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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Escalating Tensions

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

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

The War

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

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

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

Conclusion and Consequences

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1880s and African American votes

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

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

McKinley and the 1896 election

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

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

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

McKinley as president

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

 

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

Tommy Douglas: The Greatest Canadian

Scottish-born Tommy Douglas (1904-1986) was an influential Canadian politician over decades. He led the province of Saskatchewan for nearly two decades and after that was leader of one of Canadian’s main parties, the New Democratic Party. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about the life of Tommy Douglas.

Tommy Douglas later in his career. Source: Themightyquill, available here.

The date is October 17, 2004.  The clock reads 7PM, central time.  Canadians across the land are fixated on their television sets.  This night they will choose a winner. The result of the second part of a two part voting system that involved the entire country was about to be revealed. Three months earlier the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had polled thousands of citizens to discover whom they considered to be the “Greatest Canadian”.  Any Canadian was allowed one vote per their choice.  Votes could be cast by fax, by letter, or on-line.  Viewers were presented with the 50 semi-finalists but in random order. From this jumble votes were again registered, and the field was narrowed to a final top ten.

The final ten included the following luminaries:  9th – Alexander Graham Bell, 8th – Sir John A. Macdonald, 6th – Lester B. Pearson – 4th – Dr. Frederick Banting – 3rd - Pierre Elliot Trudeau, 2nd – Terry Fox.  And from this formidable group the clear winner was one Tommy Douglas. So how did this diminutive Scottish-Canadian come to rise above them all and what had he done to attain this honor? The answers are “grit” to the first query and “much” to the second. The Tommy Douglas story begins in a midsized Scottish town located halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh named Falkirk.

Tommy Douglas’ origins

Tommy Douglas was born to a working-class family in a working-class town of the Scottish central lowlands. His paternal grandfather was known to kith and kin as Mr. Douglas and his father was known as Tom Douglas. But the youngster would be known to the world for the rest of his life as “Tommy.” The elders had toiled for generations working in one of several sooty foundries of Falkirk.  It was in one of the humble dwellings that scarred the town’s landscape that an event would take place that would change young Tommy’s life profoundly.

While skipping home from school one day and splashing through every mud puddle he could find, 10 year-old Tommy went sprawling through the gravel and managed to scrape and perforate his left leg quite badly. Tommy was carried home by neighbors and laid unceremoniously on the kitchen table. A local doctor was summoned who had no surgical skills and who applied a suspect liquid to Tommy’s lips and proceeded to scrape to no good result.  The leg never healed properly and would bother him greatly into adulthood and beyond. And yet, as we shall see, this unfortunate event would years later benefit millions.  But first the Douglas family had some serious travelling to do. Tommy would live in Scotland from birth to age seven, then ship to the Canadian province of Manitoba from age seven to eleven, back to Scotland from 11-15, and finally to Canada again – this time to stay. The specific destination was Winnipeg and events here too would affect Tommy’s worldview forever.

From Winnipeg to Weyburn

Winnipeg is centered on the confluence of the Assiniboine River and the Red River. The year 1921 was a seminal one in Winnipeg. It was the site of the infamous Winnipeg general strike. Thousands of workers in various basic trades assembled in downtown Winnipeg. They were angry and carried billboards that demanded a decent work place and an income that would promise more than bread and potatoes.  The dim-witted mayor of Winnipeg sent in hundreds of police units – with guns – and a protester was shot and killed. The strike would last several days and leave at least one onlooker who experienced it with a profound response. Tommy Douglas was still a teenager when he, and a friend, scaled one of the downtown buildings and witnessed the havoc. Tommy would leave Manitoba for another Canadian province, and one that would become his forever home – Saskatchewan. Weyburn, Saskatchewan to be precise.

For the next few years Tommy would enroll at the University of Brandon while simultaneously completing the requirements that would allow him to teach the gospel of the Baptist Church.  During this time he would also take his lifetime mate in matrimony, Irma, and together they would purchase a bungalow in Weyburn, which they never left.  So much for the wide belief that fat cat politicians all munch at the public trough. And it was during these early years that the folks of Weyburn discovered what sort of a neighbor they had in this friendly Scot.

Doing good to others

Tommy Douglas had asked himself a basic life question years earlier that he answered with a resounding “YES”.  Yes, he was his brother’s keeper. It was a creed he lived by and one that he had formed long ago.  Need a hand threshing wheat? Call Tommy. Need help fixing that leaky roof? Call Tommy. A family is desperate to put food on the table. Call Tommy for a loan and don’t worry when or whether you can pay it back.  If assistance of any sort was needed Tommy was there too.  It was simply in his nature to see hurt and to provide healing hands.

