolutions. Although he had agreed to a constitution, Pope Pius IX fled Rome to seek refuge in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies on November 25, 1848 following the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi, his minister of interior. Now leaderless, Italian revolutionaries in the Papal States founded a new Roman Republic on February 9, 1849. Soon after, a Tuscan Republic was founded in Tuscany following the flight of its Grand Duke. In March of 1849, French troops landed in the Roman Republic. Initially there was hope that these French troops would aid the revolution, but the French instead seized the city of Rome and toppled the Roman Republic under orders from President Louis Napoleon. With this act, France had sided with the counterrevolution. With Austrian troops victorious in the north, the Roman Republic crushed, and the Two-Sicilies siding with the Austrians, the revolutions in Italy were quelled. Because of divides and mistrust between the revolutionaries Italian nationalists would have to wait for their dream of a united Italy to come to fruition. While Italy remained divided , Piedmont-Sardinia retained a constitutional monarchy as an artifact of 1848, eventually completing the Unification of Italy in 1870.

Austrian Empire: Habsburg Rule in Turmoil

The Austrian Empire was built over the course of centuries by the Habsburg family, mainly through dynastic marriages with very little military conquest. Through these marriages, the Habsburgs built a vast, multi-ethnic empire in the center of Europe. While it had been a major European power for several centuries, the Austrian Empire was rife with ethnic divisions. Habsburg subjects included Austrian Germans, Magyars (Hungarians), Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Poles, Ruthenians (Ukrainians), Romanians, Slovenes, Serbs, and Croats. Although the Austrian Germans were the ruling class, they made up a fairly small proportion of the overall population of the empire. These ethnicities were divided in their goals and hopes for the future of the empire, and this showed in the revolutions. While many German revolutionaries sought to join Austria with the German unification efforts centered in Frankfurt, most Magyar revolutionaries wanted either autonomy or independence for the Hungarian nation. Many Czechs hoped for the same for their own people.

Throughout the spring of 1848, revolts began across the empire. By the end of March, Austrian Emperor Ferdinand I promised to accept a constitution. In the chaos, liberal nationalists in Hungary, led by Lajos Kossuth, seized their moment and passed liberal legislation. This liberal legislation, known as the April Laws, transformed the Kingdom of Hungary into an autonomous, parliamentary democracy within the Habsburg empire, abolished serfdom, created a Hungarian National Guard, and established freedom of the press and religious equality. With these laws, Hungary became one of the most liberal nations in Europe, but also placed itself at odds with the Habsburg monarchy. However, the April Laws also alienated some minorities within Hungary, such as Transylvanians, Germans, Slovaks, Croats, and Serbs because the laws established Hungary as an ethnic nation state. While Hungary became the center of the revolutions in the Austrian Empire, revolutionaries also seized power in Prague and Vienna. On May 17, despite promising a constitution two days earlier, Emperor Ferdinand I fled Vienna. In the summer, the counterrevolution began as Prague was bombarded and captured by Habsburg forces in June. In September, Croatian forces loyal to the Habsburgs invaded Hungary, and Vienna was bombarded and captured by Habsburg forces on October 31. For the next few months, a civil war raged between Austria and Hungary, with Hungary declaring an independent republic on April 13, 1849. However, in June of 1849, Russian forces invaded Hungary in support of the counterrevolution, sealing the fate of the young republic and putting the revolutions in the Austrian Empire to an end. Over the course of the revolutions in Austria, Emperor Ferdinand was forced to abdicate and was replaced by his eighteen year old nephew, Franz Joseph, who would reign until his death in 1916.

Prussia and Germany: A Crown from the Gutter

Similarly to Italy in this period, Germany too was divided between many small states, albeit many more than Italy. Unlike Italy, Germany was loosely united under the German Confederation which could be compared to the modern European Union on a smaller scale. The Austrian Emperor was somewhat of a leader of this loose confederation as the president of the Federal Convention, but held little real power over the other German states. The Kingdom of Prussia was the other major power within the German Confederation and competed for influence among the smaller German states with Austria. With the Austrian Empire in turmoil in 1848, the rest of Germany too was engulfed in revolution. On March 15, protests erupted in the Prussian capital of Berlin. The Prussian king, Frederick William IV, quickly accepted the demands of the protesters, promising to grant them a liberal constitution. However, on March 18, a true revolution broke out in the city when Prussian troops fired on protesters. King Frederick William, although still promising a constitution and siding with the liberals on paper, fled the city. Conservative monarchs throughout the small states of the German Confederation were similarly forced to accept liberal constitutions in the spring of 1848. On May 18, 1848, a new German National Assembly made up of representatives from across Germany, including Prussia and Austria, met in Frankfurt. Soon after, a Prussian Constituent Assembly was formed. The Frankfurt Parliament would spend the next year creating a constitution and ironing out the details of a united Germany.

