Modern American Gun Culture and the American Frontier

With the most citizen-owned firearms of any nation in the world and a higher-than-average rate of gun-related deaths, America stands out from every other developed Western nation. Here, Greg Hickey argues that this American gun culture exists because American history is unique - no other nation has experienced such rapid expansion or enjoyed so large a frontier as the United States did shortly after its independence. Stemming from the American frontier of the nineteenth century, guns have become enmeshed with America in a relationship that persists through the new frontiers of the twenty-first century.

1890s painting of cowboys: The Herd Quitter by C.M. Russell.

Guns in America

United States citizens own a total of 393,347,000 firearms. India—a country with four times as many people as the U.S—is a distant second with 71,101,000 civilian-owned firearms. Americans own 120.5 firearms per 100 people, meaning that, on average, every American owns more than one gun. The tiny Falkland Islands ranks second with 62.1 firearms per 100 people, just over half the rate in the United States.

Gun safety advocates cite high gun ownership as a significant factor in the above-average rate of gun deaths in America. In 2019, this figure stood at 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people, more than eight times higher than the rate in Canada and almost 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom. The question is how and why modern gun culture became so pervasive in America compared to other developed Western nations.

The Right to Bear Arms

There are three countries in the world with the right to own firearms enshrined in their constitutions: the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico. All three are relatively new nations. The U.S. gained its independence from Great Britain in 1783; Guatemala and Mexico got theirs from Spain in 1821.

Of course, firearms were present in the Americas from the moment the first European settlers arrived in the fifteenth century. These weapons played a major role in the wars of colonization and independence fought on the continent. In contrast, Europeans did not use guns to conquer Europe. Nations fought wars against each other, yet the European nations we know today are descendants of ancient Europeans: Romans, Gauls, Franks, Normans, Slavs. But Europeans did use guns to conquer the Americas.

Thus, the post-indigenous histories of the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico are comprised entirely by the history of firearms. The Europeans who settled in these regions brought guns. Their descendants who severed ties with the colonial powers fought with guns. And their descendants living in newly independent nations inherited those guns and acquired new ones. Yet despite the historical and legislative parallels, gun ownership in the United States far exceeds that of Guatemala and Mexico.

Independence and Its Aftermath

When the Mexican War of Independence began in 1810, the Spanish viceroyalty of New Spain stretched from modern-day California to the isthmus of Panama (including Guatemala) and covered what would become the southwestern United States. The Spanish had conquered most of southern Mexico by 1525. By 1536, they had overtaken Jalisco and other regions on the Pacific coast. By the eighteenth century, they had established colonies in present-day Louisiana, Texas, and California. In other words, Spaniards had thoroughly permeated the land that would become Mexico and Guatemala by those nations gained independence.

By contrast, the United States in 1783 consisted of the original thirteen colonies on the Atlantic Ocean plus territory stretching west to the Mississippi River and north to the Great Lakes. In 1803, the U.S. nearly doubled in size with the completion of the Louisiana Purchase. In 1845, the U.S. annexed Texas. One year later, Americans agreed to divide the Oregon Country with the British along the border of present-day Canada. And in 1848, following the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded territory that would become the southwestern United States. In the 65 years since it became a nation, the territory owned by the United States effectively tripled in size.

No other nation in the world faced a comparable situation. Mexico, thanks to the aforementioned Mexican-American War, lost a considerable amount of territory shortly after its independence.

Canada became a nation in 1867 with the union of the British colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada. Three years later, Canada acquired Rupert’s Land, a northern wilderness territory that made up most of present-day Canada, from the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). The HBC had acquired the land, which stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky Mountains and north to the Arctic Circle, under a charter from England in 1670, and had exclusive rights to colonize and trade in the territory. Unlike America, the vast majority of Canadian land was under British control when Canada became a nation.

Likewise, the British had colonized practically all of Australia by 1832, well before Australian independence in 1901. In another contrast to America, neither Canada nor Australia fought a war to gain independence. Instead, Britain willingly ceded control of these overseas territories to local governance.

The American Frontier

Consequently, the early history of the United States proved unique in comparison to other nations in the world. And this early history has directly influenced modern gun culture. Americans fought a war with guns to gain their independence. They subsequently acquired territories that tripled the nation in size, some of which involved more fighting with guns. The eastern Americans then pushed west into new territories, hunting and protecting themselves and driving away understandably hostile Native Americans with guns. From Lewis and Clark to the Oregon Trail to the Wild West, westward expansion claimed a defining chapter in American history, and this expansion was made possible by individual citizens with guns.