All of this time and much later Tommy Douglas had not the slightest intention or thoughts about running for political office. His sermons at Weyburn Baptist Church were drawing more and more worshippers and Tommy found not a minute to spare. And soon he was pressed to take on another project – one that would tax even the all-round abilities of a fiery and popular preacher. He was asked to cope with eight local mini burglars from the high school who were stealing from the local general store. He agreed to see what he could do and began meeting with them two evenings a week. He taught all sorts of things  - things that a multi-talented man can do. The favorite activity turned out to be boxing. Tommy had learned something of “The Sweet Science” during his own school days.  In fact, while attending the University of Brandon he fought and won the lightweight championship of Manitoba two years running. This would surprise those who later could not picture the peaceful and non-threatening Douglas as a pugilist. When this view was pressed on him Douglas would only say, ‘’Well, I was fast and could hit harder than they were expecting”. The 8 boys soon learned to respect the slim Scot and all 8 boys matured into good members of society – two of them became teachers and one a sergeant major in the military.

Politics

1935 was a federal election year. To his utter surprise a group of citizens from the local federal district came calling representing the left-wing Cooperative Commonwealth party (CCF).  To the outside world, “Tommy Who” won the seat and left the security of pastor of a Church where he was known and loved. Over time Tommy gradually morphed from a situation where he commanded a flock to one where he was but one more anonymous backbencher. But he listened and learned and his reputation in the House became that of an honest broker. 

Douglas was soon wooed by the top brass of the New Democratic Party to enter the provincial race as the party’s leader in Saskatchewan in 1944.  He accepted both the offer and the challenge. The New Democrats was merely the new name for the CCF. The difference being that the new party was now the party of labor interests as well as the farmers of Saskatchewan; Election Day was a rout. The New Democrats, led by Douglas, won 47 out of 52 seats in Saskatchewan.  And now all of Canada knew who Tommy Douglas was. This remarkable performance was due partly to his sunny personality and his honest ways – and he would go on to lead the province for 17 years. But Tommy had another gift too.

Orator

Tommy was a superb orator. The captive cadence of his rhetoric was magic, the way he punctured a hole in the sky with a pointed index finger – and his strong and commanding presence held you in thrall.  Opponents steered clear of taking him on, but he never took advantage of his superior language skills. In truth, Tommy could be considered a latter day Cicero. If you met him you soon learned why.

Ken Lee, a friend and prominent resident of British Columbia, remembers Douglas vividly:

“In 1965 I was Principle of Central Manitoulin High School. One evening I heard a knock on the door and was astonished to find Tommy Douglas there. I had never met Tommy before but with a twinkle in his eye and his charming Scottish way he explained that a 1965 Federal Election had been called and they were searching for the riding of Algoma East. He explained that the incumbent MP was Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. I was deeply impressed that he had found the time to come to my door. This was a moment I will never forget. This incredibly erudite, courageous man, a lifetime inspirational role model had found the time and energy to visit my campaign and wish me well.”

For all his peaceful ways Tommy was adamant that he was no pacifist. Pushed to the extreme Tommy would defend what was his.  This attitude came to the fore in 1936 when he visited Germany. After witnessing a Nazi rally and a tantrum and diatribe from their leader, Tommy described Hitler as a lunatic.

Back home Tommy was building roads, pushing through legislation that guaranteed two weeks’ paid vacation for all Saskatchewan workers, and introducing family allowance and the old age pension. However, he is best remembered for universal Medicare.  It was a long hard battle, and the doctors felt threatened, as the government would take control of how they were paid. The doctors went on strike for nine days and one young boy’s life was lost before eventually Medicare came into being. Along with Medicare came dental care, eye care, and basic prescription coverage. 

His childhood injury never completely left him though, and was a constant reminder of the need for medical care.  On July 1, 1962 a total Medicare package came into being.  This was Tommy’s greatest achievement.

Sense of humor

And last, but not least, a tip of the cap to Tommy’s sense of humor.

Tommy Douglas and Joey Smallwood, by way of their Premierships, were invited to London to attend the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.  So Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan and Premier Joey Smallwood of Newfoundland soon found themselves, on the day, standing five and a half hours – consecutively – with no chance to heed the call of nature. When finally released they scooted out of the Abbey to a nearby building – desperate already, they find the line-up is 60 men deep. This facility carries an overhead sign that says – “Gentlemen”. There is another convenience marked “Peers”. There is no line-up at all.

In a flash Tommy runs over to this one – He hears Joey admonish him  - Tommy, you are not a lord. And you cannot go there.

Tommy hollers back, Wrong Joey - I may not be a Lord but I am definitely a Peer!

Tommy honored both the Saltire and the Maple Leaf.  So do we all.

What do you think of Tommy Douglas? Let us know below. 

Now you can read Douglas’ article on Thomas Paine, the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution, here, the American heroine Abigail Adams here, and one of the 20th century’s greatest writers, George Orwell, here.

The Philippines in the Korean War – The Battle of Yultong

The Korean War (1950-53) saw UN forces, led by the South Koreans and US, fight against communist backed forces, led by North Korea and China. Here, Denise Emille Duque explains the story of one of the countries that formed part of the UN force – the Philippines. In particular he looks at the feats of the Filipino forces against Chinese troops in the 1951 Battle of Yultong.

Filipino soldiers preparing their munitions and weapons for the Battle of Yultong. Source: JamesKillsFour, available here.