For months, the Frankfurt Parliament debated the specifics of what shape this new Germany would take. Would it be a centralized, democratic republic in the same vein as France? Would it be a more decentralized, liberal empire? If so, who would be its Emperor? Should Austria be included? If so, should the entire Austrian Empire be integrated into Germany, or just the German speaking parts? These questions divided the Parliament and made creating a constitution difficult. Ultimately, it was decided that a liberal constitutional monarchy under the King of Prussia would be created, excluding Austria entirely. However, by the time the Frankfurt Constitution was completed On March 27, 1849, Prussia had crushed its revolution and the King had dissolved the Constituent Assembly the previous December. When the Frankfurt Parliament offered King Frederick William IV the crown of a united German Empire, he rejected it, calling it a "crown from the gutter." This was the nail in the coffin for a united liberal Germany. Despite most of the minor German states ratifying the constitution, a united Germany could not be forged without support from Prussia or Austria.

The Failed Turning Point

English historian A.J.P. Taylor once said of the Revolutions of 1848 that "German history reached its turning point and failed to turn." While he was specifically referencing the revolutions in Germany, this quote rings true for all of the revolutions across the continent. Despite being quickly and widely successful at their initial goals, the revolutionaries of 1848 could not agree on their end goals, allowing the counterrevolution to sweep through Europe just as quickly.

What do you think of the European Revolutions of 1848? Let us know below.

Nolan writes at The Era of Change blog here.

References

"Napoleonic Germany and the Revolution of 1848." In A Brief History of Germany, by Jason P. Coy. Facts On File, 2010.

"Whose Empire? The Revolutions of 1848–1849" In The Habsburg Empire : A New History, by Pieter M. Judson. 2016. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.

Rapport, Mike. 1848: Year Of Revolution. United Kingdom: Little, Brown Book Group, 2010.

The Mexican War of Independence: Hidalgo’s Insurgents - Part 2

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 the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at the evolution of the war and some successes for the revolutionaries.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, and the start of the Mexican War of Independence here.

A painting of Ignacio Allende. By Ramon Perez, 1865.

Revolutionary Fire

When Hidalgo went to his parish church and assembled the people, he summoned all of his natural charisma and speaking abilities. He knew he had one chance to rally the common people to the cause of rebellion.

The speech that Hidalgo gave, known to history as the Cry of Dolores, was not written down and has varied in its retelling over the years. What is known is that Hidalgo’s theme was to revolt against oppression and tyranny. For him, the symbols of that tyranny were the Spanish peninsulares, or as they were called resentfully, the gachupines. For Hidalgo and the others in the conspiracy, it was the peninsulares who kept them from the highest orders in society. So, Hidalgo laid it on to the people. If only they could get rid of the gachupines, tyranny would be abolished. To add further insult to injury, he told the crowd that the hated gachupines were going to surrender the colony to the Bonaparte usurper carried on the coattails of the invading French army. These atheistic Frenchmen would further oppress them if they did nothing.

This was to be a rebellion, not to destroy the established authorities, which went directly against Biblical teaching, and would be odd coming from a priest, it would be a holy crusade for both religion and their true king, Ferdinand VII, still living a prisoner of the French. The cry went up from Hidalgo, “Long live the King! Long live America! Death to bad government!” Ominously, the response he got back from the crowd was “Death to the gachupines!”

There is no known telling of this story that says Hidalgo attempted to tamp down on this spirit of bloodlust from the crowd. Indeed, he fostered it. This first stage of the Mexican War of Independence lost the character of the clean military coup with little bloodshed that men like Allende hoped for. This was to be a social revolution intending the destruction of the social class at the top of the social pyramid. Hidalgo, like many revolutionary leaders, understood that to will a result implies an absolute acceptance of the means to achieve that result. If the end of Spanish tyranny meant the deaths of everyone who exercised such tyranny, then so be it.

The Revolutionaries Move

Revolutionary movements have a history of either growing or dying. Hidalgo understood that with the passions of his followers at a fever pitch, they had to move out of the colonial backwater they were located in and gain new followers. Further, the passions of the people could glow white hot, but without proper channeling, those passions could dissipate just as fast as they grew. The insurgent army had to strike.

To secure his local region, Hidalgo first ordered the emptying of the local jails. This was to make room for the hated gachupines whose haciendas he authorized to be plundered and burned. The people took to this work with gusto. Homes were burned and their Spanish owners were beaten, imprisoned, and killed. The people who had lived on these haciendas and worked them would, in the frenzy, join the insurgents. Hidalgo’s army grew with every hacienda burned.