Whether as a cause or effect, the American firearms industry took off in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In 1776, George Washington ordered the establishment of the Springfield Armory in Springfield Massachusetts. In 1816, the U.S. government hired Eliphalet Remington’s Remington Arms Company to produce flintlock rifles. And in 1836, Samuel Colt patented his Single Action Army Revolver, also known as the Colt 45 or “the gun that won the west.” Americans needed guns, and gunmakers provided new models to fit their needs.

The Second Amendment

In 1791, the existing state legislatures ratified the U.S. Bill of Rights containing ten amendments to the Constitution. In particular, Amendment II states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This Second Amendment has provided legal support for private gun ownership in the 230 years since ratification.

Yet the Second Amendment does not capture the spirit in which early Americans used their guns. Guns did not rise to cultural prominence in the hands of New England militiamen sitting at home and protecting their farmland. Rather, guns captivated the American imagination on the frontier, in the hands of pioneers and explorers and cowboys and outlaws.

By the 1870s, guns were so prevalent in the American West that some towns started cracking down on armed citizens. The first law passed in Dodge City, Kansas was an 1878 ban on carrying guns in town. The infamous 1881 shootout at the O.K. Corral occurred when a group of cowboys defied the Earp brothers’ orders to turn over their weapons in accordance with a Tombstone, Arizona law requiring all town visitors to disarm upon arrival. American gun culture and the American gun control movement both began on the American frontier.

The New American Frontier

Not every American frontier town followed the examples of Dodge City and Tombstone. In many places, the American West remained a lawless territory governed by individualism and determination. In the words of Matt Jancer in his Smithsonian article “Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West”:

“As the West developed, towns pushed this mythos of the West as their founding ideology. Lax gun laws were just a part of an individualistic streak that manifested itself with the explosion in popularity of concealed carry licenses and the broader acceptance of openly carrying firearms (open-carry laws) that require no permit.”

This individualistic frontier mythos remained well after Americans settled all the nation’s territories. It spawned an entire genre of film and literature. John F. Kennedy invoked the frontier ideal when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960, stating, “We stand today on the edge of a New Frontier,” beyond which were “the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.” Six years later, the television series Star Trek echoed Kennedy with an opening monologue that began, “Space… the final frontier.”

In short, the American ideal is inextricably linked with determined, productive individuals pushing boundaries and exploring new frontiers in science, technology, space, society and human rights. This ideal extends from the time when American settlers set out into the physical frontier of a new nation. And this historical frontier is inextricably linked with guns. Modern American gun culture and American ideals of liberty, individualism and self-determination derive from the same historical events—events that were unique to the formation of America. The eighteenth-century pioneer, the Old West outlaw and sheriff, and the ambitious tech entrepreneur are all operating on the same fundamental principle.

The True Origin of Modern American Gun Culture

Thus, American gun culture is not an outgrowth of the Second Amendment or the mark of a particularly warlike nation. Instead, America’s fascination with guns stems from the circumstances surrounding the country’s early history—circumstances that set the United States apart. No other country matches America in firearms ownership because no other country began with its citizens venturing out into a massive frontier in the same way - armed with their ambition and wits and firearms. American gun culture is so widespread because guns played an essential role in the events that defined America.

Author Biography

Greg Hickey is a forensic firearms examiner and the author of Parabellum, a novel about American gun culture and a fictional mass shooting at a beach in Chicago.

Find more of his work at greghickeywrites.com.

American Civil War Line Tactics: Brilliant, Stupid, or the only Option?

Infantry line tactics in the American Civil War can perplex the mind. Hundreds of years of line infantry tactics seem to be perfected to horrifying effect. Casualties from the outbreak of the war shocked the American public. Dead and wounded amounting to greater than all the previous conflicts combined, would fall in a single day. Many have often pondered the question, maybe they should have changed their tactics? Austin Duran explains.

Battle of Shiloh by Thure de Thulstrup.

The Minie ball surely would have caused the need for a change right?