"Give me 10,000 Filipinos and I will conquer the world." – General Douglas MacArthur

Artillery shells rained down upon the UN forces occupying the hills of Yultong. It was the opening salvos of the Chinese Spring offensive. The 10th BCT of the Philippine Expeditionary Force sent to Korea braced itself for what seemed to be an incessant typhoon of death and destruction. This is the story of 900 Filipino Soldiers who defeated 40,000 Chinese and North Korean forces on the hills of Yultong.

To understand our story let's travel back to how this war started. On 25th June 1950, 75,000 North Korean troops with Soviet and Chinese support invaded South Korea to capture its capital city, Seoul. In response, the newly established United Nations passed UN Security Council Resolution 83 to urge the UN member states to restore peace and order to the Korean Peninsula through the repulsion of Communist forces by military action.

The Philippines in Korea

One of the UN member states that heeded the call to arms was the Republic of the Philippines, which at the time was still recovering from the scars brought by the Imperial Japanese forces during the Second World War. Philippine President Elpidio Quirino urged Congress to approve the Republic Act 573 to deploy 7,420 Filipino troops to the Korean Peninsula. The President saw this as a commitment to help a friend and as a part of a larger battle to defeat communism. He gave these words when he addressed the PEFTOK soldiers: "Poor as we are, this country is making a great sacrifice in sending you there, but every peso invested in you is a sound investment for the perpetuation of our liberty and freedom."

First to dock in Pusan, South Korea was the 10th Battalion Combat Team of the Philippine Expeditionary Force to Korea (PEFTOK) on September 19, 1950, shortly after General MacArthur's successful Incheon Landing. The men of the 10th BCT, the heroes of our tale, were made up of 64 Officers and 1,303 Enlisted men led by Lt. Col. Dionisio S. Ojeda. They were supposed to be a motorized unit operating tanks, but none arrived with them, so they were turned into a heavy weapons unit. 

Images of ruined cities, refugees, and famine welcomed the battalion. All these were familiar and bitterly nostalgic to the Filipino troops. After all, those were the same sights they saw in their home countries a few years back. Korean refugees quickly ran to them upon sight to beg for food, and the battalion obliged.

Initial fighting

After the melancholic welcome, the Filipino force was assigned to join the Turkish Brigade and the US/Puerto Rican 65th Infantry Regiment into the 3rd Infantry Division.  Soon after, the 3rd Infantry Division faced the Communist North Koreans at the Battle of Miudong, which resulted in their victory. That was the first battle won by Filipinos in a foreign land.

In the spring of 1951, the 3rd infantry division was deployed along the area of the Imjin River. The 3rd and 2nd Battalions of the US 65th Infantry Regiment positioned facing west along the river, with the Turkish Brigade occupying the east flank, and the 10th BCT was at the center. Unbeknown to these men, a storm was brewing under their noses in the form of the Chinese Spring Offensive. 

40,000 Communist Chinese troops of the 44th Division of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army under Commander Peng Dehuai planned to attack and surround the 3rd Infantry Division. He deployed the 15th Army in a narrow zone between the Imjin River and Route 33. The 12th and 60th Armies were deployed to attack the positions held by the 10th BCT and the Turkish Brigade through the Pogae-san ridges.

Chinese Spring Offensive

20:00, 22/04/1951 – Artillery shells, mortar fire, machine gun, and small arms fire greeted the Turks at the start of the battle. At 23:00, waves of Chinese soldiers assaulted the 10th BCT positions and engaged in a series of close-quarter confrontations.

Continuous artillery bombardment and some friendly fire cut the communications between troops in the 3rd Infantry Division. Fortunately, communications returned at 00:30, and the Turkish Brigade received an order to retreat to a position on the line south of Hantan River. Intensifying Chinese assaults forced the 65th Infantry Regiment to retreat several hundred yards to regroup and reorganize. The 10th BCT was surrounded and left alone to brave the ocean of Communist Chinese forces.

The 10th BCT non-combatants such as the chaplain, clerks, medics, cooks, and drivers threw themselves into the fray to bolster the strength of their outnumbered battalion. Men of the 10th fought dispersed and confused because of the lack of communication between the hills. The fighting went on and on where some men were wounded, killed, or captured. Among the captured was Lt. Tomas G. Batilo of the Able Company of the 10th.

Then Lt. Jose Artiaga Jr. led the Baker (B) Company to defend the strategic hill of Yultong but they were pushed back by the unrelenting Chinese forces. At 03:00, enemy forces penetrated deep into the formation and reached the position of the Charlie Company in the reserves. Unfortunately, the company suffered heavy losses including Lt. Artiaga. 

While all this was happening, Lt. Col. Dionisio S. Ojeda received an order to withdraw and all units complied except Captain Conrado Yap's Heavy Weapons Company. Captain Yap led his men to counterattack to rescue the wounded and to retrieve the dead. He opened the hatch of his tank and shot at the Chinese with the mounted machine gun with his gun crew firing as fast as they could. Chinese soldiers fell one by one at the rate of 17 to 1 in favor of the 10th. The Heavy Weapons Company succeeded but at the price of Captain Yap's life.