“Take, my children! Everything is yours!” This was the battle cry from Hidalgo to his followers at this stage (yes, he really did say this). One thing that was taken by Hidalgo himself was a representation of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Located at a shrine in Atotonilco, this representation became the symbol of the budding revolution.

At San Miguel, the birthplace of Allende, the insurgents sacked the properties of the gachupines. For the primarily indio and mestizo insurgents, they could not tell the difference between a creole and a gachupine. This led to many creoles being attacked and beaten, and their property seized. For Hidalgo, this was just the justifiable rage of the people. For the original conspirators, such as Allende, this was terrifying. All the bloody scenes of revolutionary Paris were coming to New Spain. This was not a targeted activity to change the government, this was a mob indiscriminately committing crimes.

For Allende, this was doubly frustrating. He was supposed to be the military leader of the revolution. Yet, Hidalgo would not allow him to exercise any command. Hidalgo had even proclaimed himself the “Captain-General of America,” assuming a military rank higher than the professional conspirators. Their leader was now bestowing grandiloquent titles on himself while leading a mob on an excursion of pillage and murder.

First Resistance

As the insurgent army approached Guanajuato, the leader of the Spanish forces there, José Antonio Raiño, decided to make a stand against the rebel army. He ordered the fortification of a granary, and much of the wealth of the city was stored there for defense, including almost three million pesos in cash and gold. On September 28, 1810, the battle began.

The insurgents up to this point had relied upon numbers and fury to carry them forward. This was the first time they had encountered an organized military force armed with cannons. When Hidalgo ordered an attack upon the granary, he found that his men were joined by many locals, especially miners, who were eager to destroy the gachupines and get some of that gold.

Wave after wave of insurgents flung themselves at the granary. Hidalgo, who had read books on military tactics as part of his Enlightenment studies, did not have military experience, despite his title. Allende, the man with experience was not able to exert command authority. So, bodies piled up in front of the granary. Yet the fervor of the insurgents did not flag in this trial. Raiño was shot in the head leading the defense. In the confusion that the lack of leadership caused, the insurgents were able to set fire to the building. The defenders tried to surrender. With the insurgents’ blood up, surrender was not an option. The defenders were killed to a man.

The Turning Point

The fall of the granary was not the end of the insurgents’ first battle. The capture of Guanajuato had just begun. Angered by the deaths of their friends and family, the insurgents proceeded to put the city to the torch. Three hundred years of hate, oppression, slavery, and ignorance were brought out on this one night. Guanajuato was burned and pillaged. Any Spaniard that could be found was killed out of hand. Worse happened to the Spanish women of the city. Since this movement had a working-class tinge to it, the machinery used to work the mines was also destroyed in the hatred of their labor.

It was at Guanajuato that the Hidalgo insurgency showed its most important characteristic. It was not really about the future. The idea did not exist in the minds of the movement that it was working to create a free and prosperous Mexico, unshackled by tyranny and foreign, racial domination. No, this was about the past. The actions of everyone in New Spain since November 8, 1519, the day Cortés met Montezuma II, had led to this moment. This revolution was about the hacienda system, the racial caste system, the destruction of indio independence, and a thousand other incidences in the almost three hundred years since. Hidalgo’s enlightenment ideals on the superiority of human reason over emotional barbarism and superstition were held in the balance and found wanting. For Hidalgo, this was only a minor obstacle. Consistency is for fools; he was the leader of a movement. Ever onward.

Guanajuato also taught one other lesson, the price of failure. For the leadership in Mexico City, they saw a preview on a smaller scale of what would happen in case the insurgents took the capital. Negotiating and compromising with the insurgents was no longer an option. For both sides, it was only victory or death.

The Revolution Moves Forward

Hidalgo’s next target was the city of Valladolid. This city of about 50,000 people was one he was intimately familiar with. As a young man, Hidalgo had been a teacher here. The Bishop, Manuel Abad y Queipo, had been a friend of Hidalgo’s. Abad, however, believed that Hidalgo’s ideas were heretical, and did not support the atrocities carried out in Hidalgo’s name. On his own authority, Abad excommunicated Hidalgo. Despite this, the garrison of the city went over to the insurgents, as the people of the city did not want to see the scenes of Guanajuato repeated. Abad abandoned the city, and it was peacefully occupied.

From the regional capital of Valladolid, Hidalgo began sending out agents throughout New Spain to attract new followers. Hearing of the collapse of authority among the gachupines, many, especially in the north of New Spain, began declaring for Hidalgo. Many leaders in San Luis Potosí, Saltillo, and many others were all in on destroying the hated Spanish. It had seemed that despite the scenes in Guanajuato, Hidalgo would sweep all before him, mostly without a fight.