Invented by Claude-Etienne Minie in 1846, the Minie ball changed the battlespace in 19th century warfare. The Minie ball was a hollowed out conical shape, with multiple grooves near the rear. The hollow portion in the rear of the round caused the round to expand. This expansion would press the bullet grooves into the sides of the barrel, catching the rifling and inducing a spin. A spinning round is far more accurate than a non-spinning round. Think of it as a spiraling football versus a shotput. Not only is it more accurate, it will travel much farther, and faster. Additionally, the conical shape was far more aerodynamic further adding to its lethality.

This Minie ball could kill out to 800m while the round ball of decades past could only be lethal to 200m. Even though no soldier could intentionally hit anything at that range, the range of battlefield lethality nevertheless increased 400%. As anything within the 800m was within lethal range. A three thousand man brigade, firing just 2 rounds a minute, could empty its 40-60 round allotment in just 20-30 minutes, putting 120k-180k rounds out in the process. While these numbers would have been the same prior to the invention of the Minie ball, the increased lethal range added significantly to the lethality on the battlefield – especially with continued use of compressed line infantry tactics. 

If not the Minie ball, maybe the mass casualties?

From the very outset of the war the casualties were aggressive. The first major battle, the Battle of Bull Run with around 5,000 casualties, was the single bloodiest day in American history up to that point. A horrid record that would be surpassed at Shiloh and Antietam with around 23,000 casualties each. Despite the mounting losses on both sides, little in way of tactical change would happen until Robert E Lee adopted defensive trench tactics as manpower began to dwindle.

The primary reason for the aggregation of manpower in line formation was to consolidate firepower. Concentration of effort has always been a military tenet. However, the increased range of the Minie ball should have allowed for some dispersion of effort given some assumptions. First, the user of the rifle would have to be trained. Despite the increased accuracy of the Minie ball, the soldier would still need to be precise with their shots as they could no longer rely on massed volleys. This required training which was often not given. Notably at the Battle of Shiloh, many troops on both sides fired their weapons for the first time in combat. The levy style recruitment often left training to wayside in effort to amass sheer numbers. 

Murderous technological advancements and massive causalities, beg the question: maybe we should do things differently? Fire and maneuver in smaller squads of men? Perhaps moving from cover to cover, as opposed to massing ranks in front of one another? But I submit to you there is one thing that prevented the modern light infantry tactics that we know today from being used: smoke.

Smoke

Black powder was invented by the Chinese and first used in combat in the 900s AD. And from its inception it produced a tremendous amount of smoke. There are many reasons why small unit tactics would not work in the American Civil War, but the primary was gunpowder smoke.

Even if training was given, the problem of smoke from black powder arises. First, it’s rather difficult to do anything covert, or quickly without being seen when giant puffs of smoke rise from your position. If you have ever seen a reenactment or decide to look one up on YouTube after this article, note that re-enactors often use one-quarter charges when firing. The amount of smoke produced was enormous. Second, assuming you have a trained rifleman, they will only be able to get a few shots off before their vision is likely clouded due to the smoke present. Also, with their smoke signal advertising their position it would be likely only a matter of time before massed volleys could be directed their way. This would render them either dead or hopelessly stuck behind cover.

Another example of how smoke affected the battlefield lay with Picket’s Charge. Prior to the assault by the confederates on the third day of Gettysburg, General Lee ordered a massive artillery bombardment. It is well known that the majority of the rounds sailed over the intended target by several hundred yards, rendering the bombardment ineffective. This shelling lasted over an hour yet no adjustments to fire were made; why? Smoke. They couldn’t see that they were missing their targets.

The burnside carbine, and other repeating rifles were available early in the war, why not invest solely in these sorts of firearms? While the increased fire rate of this sorts of carbines would certainly have unleashed devastation on the battlefield (and did when in properly trained hands—cavalry typically), in the arms of untrained, massed infantry, the smoke would have rendered the commanders blind in record time. This would squelch all hope of command and control in an age of limited command and control as is.

Smokeless powder would not be invented until decades after the American Civil War. With the blinding presence of black powder, commanders continued to use line formations and massed volleys. The drawbacks of smoke outweighed, even nullified, the benefits of new tactics. This led to murderous effects on the battlefield despite technological advancements.

What do you think of the importance of smoke in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

How Florida was Mapped: The First Survey of Coral Springs

Coral Springs is located in Florida, just north of Miami. It has seen its population boom in the post-war years. Here, Karl Miller looks at how the mapping of Florida took place in the 19th century - and how the area was formed in the 20th century.