The 12th President of the Philippines Fidel Ramos, who was also a PEFTOK soldier for the 20th BCT, commented about Captain Yap's actions in his speech during the 42nd Anniversary of the Battle of Yultong: "Captain Yap—his mission accomplished—now ordered a withdrawal. While making a headcount of his boys and directing the withdrawal, he was hit by machinegun fire."

The 10th held their ground until dawn and by this time the Chinese attack slowed down and this allowed the 3rd Infantry Division to retreat. Then the C Company of the 10th, supported by two M24 Chaffee light tanks of the Recon Company and allied artillery, led a counterattack to restore the lost area of B Company. The Filipinos fought until midday when General Robert Soule fell back to Line Kansas, to a position in Anhung-ri.

Aftermath

The battle ended with over 500 dead Chinese soldiers lying dead on the battlefield and 2 of them were captured. On the other hand, the 10th BCT lost only 12 people with 38 wounded and 6 missing. It was a victory for the ‘Fighting Filipinos’.

For the act of valiance performed by Captain Conrado Yap, he was posthumously awarded the Philippine Medal of Valor, the US Distinguished Service Cross, and was awarded the First Taeguk Cordon of the Order of the Military Merit on the 65th Anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement on July 27, 2018. Lieutenant Jose Artiaga Jr. was posthumously awarded the Philippine Distinguished Service Cross. 

This battle, which saved the 3rd Infantry Division, ultimately helped in turning the war in favor of the United Nations. After the war ended in July of 1953, the Philippines and South Korea cemented a great friendship that even stands to this day. UN forces were so impressed with the 10th BCT's valiance that they were nicknamed "The Fighting Filipinos".

To this day the story of the Fighting Filipinos is a source of national pride among Filipinos because they showed that despite poverty, the Filipino people could rise.

What do you think of the Philippines’ role in the Korean War? Let us know below.

Note: General Douglas MacArthur quote at the start of the article also here: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/the-fighting-filipinos.html

Fascism in 1930s America: The Silver Shirts

The Silver Shirts, or Silver Legion of America, were a fascist political movement in America from 1933 to 1941. Founded by William Dudley Pelley, a screenwriter, the group had some notoriety and wealthy supporters. James Zills explains.

A Wanted poster for William Dudley Pelley, founder of the Silver Shirts.

The end of World War One saw the reshaping of boundaries in Europe, insurmountable war debt, the collapse of the German economy, and a growing distrust in democracy. This gave rise to the age of dictators, who through the help of their paramilitary forces grew to power – with their success being most notable in Germany and Italy. A key element in the militias utilized to gain control was the differentiating of the colors worn by these organizations. The Germans sported the Brown Shirts, Italian Black Shirts, and Spain with Blue Shirts. History barely recognizes similar movements in other countries with their own fashionable shirts. Bulgaria with red, Brazil green, Mexico with opposing gold and red, and finally the United States of America and the fashionable Silver Shirts. With the exception of the red shirts who leaned toward communism in Mexico, all were similar in the fact that they shared a distrust and hatred for Jews.

The Silver Shirts, like many novel ideas in America, had their roots in Hollywood. William Dudley Pelley, a screenwriter in the great intellectual desert, formed the Silver Legion (Silver Shirts) in January 1933 shortly after Hitler seized power in Germany. Pelley, an ardent admirer of Hitler believed that he could achieve similar success, openly declaring: “the time has come for an American Hitler” (Murphy 2018). Like most screenwriters in ‘Hollyweird’, originality was not his strong suit. Once the movement began to pick-up momentum, Pelly moved his operation to Asheville, North Carolina. His move to North Carolina was motivated by the need for funding and he found that piggy bank from a wealthy individual in Ashville. With funding established it was time to establish goals - any organization worth its weight in silver has to have goals.

Goals of a Presidential Hopeful

The overarching goal of the Silver Shirts was to bring religion back to the forefront of American Society. The legion also aspired to revert private owned lands back to the state, re-institute slavery for African Americans, and begin the deportation of Jews. Those who were loyal to the cause would enjoy the bounty of sharing the properties seized by the legion. Lifting a move from Joseph Smith, Pelley claimed to have been visited by none other than Jesus himself. In this celestial vision, Pelley claimed that Jesus gave him the stamp of approval for his quest.

Knowing that the Silver Shirts lacked the membership numbers for a hostile takeover, Pelley did the next best thing. Founding the Christian Party in 1935, he used it as a means to run as a third party candidate in the 1936 presidential election. “For Christ and the Constitution” (Finklestein 1938) was the rallying call for the party, but it would do little to gain the necessary momentum. Pelley was only able to get on the ballot in Washington State and solely running his candidacy from Ashville presented problems with persuading voters. The newly formed Christian Party and its leader failed at the long-shot presidential run, garnering just 1,598 votes. To put it into perspective, almost 700,000 people voted in the presidential election in Washington State in 1936.