The defection of the north to the insurgents presented a problem for the Spanish. Where to focus efforts? In the north, the revolution was sweeping everything before it, but there was no organized army, and could seemingly be reconquered easily. In the south, Hidalgo had what passed for an army, but its numbers were enormous. With limited resources at his disposal, the viceroy could not directly confront both threats. In the end, he chose to send an army north under an able, if extremely ruthless, general, Félix María Calleja.

Attempting to Bring Order to Chaos

Relieved of any pressure from the viceroy, Hidalgo tried to put some organizational and ideological backing into his revolution. He attempted to assuage the creoles by emphasizing that his only goal was to create a new congress, and that would be under the authority of Ferdinand VII. He did not support independence or a republic, he assured the creole leaders. To marry patriotism and self-interest, Hidalgo passed out military ranks and offices in his new government to men of influence., hoping to win them over.

At the same time, Hidalgo attempted to shore up his support with the lower classes. He abolished the privileges of the haciendas and ended all tribute that the indios owed to the haciendados. Slavery was to be abolished. Despite the promises made, and regardless of the merit of any of Hidalgo’s decrees, many of the potential intellectual, political, and military leaders of the revolution saw Hidalgo’s support for, what was in their minds, economic and social radicalism as an existential threat to their position in the economic and political order, let alone their hoped-for societal dominance. Hidalgo even allowed himself to be addressed by his indio followers as “His Most Serene Highness.” Social revolution by a racial underclass exacting bloody revenge had precedent in their minds: Haiti. The specter of a Haitian-style race war hovered over Hidalgo’s insurgency. Many creoles with Hidalgo’s main force now began to slowly filter out of the insurgent army.

Despite offering ranks and titles to some, while at Valladolid, Hidalgo was unable to bring any semblance of order to what was in essence, a mob. Placing the indios and mestizos under military discipline would defeat the purpose of the revolution in his eyes. It went against the core ideals of what he, and they, were fighting for. This lack of discipline would be one of the primary undoings of the insurgent army.

Attempt on the Capital

Understanding he had to keep moving, Hidalgo ordered his army to advance on Mexico City at the end of October. The insurgents numbered almost 80,000 by this point, dwarfing the numbers that the Spanish could deploy. The lesson of Guanajuato was ever-present. For the viceregal government and army, despite being heavily outnumbered, there could be no surrender. The Spanish had to fight.

The viceroy ordered a small force under General Torcuato Trujillo to engage the rebels. Trujillo, having the advantage in firepower, decided to find the most defensible ground possible and fight on his own ground. He chose the Sierra de las Cruces located between Toluca and Mexico City. Riddled with forests and steep ridges, this was the perfect defensive position.

On October 30, the battle began. The insurgent strategy was simple. With a colossal advantage in numbers, the most simplistic path to victory was to surround the Spanish force by enveloping it. For the Spanish, the imperative was survival on their part and killing as many insurgents as possible until one side had to retreat.

All day the battle raged. The insurgents sent waves of men into the teeth of Trujillo’s cannon. Thousands of insurgents would fall this day attempting to storm the Spanish lines. With only a few thousand men, time was not on Trujillo’s side. Although his men rebuffed attack after attack, in the end, they ran out of time. With the size advantage Hidalgo’s army enjoyed, it was almost inevitable he would find a weak spot in Trujillo’s defenses, and the Spanish were nearly surrounded.

Trujillo ordered the withdrawal of his forces. While the Spanish had lost less than 2,000 men, the insurgents had lost, by some estimates, 5,000. Although he would claim victory to the viceroy, Trujillo and everyone else knew that the battle was lost, despite the disproportionate casualties. The path to Mexico City now appeared clear.

Victory in the Palm of His Hand

Mexico City, the most populated city in the Western Hemisphere and the second city of all the Spanish realms, was now open to attack. The people in the city panicked. The viceroy ordered a service held at the cathedral, naming the Virgin of Remedios as the new Captain-General of New Spain. The army sent north was hastily recalled, but everyone knew it could not make it back in time. Many prominent peninsulares prepared to hastily evacuate the city. Everyone was prepared for an orgy of violence, pillage, and bloodshed.

In the insurgent army, Allende urged Hidalgo to immediately march on the capital. This was their chance. It was, unfortunately for the insurgents, the first time Hidalgo had been seen to vacillate. What was he waiting for? The hated gachupines were at his mercy. After waiting three days, Hidalgo made his decision. He ordered the insurgents to march back to Toluca.

Hidalgo told Allende that he planned to move back and finally allow him and the other creole officers to turn the disorganized mob into a disciplined army, one that could engage Calleja once he returned from the north. The officers were incredulous. Now, right on the cusp of victory, with the best chance they would have for total victory, now was when they would sit and attempt to create a real army. The professional soldiers could see the writing on the wall. This was all going to end in catastrophic failure.