The Coral Springs covered bridge, an old building in the city. Source: Legionaries, available here.

Like many cities formed during the rise of suburbia in post-World War II America, Coral Springs, Florida expanded extremely rapidly. Founded in 1963, it grew from just 1,489 residents in 1970 to over 134,394 in 2020, becoming one of the largest fifteen municipalities in Florida. Also like many other new American cities, its story started well before incorporation.

For over a thousand years, Tequesta natives occupied the area that would eventually become Coral Springs. Archaeological digs showed several areas of native occupation including camps and burial sites, ending when the last of the tribe, decimated by European disease, departed for Cuba in 1763. While Seminole natives and others likely crossed through the area in the decades after the Tequesta left, the first recorded visit to the future area of Coral Springs did not come until long after the Tequesta departed.

Upon receiving Florida from Spain by the treaty of Adams-Onis in 1819, the United States began to organize the territory they had acquired. Starting with the Land Ordinance Act of 1785, the United States adopted a common system, the Rectangular Method, for measuring land. Starting from a designated point called a meridian, the new territory was divided north and south into 36-square-mile blocks called townships that were further measured east and west by ranges. Measured from a meridian established at Tallahassee, the land that would eventually become Coral Springs sat at Township 48 South, Range 41 East.

Working through the swamps

George MacKay, a 35-year-old New York surveyor who had moved to Florida to conduct various business interests, was hired by the United States Surveyor General’s Office in 1845 to conduct surveying work in the southeastern part of the state. Valentine Y. Conway,  the Surveyor General of Florida, instructed MacKay to survey land south of Township 44 “to the Atlantic coast, and as far west as practicable.” Using a magnetic compass and a surveyor’s chain which was  specified to be “33 feet in length . . . containing 50 links . . . made of good iron wire,” MacKay’s team – which included his younger brother Alexander as well as several enslaved persons -  proceeded to work their way through the south Florida swamps, enduring the insects, heat, snakes, and alligators that the profession routinely experienced at that time.

On March 26, 1845, MacKay surveyed the area in which the future Coral Springs would sit. His brief survey notes show he found a rocky area with “scrub pine, cypress . . . and sawgrass.”  In a later account of his surveying expedition, MacKay described the conditions they encountered, stating often the weather was so still “there was not enough air stirring to move as aspen leaf” and that their measuring lines could only pass in places “by cutting away the lofty fresh grass and wading (or rather wallowing) through the mud and underrubbish.”  

Having completing his assigned survey, MacKay, after going on a difficult trip in which his boat “was driven back to New River two or three times by contrary wind, turned in his report to the Surveyor General’s headquarters in St. Augustine.”  Based on his account showing 888.6 miles surveyed, he was paid $3,555.  He eventually moved back to Caledonia, New York, where he died in 1880.

Growth

The land itself remained isolated for several more decades, until the state government sold it as part of a grant to speculator Richard Bolles in 1908. After the draining of south Florida swamps began in earnest under Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, the land was acquired by Henry “Bud” Lyons in 1919 as part of his 20,000-acre green bean and cattle operation. In 1961, Lyons’ widow sold the land to developer James S. Hunt for $1 million, setting the stage for Coral Springs to be incorporated two years later.

As a case study in the growth of suburban America, the surveying expedition that first reached the area of the future Coral Springs illustrates a typical first step in development. It illustrates how a city can quickly go from an undeveloped natural setting to a major suburban municipality in only a few short decades. While in a sense this example shows the triumph of progress, it is also a cautionary story in that the path to rapid development came at the cost of destroying extensive areas of pristine wetlands and wildlife habitat. When faced with a similar situation in the future, hopefully a more balanced, deliberate outcome will result.

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

1 U.S. Census Bureau, “Characteristics of the Population: Florida,” 1970, accessed January 15, 2022 at https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1970a_fl1-01.pdf;  U.S. Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Coral Springs, FL,” 2020, accessed January 15, 2022 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/coralspringscityflorida.

2 Joe Knetsch, "The Surveys of George Mackay: A Drawer of Lines on the Map of South Florida," The Florida

Surveyor, Vol. II, Issue 1 (October 1994).

3 C. Albert White, A History of the Rectangular Survey System (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983): 332, accessed December 20, 2021 at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/histrect.pdf, 332.