As for the legion itself, its membership peaked at 15,000. Interestingly, there seemed to be no attempt to use its membership numbers for voter fraud in Washington, especially with most of its members residing on the West Coast. The most the Silver Shirts amounted to was the ability to secure a cache of weapons and ammunition and be mildly intimidating. These achievements would gain the attention of the FBI and after the attack on Pearl Harbor there was probable cause to put an end to the Silver Shirts. The Dies Committee started paying closer attention to the organization as well as the extra-curricular activities of its leader.

Pelley needed funds to support his lifestyle and, like many heads of organizations or cults, he skimmed off the top; in Pelley’s case, he defrauded shareholders (Daly 2018). The ever-watchful eye of big brother, and his run-ins with the authorities forced Pelley into hiding. He spent some time hiding out with likeminded folks, such as the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, before ultimately disbanding the Silver Shirts after the attack on Pearl Harbor to alleviate the pressure put on him by the FBI. Pelley would eventually spend some time in prison for securities fraud and the publication of treasonable material. After serving his time, he kept up with all things silver and began a fascination with aliens.

The Casting Couch

Aside from the man-crush he had on Hitler, Pelley acquired some interesting reasons for his dislike of Jewish people. His mistrust for Jewish people began in Hollywood. His experience in Hollywood led him to believe that Jews controlled the movie industry, which impeded his creativity. He constantly complained that Jewish directors routinely made changes to his writing that were adapted for film. Furthermore, Pelley mentions the infamous casting couch as another reason for his contempt of Jews in movie city. In Arthuriana Vol. 26 No. 2 Pelley, is quoted as saying

Do you think of me unduly incensed about them? I’ve seen too many Gentile Women ravished and been unable to do anything about it. They have a concupiscent slogan in screendom. Don’t hire till you see the whites of their thighs! (68)

On the surface the Silver Legion, headed by the ambitious Pelley, was just a small blip on the government radar. While they failed to mass number like the American Bund Movement, they gained a wealthy following that allowed a flow of funds to the actual Nazi Party. The brainchild of a Hollywood insider failed to gain enough traction to bring Nazi policy to America and like so many other pro-Nazi organizations, folded under pressure when World War Two began.

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

Now you can read how Hitler’s Nazis tried to gain influence in New York City in the 1930s here.

Bibliography

Daley, Jason. "The Screenwriting Mystic Who Wanted to Be the American Führer." Smithsonian Magazine. Last modified October 3, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/meet-screenwriting-mystic-who-wanted-be-american-fuhrer-180970449/.

Finklestein, Sarah. "Candidate." Our Campaigns. Accessed November 17, 2020. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=4576.

Harty, Kevin J. "William Dudley Pelley, An American Nazi in King Arthur’s Court." Arthuriana 26, no. 2 (2016), 64-85. doi:10.1353/art.2016.0034.

Moncure, Billy. "The Silver Legion: The Nazi Sympathisers of America." War history online. Last modified September 27, 2019. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-silver-legionthe-nazi.html.

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

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

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

President William McKinley.

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

Assimilation

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

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

Support for the Curtis Act

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

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

Judging McKinley

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

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

Putting the claims to the test

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

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

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

Geronimo’s eulogy continued the tribute:

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

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

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

7 Occasions that Europe Changed the Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, not in Europe.

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

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

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

Who made the decision to cancel Christmas?

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

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

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

Why the years 1793-1806 never existed in France

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

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

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

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

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

Is the UK ten minutes late?

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

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

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

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

How Hitler caused a late lunch in Spain

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

And we have Hitler to thank for it.

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

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

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

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

The future?

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

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

References & Further Reading

Time and Date.com

The Guardian: Paris Mean Time

Vanessa France: A brief history of (French) time

WEBEXHITS: Calendar - French

The Atlantic: The creation of modern time

ADSB: Calendar Reform 1752

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

Time and Date: The Julian-Gregorian switch

Mirlibooks: Confusion and Myth in the Gregorian Calendar reform

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

Why do we Love History?

The study of history has very important across cultures, and places for millennia. But why has it been so important for so long? Here, Tom Daly explains some of the reasons why he loves history – via stories, understanding, knowledge, and context.

You can also read Tom’s articles on the Princess Alice Disaster on London’s River Thames here and 14th century French female pirate Jeanne de Clisson here.

The 1471 Battle of Barnet in the Wars of the Roses. The Wars of the Roses are often said to have influenced the TV series, Game of Thrones. Representation shown is from the Ghent manuscript, 15th century (Source: Ghent University library, MS236).

A conversation at work about our favorite school subjects led to me, naturally, enthusiastically declaring my love for history. My colleagues were in general agreement that they too had enjoyed history at school, but had not necessarily loved it. Too narrow, they said. Why did we have to learn about the Liberal government’s welfare reforms in the early 20th century? Who cares about Weimar Germany? Where was the glamour, the action, the irresistible storyline, in Jethro Tull’s agricultural revolution?

I resisted the urge to say that all those subjects are interesting, in their own way. But the wider conversation got me thinking – why do I love history so much? I had never really thought about it because it has always been natural to me - history was always my favorite subject at school, and something I loved learning about outside of school. But what is it about history that still draws me in? It sounds like a simple question, yet it is so difficult to answer.