Unlike the earlier ad hoc attempt, Hidalgo also tried to create a true government and outline his purpose. From Guanajuato, he would issue proclamation after proclamation, but it was too late. Desertions, from the highest creole officers to the lowest indio pikeman, were endemic. Momentum was lost. The local population was turning against the insurgents.

Insurgent Denouement

Calleja had by now arrived from the north. The viceregal government had declared that anyone found armed would be declared a rebel and executed. This only brought further reprisals from the insurgents. Spanish prisoners were taken out and executed in retaliation for Spanish atrocities. Soon hangings and throat-slittings, the favored execution methods of the Spanish, and garrotings, the favored method of the insurgents, were common, daily occurrences. Reprisal begat reprisal and hate begat hate. Men commonly changed sides and executed their former comrades. Betrayals became as common as executions.

Hidalgo and his insurgents now only had thoughts of escape. The insurgent army began moving north to escape, possibly to the United States. Throughout the march, insurgents deserted, and the size of the once enormous army shrank daily. Finally, at Baján, a former supporter of Hidalgo, Ignacio Elizondo betrayed the rebels into Spanish hands. Elizondo had wanted to be appointed a Lieutenant-General in the insurgent army and had been rebuffed. His resentment over rank led him to surrender the rebel leaders into Spanish custody. On March 21, 1811, Hidalgo and the other leaders of the insurgency were captured.

Hidalgo was turned over to an ecclesiastical court. Because he was a priest, the civil authorities could not judge him. He refused to ask for a pardon. He wrote a statement, abjuring support for his own revolution. Later, it would be said that he wrote this due to being coerced and under torture, but the truth is unknown. Since he had been defrocked and excommunicated by the church, part of his sentence included the flaying of his hands. After this, he was executed, probably by firing squad. This was carried out by the civil authorities. Some of his last words were alleged to be “Though I may die, I shall be remembered forever. You all will soon be forgotten.” After his execution, his head was removed from his body and placed on display with those of the other insurgent leaders. The first phase of the Mexican War of Independence was over.

What do you think of the start of various changes in the Mexican War of Independence? 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.

The Mexican War of Independence: Chaos and Confusion - Part 1

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 the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at the Jesuit roots of revolution and Hidalgo and Allende.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here.

A painting of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.

The Eve of the Revolution

New Spain on the eve of the Abdications of Bayonne in 1808 was a place of tension. The constant warfare in Europe meant that New Spain, as the wealthiest colony of Spain, was used as a source of money for Napoleon’s war machine. The Godoy government had been dedicated to extracting as much wealth as possible from the colonies. The people groaned under the financial burden.

Money was not the only cause of discontent. The example of the United States to the north was one of a free (slaves were ignored) federal republic that had thrown off their colonial masters and the king who ruled over them. Ideas from the French Revolution, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, were highly influential on the literate classes. The economic arguments of free enterprise and the removal of colonial trade barriers were wrapped into the political language of the Enlightenment of the brotherhood of man and the liberation of the soul.

A further cause of resentment was the social caste system in place in New Spain. Slavery existed in Mexico, but it was not exclusively African slavery, as in the United States. Many of the natives, or indios, descendants of the Aztecs, Maya, and others, were enslaved, either in law or custom, through the encomienda system. This system, in place since the conquests by Cortes, bound the indios to labor to a man granted the right to own that labor, an encomendero. There were African slaves as well, just not in the numbers seen to the north. Above the slaves were mestizos, or mixed Spanish and indio, but they faced many legal and cultural barriers to success. Above them were the criollos. These were people who did not have any Native or African ancestry, but because they were born in New Spain, they faced certain legal disabilities, and in practice were second-class citizens. At the top of the pyramid were the peninsulares, people who were born in Spain. Not only did the peninsulares have more legal rights than everyone else, but they also owned and controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth in New Spain. This added a large degree of economic resentment to the existing racial resentment.

Choices to be Made

In 1808, the news of the installation of Joseph Bonaparte as King of Spain hit New Spain like a thunderbolt. Although there had been tensions between France and Spain, no one had expected something like this to happen. To whom was loyalty owed, to Spain? To the king? Who was the king, Carlos, or Joseph, or maybe it was the Infante, Ferdinand? These questions had to be answered. The person who had the responsibility for all decisions in New Spain was supposed to be the viceroy, José de Iturrigaray.