4 U.S. Government Survey Field Notebooks, Vol. 84, 1845: 283, accessed October 13, 2021 at https://ftp.labins.org/glo_all/Volume84_pdf/Folder%2013%20pg%20262%20to%20285_pdf.pdf.

5 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1896): 261, accessed November 20, 2021 at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Board_of_Regents_of/Lt1f3-7J2xcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=weathermaking+ancient+and+modern+smithsonian+mackay&pg=PA260&printsec=frontcover.

6 A.H. Jones.  A.H. Jones to George MacKay, February 2, 1846. Letter. MacKay-Hutchinson Family Papers 1836-74, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin.

7 U.S. Treasury Department, Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury Transmitting the annual report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office: 112, accessed December 21, 2021 at https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=indianserialset. 

8 New York, Death Index, 1880-1956, New York Department of Health, Albany, NY; NY State Death Index; Certificate Number 5870.

The Mormon Battalion’s Movement to Western America - Part 1: The Journey Begins

The story of the Mormon Battalion remains an enduring legend. Recruited by the U.S. government from among those heading to Utah to gather with Brigham Young, this group of some 500 men plus women and children undertook a trek across the American Southwest during the Mexican-American War. The battalion is usually consigned to a footnote in the story, but it is a story which looms large in the settlement of California. In that context, the legend of the battalion and how it has found a truly revered place in the history of the Mormon faithful is significant. Part 1 here look at how the journey began.

A painting of the Mormon Battalion arriving at the Gila River in Arizona in December 1846.

The origins of the battalion lay in the wider context of the Mexican-American War. Also known as the Mexican War, it was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. The concept of Manifest Destiny held that the United States had the providential right to expand to the Pacific Ocean. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845, which had won independence from Mexico in the Texas Revolution of 1835. Diplomatic efforts to establish an agreement on the Texas-Mexico border, and to purchase the territories of California and New Mexico had failed. President James K. Polk had sent an envoy to Mexico with an offer of up to $20,000,000 ($739,863,157.89 in 2022) in return for California and New Mexico. No Mexican leader would be willing to cede half his country and still have the ability to stay in power, therefore Polk’s envoy was not received. To bring pressure, Polk sent General Zachary Taylor to the disputed area along the Rio Grande. When the Mexicans fired on the troops in April of that year, Polk had found the rationale he needed to justify an attempt to seize the land by force. In a written message to Congress in 1846, Polk explained that “war exists between the two countries because the Mexican government has at last shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil.”

War

The prospect of war imbued Americans with a strong sense of patriotism, as it was among the few things in which both Northerners and Southerners could agree upon at the time. In the decades preceding the Civil War, the issue of slavery remained divisive. According to Jay Sexton, Polk believed that westward expansion would serve to accomplish his goal of settling the question of slavery, as Manifest Destiny presented expansion in racial and territorial terms. Polk's agenda during his presidency, unlike that of his two immediate predecessors, would be largely driven by foreign policy considerations. In the nineteenth century, quarrels and conflict with the European powers, most notably the British Empire, were still a matter of concern. However, American leaders believed that their destiny  was to become an imperial power, while also aiming for a more inspired purpose than their European cousins. 

As the national government made its preparations for war, despite the varied hardship of having to navigate political differences, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was experiencing difficulties of its own. Known by the pejorative term of “Mormon” due to their belief in the Book of Mormon, since its founding in 1830, members of the Church frequently had conflicts, misunderstandings and difficult relations due to their religious beliefs. Hostile sentiment had caused them to be forced out of New York, Missouri and Illinois. In 1844, the Church’s founder, Joseph Smith, was killed at Carthage. The death of their leader raised questions about the Church’s survival as the Saints faced increased persecution. In 1846, tensions reached their peak, and the Saints were once again forced to move. Brigham Young succeeded to the position of president, and he sought to move the Saints from Nauvoo to the Mountain West.

To the West

Under the leadership of Young, the Saints believed in their own manifest destiny to settle in the West. Norma Ricketts points out that there were some 20,000 saints who embarked to cross the prairie, carrying only what they could in wagons and carts, along with their livestock. During the Winter of 1846, Latter-day Saint leaders in Winter Quarters laid plans for the continued migration of the large number of Saints. Upon their arrival in Iowa, Elder Jesse C. Little was tasked with asking the government for help in securing safe passage to the West. Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles saw this as an opportunity to recruit men from among the Saints to participate in Polk’s War. It was at this time that Young first met Thomas L. Kane from Philadelphia with deep personal connections to the Polk administration. 