Stories

I suppose the first place to start is in the name itself – history. Derived from the Greek word ‘historia’, which roughly means the act of inquiring, it shares its roots with the word ‘story.’ Therein lies reason number one for loving history; it is, in a sense, a collection of personal and societal stories that have interwoven and shaped the world we live in today. These individual stories are often exciting, and there are so many intriguing characters and sensational plot lines throughout history that it can sometimes feel like a TV show. It is no coincidence that so many successful films and TV shows have been based on real historical events; indeed, it is commonly accepted the entire Game of Thrones saga was loosely based on the Wars of the Roses, a very real era that was full of scarcely believable figures – greedy, lustful, treacherous and occasionally brilliant men and women – all vying for the throne of England. History is interesting, dramatic, full of action.

Understanding

Characters in history can be fun, but they are also useful for understanding the lot of certain groups in society throughout the ages. Read about the life of Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Queen Matilda, or even the two Margarets of the Wars of the Roses (Anjou and Beaufort), and we gain an understanding of the situation women found themselves in during the Middle Ages – difficult, their lives often defined by their relationships with the men around them, but able to exert considerable power if they could dictate those relationships on their terms. Boudicca is another interesting example, as we learn from her story that women commanded a large degree of respect in Celtic Britain, but that she was still undermined by male violence and misogyny. Of course, the important caveat here is that these are all examples of women of high birth, and the opportunity for common women to exert such power was virtually non-existent. But then perhaps the same could generally be said of men who were not born into nobility. In any case, the point still stands – the stories of individuals can help us learn about the lot of groups they belonged to.

Curiosity

A third, perhaps more personal, reason for my love of history is a simple fascination with the way people lived in the past. I constantly find myself looking at videos or photographs from over 100 years ago (I’m not pretending I’m the coolest person on earth) and being genuinely fascinated by the people I see. What was their story? What brought them into that image or video on that day? What did they do after that image or video was taken? It doesn’t sound academic, but simple curiosity is a completely valid reason for loving history – in fact, it is probably what attracted most of us to history in the first place. While paintings from the pre-photography age cannot give the same sense of realism and relatability as photographs, these eras can still be brought to life. In London alone, there are numerous roads and buildings that have stood for centuries, and it does not require a huge leap of imagination to picture a scene from hundreds of years ago, with normal people scurrying around, with people to meet and places to be. Venture to Pudding Lane in London and you can imagine the scene one evening in 1666 as the Farynor family escaped their bakery, unaware that the fire in their dwellings was to rage for days and destroy most of the city. Nearby, the Tower of London has witnessed some of history’s most famous figures parting company with their heads. Of course, London is only one example – all across Britain, across Europe and North America, across the world, there exists remarkable pieces of history. Ever visited the temples at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and imagined the mysterious rulers who presided over them? Ever walked the streets of Pompeii and imagined the hustle and bustle of a wealthy Roman city? Real people, with thoughts and hopes and emotions just like ours, walked those very streets on their way to work, to watch sporting events or meet their friends for a drink. Just like us.

Context

Perhaps a more academic reason for loving history is the way it allows our world to be put into context. The most obvious example of this has come in recent times, with the turbulent politics we have seen in the Western world over the past few years having led to constant historical comparisons, with the 1930s in particular. Whether you think these comparisons are merited or not, it is important that we are able to make them, to contextualize our world and learn lessons from the past. Incidentally, I personally happen to believe that the slide towards populism and nativism in the past decade would have been even starker were it not for people being wary of what happened all those years ago. Though people like me see history as a past time, it also has a vital role to play in our understanding of where we are and where we are going. History matters. Don’t let people tell you otherwise.

History Today

These are just a few reasons for my love of history, and I’m sure anyone reading this could add to my short list with a whole range of reasons. History is so wide-ranging and all-encompassing that it can mean different things to different people. To me, it is fast, exciting, intensely interesting – and constantly evolving. This may sound morbid, but despite the agony of the current pandemic it is not lost on me that we are witnessing history first hand. What will our descendants think of us and the way we dealt with it? It is a question any history lover will ponder. 

Why do you love history? Let us know below.

Now, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.

Slavery: America’s National Sin

Slavery was all too prevalent in America from the country’s founding by Europeans until the US Civil War. Here, Daniel L. Smith gives his perspective on slavery in the USA.

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

Slaves Waiting for Sale in Richmond, Virginia. Painting in 1861 by Eyre Crowe.

The US Congress in 1787 and 1789 would pass the Northwest Ordinance, which outlawed slavery in any newly created state of the Union. The federal government would also ban the export of slaves from any state within the Union in 1794. Intentions show that in this generation, the eventual abolishment of slavery was their main intention.

The intention was to show the world how a Christian nation would attempt to deal with such a heavy-laden problem. Britain finally outlawed slavery in 1834, and this was primarily due to the efforts of evangelical Christians. But the United States failed to address the issue of slavery fully. Slavery is a national sin, and one reason for this enabled failure is greed.