Iturrigaray had been viceroy in New Spain since 1803. He claimed to be a loyal servant of Carlos IV. The problem for him was, he was the viceroy for Carlos, and was Carlos still the king after the mess of Bayonne? What about Ferdinand, the heir and future king, was he legitimate? He was not appointed by Joseph Bonaparte, but many within the Spanish civil service did recognize Joseph and welcomed the Napoleonic reforms being enacted, including the ending of the Inquisition. Further, Iturrigaray was an appointee of Godoy, the ridiculously corrupt Spanish Prime Minister who was hated by nearly everyone in the Spanish domains. He knew that the Juntas would never accept him, as they were revolting against the existing Spanish government as much as against the French and King Joseph.

Thrown into the mix were those who saw this as a golden opportunity to attain, if not independence from Spain, then at least significant local autonomy. This group was primarily led by criollos who resented the privileges of the peninsulares and identified their country as New Spain. Many in this group believed that New Spain could remain loyal to the Spanish crown but be independent of Spain and the Spanish government. The situation was further complicated by the creation of the revolutionary Juntas in Spain in response to the invasion. The leaders in Spain were attempting to extend their authority over the colonies as well. If the Spanish leaders were able to solidify the loyalty of the colonies, that would eliminate any chance of New Spain achieving autonomy or independence.

When official delegations from two different Juntas, one from Oviedo, and one from Seville, arrived in the colony, it was the perfect excuse for Iturrigaray to delay. He announced that he would make no final decision on whom to support until September. In the interim, he had agreed to the formation of a Congress for the colony, ostensibly to learn the desires of the people.

Some were worried that Iturrigaray was thinking about declaring himself the leader of an independent New Spain, perhaps even as its king. To prevent this from occurring, a group of elites from New Spain organized and plotted to overthrow the viceroy. On September 15, 1808, just four months after the abdications of Bayonne, the conspirators removed Iturrigaray. Although the removal of the viceroy had been the action of a broad spectrum of elites, it seemed no one was happy with the situation. The new viceroy, Pedro de Garibay, was named by the Audencia, not for his ability or charisma, but because he was the highest-ranking officer in New Spain at the time. The pro-independence group wanted a definite break with Spain. The conservatives did not like how the coup played out, as the king was the only person who had the authority to appoint a new viceroy.

The overthrow of the viceroy was a watershed moment for one more reason that would only become clearer in the future. The revolutionary history of what would become Mexico started with a conspiracy overthrowing the legitimate government of the country. The lesson was not lost on those groups who would later compete for power: if you are not happy with the current government, just overthrow it. The English colonists revolted against taxes that barely impacted them. The peoples of Colombia and La Plata would revolt at far less provocation. Yet, the people of Mexico did nothing in the face of, what was essentially, a coup d’état. There was no mass uprising, nor did the independence-minded Creoles raise a voice. The prestige of the government of the colony suffered a blow that it would not recover from. This lesson learned in the cradle would be the curse of Mexico for generations.

The Jesuit Roots of Revolution

It would be odd to expect the main impetus for revolution to come from members of the clergy. Yet, in New Spain, the initial driving force for revolution came from priests. In an era with little formalized education, especially in far-flung reaches of the empire, families, especially creole families, which had a child who showed intellectual promise would send that child to receive an education with the church. It was within the lower orders of the church in New Spain that many of the enlightenment ideals from Europe found a receptive audience. These men were literate yet surrounded by illiteracy and what they saw as backwardness caused by oppression.

Many of the schools in New Spain by the mid-18th century were run by members of the Jesuit order. To the people of their areas, these priests offered spiritual comfort as well as education. Usually, the most learned people in their areas, the Jesuits would set up schools to spread their religion, but also to support and uplift the people, as they saw it. To the Spanish authorities, they were an organization with loyalties to the Pope, not to the king. In the era of the Bourbon reforms, when the Spanish government was attempting to centralize and gain a firmer grip on the empire, having this group of priests teaching the lower classes who knows what, as well as controlling a large amount of wealth and land in the empire, the Jesuits represented an existential threat (or a convenient scapegoat and source of wealth). In 1767, King Carlos III ordered the expulsion of the Jesuit order from the Spanish Empire.

Hidalgo

One such young man who received his early education from the Jesuits was Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. Hidalgo came from a wealthy family in Michoacán that sent him to the Colegio de San Francisco Javier. It was here that first learned of the philosophers of the enlightenment. When the Jesuits were expelled from the empire, he transferred to the Colegio de San Nicolás, later moving on to the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico, earning his degree and entering the priesthood. While conducting his studies, he also learned philosophy and French, allowing him to read the Enlightenment philosophers in the original language.