The Polk Administration initially questioned the loyalty of the church, as it was thought that if the Saints moved West, they may potentially join forces with a foreign power and make themselves a threat. The relations between the Church and the government had been fraught with tension, as the government expressed a hostile indifference to their struggles. Kane, who had become friendly to the Saints, advocated for them, assuring the Polk Administration that they “retained American hearts, and would not side with Mexico.” There were many among the Saints who were reluctant to enlist, still suspicious of the government's intentions. At the behest of Polk, James Allen was sent to Mt. Pisgah, to a camp of homeless Latter-day Saints who had been driven from their homes by anti-Mormon mobs, to recruit a battalion of 500 men to fight. After he met with Brigham Young, Young endorsed the plan, saying that while the goal was not patriotism in itself, participating would hopefully allay the suspicions of the people as the Church endeavored to move West. 

Let us know what you think of Mormon Battalion below.

Now read part 2 about the journey west here.

A History of Democracy in Britain

The recent Russian aggression in the Ukraine sees an autocracy threaten a small democracy.  History is indeed repeating itself on old battlefields. Democracy it seems is something very fragile and can often be taken for granted. The recent pandemic has as a side effect created new and resurrected old conspiracies theories about the precarious and illusory state of democracy in Britain and the rest of the world. This has manifested itself in peaceful and not so peaceful ways. This article is not to challenge the veracity of these claims but traces the history of Britain’s own democratic journey.

Stephen Prout explains.

Emmeline Pankhurst, a very prominent suffragette, in 1903.

Few may realise that democracy is relatively new to Britain when considering the nation’s long existence in the world.  It took a long frustrating journey in some instances met with brutal suppression that would altogether be considered unthinkable today. Britain was not always the land of hope and glory or the green and pleasant land.

The Beginnings

The earliest recorded discussion around the subject of electoral rights although brief took place in the middle 1600s in the form of the Putney debates. These were discussions on the British constitution with officers, soldier, and civilians of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army during the English Civil War. These talks were limited in in terms of audience, and nothing was achieved.

Between 1793 and 1797, Charles Grey politician and future Prime Minister, brought this idea of reform before parliament but received two rebuffs and risible support from his political peers. The apprehension was largely due violence of the French Revolution that was fresh in the minds of the frightened ruling classes who feared a repeat in Britain. This reaction also could be seen when at the same time Thomas Paine published his work The Rights of Man which was immediately judged as revolutionary incendiary material.  The nation was in a frightened and paranoid state.

A Pro-Reformist organisation was formed called The Society for the Friends of the People. The government’s immediate response was resistance and suppression. Consequently, the progress made by the reformists was limited and so were their achievements. 

The timing of its formation was unfortunate any attempt to challenge the established order at this time was viewed as treasonous so much so that William Pitt introduced numerous laws such as the Sedition Acts, Treason Acts, and the Newspaper Publications Act that made such the existence of any reformist very difficult.  Britain was now an authoritarian and repressive state and things would get worse, but the determination of the movement continued.

The 1832 Reform Act

Over thirty years from Grey’s first attempts, the first steps to electoral reform would begin in the form of the First Reform Act in 1832 but in that time the British people would experience a very tragic and bloody event that would be known as the Peterloo massacre.

When events started to gather momentum in 1817 only 11% of the male population were entitled to vote.  The picture of the lack of fairness in the political system remains unchanged. There was a meagre amount of support in political circles, lone voices such as Henry Hunt, MP made representations but was making scant progress. 

An impatient population began a series of mass gatherings, but the most famous and significant event was at a political gathering at Peterloo, Manchester in 1819. Freedom was still very much constrained by William Pitt’s repressive laws from the late 1700s. The events of the French Revolution were still fresh and so in panic the Royal Hussars were dispatched in brutal cavlary fashion. The crowd was dispersed with the use of sabres killing a reported fifteen demonstrators.  The action was counter intuitive as the reformists were more determined than ever following the “bloodiest political event in the nineteenth century on English soil”. Despite the severity and loss of life ten years would pass before voting rights were remotely reviewed. The first reform act was presented to parliament but only after three challenging attempts.