Profit and greed

The famous inventor of the cotton gin, Mr. Eli Whitney, made his contraption well renowned in 1783. This machine would end up making slavery much, much, much more profitable. The resulting effects of this new profit would give rise to a new generation of Americans with much less conviction on the matters of slavery than their fathers.

The rest of the nation, instead of dealing with the issue head-on, attempted to compromise. The trend of abolition came to a screeching halt in the South. And even churches began to (for the first-time ever) justify slavery by 1810. By then, all slave trading had been banned, yet slave owning, became more ingrained. [1]

As an example, Mount Tabor Baptist Church of Kentucky suffered a fracture in 1808. The church body fractured over the idea of slavery, as “in April 1808 when John Murphy, clerk of the church, rose from his seat and ‘declared non-fellowship with the church on account of slavery.’ Following Murphy's lead, Elijah Davidson then rose and withdrew from the church because it tolerated slave-holding among its members. In the following five months, two men and four women left the church for the same reasons.”

“Far from a singular event, this rupture was repeated in churches across the state and was the culmination to a decades-long debate within Baptist churches in the Upper South over the issue of slave-holding. Before the crisis was settled, Baptists would be forced to rethink their doctrines, worldview, and relationship to the new republic."

"As Baptists began to evangelize the Upper South, they addressed the complicated issue of slaves and slavery. Slaves were part of the early audiences for Baptist itinerants in the 1760s and 1770s, and, after the War for Independence, slaves began to join churches in increasing numbers. This phenomenon forced Baptists into the quagmire of slavery as they constructed a coherent theology and a network of churches in a revolutionary age.

The churches they built were biracial with white and black members. White and black evangelicals together faced the contradictions between their theology, which emphasized the equality of souls, and the institution of slavery, which reified inequality. Churches became the arenas in which southerners debated what slavery meant in an evangelical society and what religion meant in a slave society.”[2]

It was the national sin of slavery that would cause the evangelical movement to seek to reform American society in the Civil War era and well into today. A combination of dumbed-down education, misinformation, and poor leadership has weakened America has meant American continues to need great reform.


​

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

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 1 – Statue Toppled

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

In part 1 we provide the background to the statue removal and look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.

William McKinley is sworn in as US president by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. To the right is outgoing President Grover Cleveland.

Introduction

With media attention focused on statues of former slave-owners, very little media coverage has focused on the removal of a 111-year old statue that took place on the west coast of America. It was not Father Serra or Columbus. In fact, little information got to the general public about this statue to a figure not usually linked with California history: William McKinley, 25th president of the United States. In the small town of Arcata, California a diverse group of activists and city officials targeted the statue for removal beginning in 2017. The average American has not even heard of McKinley let alone that a statue of our 25th president graced the Golden State. He clearly is famous, or infamous, enough, though, to have stirred the wrath of the residents of this lovely seaside community. 

The illustrious career of William McKinley Jr. came to a sudden and untimely end at the hands of an assassin. This pointless act of violence took place on September 6, 1901 at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley was greeting a long line of visitors at the Temple of Music. He liked people and, to the consternation of his security service, insisted on shaking everyone’s hand. Among those who waited in line to meet the president was an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. When his turn came McKinley reached out but instead of an open hand Czolgosz presented a revolver. The assassin fired at the president at point blank range twice. Taken to a nearby house for medical attention, McKinley, despite rallying briefly, succumbed on September 14 due to infections caused by the wound. The death of the popular McKinley was immediately met by a widespread and genuine outpouring of national grief. 

As if that terrible ending of his life were not bad enough, he has recently been condemned to a “second death” by character assassination. The questions the article seeks to consider are:

·       Was the decision to remove this statue appropriate?

·       What standards were used to justify the statue’s removal?

·       Did the standards have merit?

This article will attempt to answer these questions by examining the arguments of those that demanded the removal of the McKinley statue. The facts of the case will be submitted to the candid readers that they may decide if our 25th president deserved his “second death.” Let’s begin!

Copy-Cat Statue Topplers?

In this small community of 17,000, overlooking the Pacific only two-hours’ drive from Oregon, debate over the statue can be traced to the 1970s. Discussion turned into a demand for action after the Charlottesville, Virginia riots over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in 2017. With a reputation for being one of the most left-wing cities in the country, any statue politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh would probably have not survived long in these extremist times. Inspired by Charlottesville, local Native American activists began a petition drive to remove the statue. Protests became a fixture on the plaza where the statue was located. Normally dull City Hall meetings came alive as both defenders and opponents of McKinley’s removal generated lively public debate. A common rationale amongst the protestors was that after seeing Confederate statues fall, they became convinced that their remote city needed to take care of its own “statue-problem.” Rapidly all the real and alleged grievances of Native American activists and other marginalized groups were projected onto the silent, long-suffering 8 ½’ image. Essentially, McKinley became a symbol of everything the protestors opposed or disliked. 

What holds Water?