After becoming a priest, he became a teacher himself. Hidalgo, however, could not just ignore his beliefs in the enlightenment and against some of, what he saw, as the more obscuritan elements of Catholic theology. As a member of the faculty of the Colegio de San Nicolás Obispo, he was also the school’s treasurer. The church leaders did not want to bring attention to his heretical and liberal teachings, so in removing him, they cited financial irregularities and shipped him off to several small parishes. It was while ministering to these small, rural parishes that Hidalgo’s resentments toward the church hierarchy and the corrupt viceregal government in Mexico City bloomed.

Finally settling in the small town of Dolores, Hidalgo began the work of educating the people of the region. Unlike many in the leadership of the colony, Hidalgo did not care about social caste and would take everyone equally, including indios, who up until that time, were kept uneducated as a matter of policy. Hidalgo, always a believer in self-improvement, attempted to teach the native how to improve their lot. Instead of being subsistence farmers, Hidalgo believed that they should grow cash crops, earning more money. He attempted to teach the indios how to grow olives and grapes for wine. By improving their crops and their methods, the indios could be lifted out of poverty, and with the education and literacy he gave them, they could become prosperous.

It was not to be. Spanish law and the colonial authorities forbade the growing of certain crops to prevent competition from arising for Spanish producers. The local authorities came and cut down the groves that Hidalgo had directed to be planted. Knowing the stupidity of this action, Hidalgo’s resentment would only grow.

The Conspiracy Forms

In Querétaro at the same time, a group surrounding Ignacio Allende began forming. Allende was a captain in the royal army but had been mistreated by the viceregal government due to his New Spanish birth. Creoles were looked down on by their peninsulares comrades and had a very difficult (but not impossible) time rising to higher ranks. It proved very easy for Allende to recruit fellow members of the royal army into his conspiracy.

This conspiracy did not start with the goal of independence.  On the contrary, their goal was a New Spain under the crown of Ferdinand VII, just run by creoles. Allende wanted a bloodless coup, just like the one that unseated Iturrigaray. This required more than just lower-ranking officers, though. He knew he needed to reach out to all segments of creole society to gain a broader base of support. Allende just assumed that if he could recruit creole leaders, he would have the support of the mestizos and indios, as they would naturally follow the lead of their creole betters.

This is where Allende and Hidalgo come together. Both men resented what they saw as peninsulares corruption and fecklessness. Hidalgo, however, did not agree with Allende that a revolution should be led by a small clique of creole army officers. He wanted this to be a broad-based movement in which all elements of society had a place and would actively participate.

Any broad-based movement can be difficult to control. With more people brought into the conspiracy, word began to leak out that something was happening in Querétaro. The latest of Spanish governments, now a regency acting in the name of Ferdinand VII on the island of León, dispatched a new viceroy to New Spain, Francisco Venegas. Before he even arrived, however, the government in Mexico City wanted to consolidate its power. The conspiracy had to be broken up.

The Conspiracy Unfolds

The corregidor of Querétaro, Miguel Domínguez, was given the order to arrest Allende, Hidalgo, and the rest of the conspiracy. The problem was that Domínguez was part of the conspiracy. He was also a very indecisive man. With one foot in each camp, Domínguez needed to commit himself, but instead, he panicked. He even locked in the house his own wife, as she was also a member of the conspiracy.

Domínguez’s wife, Josefa Ortiz de Domínguez, would be one of the heroes of this first act of the war of independence. On September 15, 1810, Josefa figured out a way to contact her fellow conspirators and sent a message to Allende, informing him of the arrest order. Allende immediately went to Dolores to inform Hidalgo and formulate a plan.

At 2:00 AM on September 16, Allende arrived at Hidalgo’s house in a panic. He wanted to go underground with his fellow conspirators. Hidalgo, the local parish priest, exiled to a backwater due to being seen as dangerous, saw that the moment had come. His decisiveness instantly gave him leadership in this revolution. Allende’s plan for a bloodless coup was gone. A simple political change of regime would give way to mass social revolution. Hidalgo put on his boots and walked to the church, ordering the bell to be rung. The revolution was on.

What do you think of the start of the Mexican War of Independence? 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.

A Brief History of Policy Towards Minorities in China

Minority groups in China have frequently found their way into the news cycle in the last several decades and especially in the last few years.  These issues are not new and have their roots in the major changes in the way China organized itself over a century ago.  Despite the massive Han majority, China is not an ethnically homogeneous country and has had to continually address issues of cultural and ethnic diversity.  Integration of ethnic minorities into China has ranged from open embrace to violent resistance for much of the 20th century.  What follows is a quick history of minority policy in China that has led to some of the contemporary issues that make their way into the news cycle.

Jonathan Moody explains.

A Uyghur prince. Source: Tilivay, available here.