The Reform Act (Or Representation of the People Act) 1832 was the eventual output. It would be limited in its scope, disappointing the expectations of the campaigners but would not be the end of the matter. It only marginally expanded the electorate, keeping power largely in the hands of the same status quo.  The criteria required a male eligible to vote to be living in a property or land worth an annual £10 per year, which was substantial in 1832 terms and was deliberately out of reach of the working man. As a side effect the law now formally excluded women from the vote removing the very tiny minority that already existed.

Measurement of the effect of the act is frustrated by unreliable statistics. Some statistics state that prior to the 1832 Reform Act, 400,000 English subjects (people who lived in the country) were entitled to vote and then the number rose to 650,000 after its introduction. Rodney Mace estimates that before, 1 percent of the population could vote and that the Reform Act only extended the franchise to 7 percent of the population. Despite how varied the statistics maybe they all point to the same conclusion and that was the impact of the act still was not enough to satisfy the Reformist movement. More would follow but another thirty years would pass.

The 1867 Reform Act

Slow steps and a determined populace eventually led to a further reform over thirty years later in 1867. Again, it would be limited in scale as the resistance of the privileged classes remained, even though perceptions were changing. The revolutionary scare they feared would be exported from France now seemed very unlikely in Britain and the masses that demanded reform were not of that same violent fervour. 

The Chartist Movement was formed in 1838 and they made their motives and aims clear - they would use only peaceful methods and would pursue several objectives, namely complete male suffrage, salaried MPs, sensible voting demarcation lines, and secret ballots. This of course still did not sit comfortablly with the anti-reformists who felt that they had done enough in 1832. However, a new act was passed in 1867 by Disraeli’s government.

The 1867 Act would now allow the vote all male heads of households in what was called a borough constituency. To accompany this change there would be various additions such as academics and professional classes that had savings of over £50 (a significant sum of the time).  Despite all this the Act still excluded a vast number of males and all females.  The act added an additional one and a half million males to the electorate, but large numbers of the population remained marginalised and excluded.

Disraeli believed that these reforms would win him a grateful electorate and another Conservative victory in the imminent election; however his judgement would turn out wrong. By 1869 his government was defeated and the drive for further reform continued.  Another fifteen years would elapse before any further changes would be brought before parliament.

The 1884 Reform Act

This 1884 Reform Act was by far the most interesting. This saw a pro-reformist government itself challenging the House of Lords, the remaining resistance in the opposition political parties and the Monarchy itself, who even in this late progressive age were entrenched in their old-fashioned ways. 

There was a real appetite for change that suited the character of the Gladstone government. Remaining written evidence of the exchanges and sentiments of this period of the two sides show how deep the divisions still were in this progressive age of reform. 

William Gladstone was the Prime Minister in office and one of his formidable obstacles was the British Monarchy, namely Queen Victoria, who was especially vocal and resistant to any reform especially on women’s rights.

Written records about Gladstone’s reforms show how deep the antipathy and fierce disagreement was expressed in the language of the time.  “Let me express hope that you will be very cautious not to say anything which could bind you to any particular measure” was her warning to Gladstone before a Leeds Banquet on the topic of Gladstone’s seemingly radical views. Gladstone was after all challenging the very establishment himself, seeing it as outdated and obstructive to the calls of the modern age that had arrived.

A lengthy memorandum from himself to the Queen stated "The House of Lords has for a long period been the habitual and vigilant enemy of every Liberal Government... I wish (a hereditary House of Lords) to continue, for the avoidance of greater evils... Further organic change of this kind in the House of Lords may strip and lay bare, and in laying bare may weaken, the foundations even of the Throne." 

The Queen wrote numerous other letters to Gladstone complaining about left wing speeches made by Liberal MPs. Victoria saw Gladstone’s policies as unsettling, but he was undeterred. It was summed up by an article in the Spectator in 1882 by John Gorst, a Conservative, showing that even the opposition benches in Parliament were coming round to the idea of electoral reform.  The fears that the working classes would radically upset the status quo were seen as unfounded. 

“If the Tory party is to continue to exist as a power in the State, it must become a popular party. A mere coalition with the Whig aristocracy might delay but could not avert its downfall. The days are past when an exclusive class, however great its ability, wealth, and energy, can command a majority in the electorate.”