Now let’s look at each accusation in turn and weigh their merits. As lovers of history I invite you to be deeply concerned that history is “done right.” The standard we use is not whether it is right or wrong to topple a statue or whether McKinley took actions that are deemed morally wrong by the protestors. Was McKinley actually guilty of the charges brought against him? Also, the issue is whether McKinley’s actions were justified in the context of the 19th century given the norms of the time and the information McKinley possessed. For example, a nineteenth-century factory owner whose employees contracted illness due to exposure to chemicals cannot be condemned if no one at the time was aware of the effects of those chemicals, and he otherwise treated them fairly. 

McKinley and Indigenous Americans

Now, on to the accusations: first, Chris Peters, head of the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People called McKinley a proponent of “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed.” He furthermore claimed that McKinley was responsible for "directing the slaughter of native peoples." 

How does this accusation hold up? First, clarity is needed on the terms “settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that results, often unintentionally, in the replacement of the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. This phenomenon has been going on since Ancient Egypt. It also includes what amounts to “settler colonialism” among American indigenous tribes themselves. For instance, the Lakota Sioux undertook a migration to the south in the same century that McKinley lived, in which they pushed aside the Omaha tribe. In the words of one source “Attacks from the Sioux Tribe and disease often meant the relocation of the villages.” Following Peter's logic, every statue created since the days of the Pharaohs should be removed and the statue of Crazy Horse, near Mount Rushmore, as well. This is the first reason the accusation is unfair: one cannot apply different standards to different people for the same crime.

Second, McKinley is absolutely innocent of this charge for the following reasons. The Homestead Act was passed when McKinley was a 19-year-old sergeant in the Union Army and thus he had nothing to do with that measure. During the post-Civil War period he was busy establishing a career in Ohio as a lawyer and raising a family and had nothing to do with anything remotely akin to “settler colonialism.” Elected to congress in 1876, the up-and-coming politician ultimately gravitated toward the Ways and Means Committee and became an expert on the tariff. His focus was on policies that would encourage national prosperity, which he felt would benefit all people. Once again, he was not known for any overt statements or actions promoting “settler colonialism.” From 1892 to 1896 he was Governor of Ohio and continued to have nothing to do with policy towards indigenous peoples. On the other hand, since McKinley served as president for several years, he did ultimately direct policy affecting Native Americans. Is it here that McKinley committed the alleged misdeeds? Let’s look at the McKinley presidential record with regard to Native Americans.

President McKinley and Native Americans

Counted among his many friends were two men who were themselves great friends of Native Americans: Senator Matt Quay and Ethan Allan Hitchcock. Mr. Quay was part Native American, and an official member of the Delaware tribe. He was also a champion of both Native American and African-American rights. Hitchcock served as McKinley’s Secretary of the Interior from February 20, 1899. He has been called the most effective leader of the department in its first half century of existence. Among other things, the Department handled issues related to Native Americans. As Secretary, Hitchcock set a new standard for the department, vigorously prosecuting land fraud and assisting Native American peoples and protecting their rights. This represented a turning point in the Office of Indian Affairs, which had been notoriously inept. Additionally he fully embraced the conservation movement, influencing McKinley in taking many measures to expand and protect forests and other resources.

One example of McKinley’s attitude towards indigenous people regards the Navajo Tribe. A bill was sent to the chief executive’s desk which involved a group of white entrepreneurs scheming to open up what was left of the Navajo lands to exploitation. McKinley and Hitchcock saw through the scheme and flatly rejected it, ruling in favor of the tribe. In fact, this was the most important veto the 25th president ever issued. In a careful and strongly worded message, McKinley explained why he would not sign the bill. He began by describing the condition of the tribe and the land, that, under the treaty of June 1, 1863 and subsequent executive orders, was reserved for the Navajo people. He next declared that those boundaries were inadequate for the tribe. He had thus, by executive order on January 8, 1899, enlarged the tribe’s boundaries. The territory of the Navajo was therefore significantly extended so as to, in his own words, provide “sufficient grass and water for their flocks and herds, and avoiding the prior contention and friction between them and the whites.” The president’s opinion was that it would be neither “just nor possible” to confine them to the previous smaller reservation. McKinley next noted that the Navajo had accepted the new, revised boundaries. He then turned to the proposed bill, which desired to open a substantial amount of the Navajo land to mining operations. McKinley protested that no effort had been made to gain the permission of the Navajo people. He stated that the inevitable effect of the law would be to take the remaining land from the Navajo and asked why such a bill was being proposed that made no effort to negotiate with the tribe in question. He also praised the Navajo’s “habits of industry and husbandry.” More than once he mentioned his concern for the Navajo’s flocks of sheep, which are, by the way, an extremely important part of Navajo culture and economy.

This doesn’t really sound like “savagery, raping and killing” does it? In studying the career of McKinley one will find the same pattern of fairness, high standards and broadmindedness in most of his dealings. When McKinley had the facts, in this case given to him by the vigilant Hitchcock, he was eager to do what was just. His Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock was alert to prevent further injustices to Native Americans. He knew his boss McKinley shared his views and so the two worked as a team to do what they believed was right by the Native Americans.

Now you can read part 2 on McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans here.