The Qing Dynasty

To find the roots of contemporary minority policy, we must travel back to the end of the Qing dynasty.  The Qing stormed their way into power in the 17th century and succeeded in both conquering the Ming Empire and expanding the borders and influence of their empire to encompass the vast majority of East Asia and large sections of Central Asia.  On a map, the Qing Empire is a giant but drawing geographical borders around historic political entities with contemporary map standards can be deceiving and is often more of a reflection of modern ideas of the way states look. The Qing, like their predecessors and many contemporary political institutions of the time, was an empire and not the modern version of a state that much of the world lives under today. ‘Modern states’, while obviously not all the same, have embraced a high degree of political uniformity (i.e. passports, laws, national militaries , etc.) within set boundaries that often border other politically autonomous states.  Unlike a modern state, territories under Qing control could vary vastly in how they were governed or exactly how much control Beijing was able to wield and the line between Qing territory and non-Qing territory was not always clear.  For example, most eastern parts of the empire were full provinces with viceroys and the full application of the Qing law while in the peripheries (Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, etc.), Beijing would give titles to local leaders and rely on these leaders to keep the peace.  Beijing’s involvement was not uniform in many of these areas but, in general, Qing law and influence was limited to almost non-existent depending on the place.  Also, unlike many states today, uniformity of political control was not a main priority.  Attempts to make periphery areas into full provinces only happened at the tail end of the dynasty from fears of outside influence and most of the periphery was highly, if not completely, autonomous.  This loose or lumpy system was by no means utopian but for most of the life of the empire, it worked to both bolster the dynasty’s political power in the center and co-opt potential threats in the periphery to become nominal allies.

Modern China

When the Qing fell, the Republic of China claimed these disparate territories and pursued bringing them into the fold of a new modern state that had stronger centralized control over its territory.  Part of state creation for the early republic was determining who was a member of a Chinese nation-state and what their position was in that state.  For many outside of China, words like Chinese people and Chinese language can be deceptively oversimplifying in the diversity they cover.  The majority ethnic Han population is classified as a single ethnicity but many Han dialects are mutually unintelligible and there is plenty of cultural diversity across the Han regions.  The non-Han ethnic groups speak a variety of languages (Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur, etc.) and have their own cultural diversity as well.  One of the problems faced by the early Republic of China was how to incorporate the politically and ethnically diverse empire of the Qing into a state that did not want to continue the loose relationships of the past, especially when regions like Tibet and Mongolia rejected any political connection with the Republic and pursued a more independent path. The Republic, under the Kuomintang (KMT), eventually embraced a policy that there was only one ethnicity in China, the zhonghua minzu. The zhonghua minzu were compared to a tree where the Han were the trunk and other ethnicities were merely branches that grew from the Han tree.  The KMT dominated Republic of China avoided questions of diversity with this program and embarked on Sinicization programs to teach the branches how to embrace their true national identity.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other hand, took the exact opposite approach, especially early in the life of the party.  With a combination of Marxists/Leninist/Stalinist ideologies and later time spent among non-Han communities, the CCP rejected notions that Tibetans or Mongolians were nascent Hans and promised recognition of various ethnic groups and specialized policies for these ethnicities.  The party even embraced the idea of self-determination for these regions early on but backtracked by the time they took power in 1949. Self-determination gave way to fostering patriotic minority identities that allowed for a non-Han identity loyal to the state.  

CCP

After 1949, the CCP adopted an approach to minority populations that had strong Soviet influences (i.e. titular or recognized nationalities/ethnicities) and was aimed at incorporating these people into a modern socialist state while allowing varying degrees of autonomy in specified national minority areas.  Much of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century can be seen as a mixture, and at times conflict, between hardline and accommodationist approaches.  Accommodationists have advocated a slow and welcoming approach to minorities by offering special benefits, at times with the opposition from some of the Han population, to convince hesitant minority populations that inclusion in the PRC is more beneficial than independence.  These policies have included exemptions from the one-child policy and preferential placements in the competitive university process.  Hardliners have been less sympathetic toward differences and have advocated an approach that has little space for dissent and exemptions. Many of the issues we see today have been as a result of hard liners pushing policies that take a more forceful approach to minority incorporation.

Most countries today have consider ethnic diversity and how to include different populations in one political entity. China is no exception and has been dealing with this issue with varying levels of success. The issue of minorities in China very much stems from a change in the way the state was organized and how different groups fit into this modern vision of a state. This change in state organization and vision renegotiated looser affiliations and has led to many of the issues that make their way into the news today.

What do you think of minority policy in China? Let us know below.

Further reading

Goldstein, Melvyn C., and Gelek Rimpoche. A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2007.

Khan, Sulmaan Wasif: Muslim, Trader, Nomad, Spy. China's Cold War and the People of the Tibetan Borderlands. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015.

Westad, Odd Arne. Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750. Basic Books, 2015.