Gorst commented further on his party’s anti reformist elements.  “Unfortunately for Conservatism, its leaders belong solely to one class; they are a clique composed of members of the aristocracy, landowners, and adherents whose chief merit is subserviency. The party chiefs live in an atmosphere in which a sense of their own importance and of the importance of their class interests and privileges is exaggerated, and to which the opinions of the common people can scarcely penetrate”.  The old ways were slowly eroding. 

The London Trades Council quickly organized a mass demonstration in Hyde Park. On July 21, an estimated 30,000 people marched through the city to merge with at least that many already assembled in the park. Thorold Rogers, compared the House of Lords to "Sodom and Gomorrah" and Joseph Chamberlain told the crowd: "We will never, never, never be the only race in the civilized world subservient to the insolent pretensions of a hereditary caste".  The Third Reform act was in motion and would be passed by Parliament in 1884 with some compromise.

The act now allowed the vote to all adult male householders and lodgers who paid £10 in rent annually in rural areas and towns and increased the electorate by a further six million, the biggest impact so far. There was still far more to go as and women were still not eligible to vote and a large proportion of males. The queen constantly referred to the “mad folly of women’s rights” and was a constant barrier. Gladstone found that to push any harder would put the passing of his bill at enormous risk. Maybe that battle would be fought later.  However, that campaign would now have to wait until the next century and a devastating war.

Women’s Suffrage and the final Reform Acts

The campaign for women’s voting rights continued into the twentieth century, but the political climate could not digest any more reforms.  The disenfranchised female population quite justifiably were growing more impatient. Already by the end of the nineteenth century the vote had been extended to women in other areas of the British Empire, New Zealand and Australia. There was also a large portion of the male population that still did not have the right to vote. 

Organised campaigns for women’s rights had been in running since 1867 with the women’s suffrage committee and the National Union Women’s Suffrage Society. Their methods were to work with the new Independent Labour Party, but anti-reformers inhibited any advancement. After Gladstone’s Reformist Liberal Party failed to gain any leverage on the matter more drastic action would be adopted by some factions of the movement.

By 1903 this faction, soon to be termed suffragettes, adopted a more aggressive and violent approach that departed from the more constitutional methods that were still adopted by the majority. It was not actually until much later in 1906 the movement’s members were termed suffragettes by a journalist in the Daily Mail. This moniker was adopted by that militant faction headed by the famous Pankhurst family.

The militant actions included the disruption of high-profile political meetings, one being in attendance by Winston Churchill. There were outbreaks of property damage, bombings and in one case fatally as Emily Davidson tragically threw herself under King’s Horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby.  This in today’s currency caused £90m of damage, over 300 arson attacks and 1,300 arrests according to records.

Whilst the frustration can be understood there is a view that these tactics did more to harm the campaign. These violent actions were not supported by all females (members and non-campaigners) and were simultaneously viewed by the authorities as criminal and terrorist acts and provoked harsh retaliatory measures such as lengthy prison terms. This was made infamous by brutal treatment to the suffragettes who took to hunger strikes. The response by the government was force feeding being anxious not to create martyrs.

How long this would have been sustained or tolerated we will not know because the First World War brought a halt to these activities.  This truce, support for the war effort, and the general horrific sacrifice brought new thinking, a challenge to the existing social order after the war ended, and ultimately change. George Cove, Conservative MP and Home Secretary summed up the mood well in 1917 in support of the fourth reform Bill that would be passed in 1918.

“War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men’s eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. … I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise.”

In 1918 the Representation of the People Pact was passed that gave all males the vote over the age of 21 and all women over the age of thirty (over eight million women).  It was still not entirely equal in all aspects (the age disparity and as women still needed a property qualification), but it was a further positive step forward and in 1919 Nancy Astor became the first female MP. A further act was passed in 1928 to lower the age for women to that of men and in 1929 Margaret Bondfield became the first female minister.  

No further changes would come until late in the twentieth century when the voting age was lowered to 18 for both sexes in 1969.  There are circles active today that seek to reduce that to the age of 16. The debates and demands for reform continue to evolve. Will there be further change, who can tell?

It took over century of resistance, repression, the gradual enlightenment to cause the changing of attitudes to finally achieve democracy. One could argue that as we know it democracy was a concept introduced to Britain only in the twentieth century.

A Word of Warning

Democracy is a fragile and it has experienced changing fortunes. It is hard and costly to win and so quick and more costly to lose as recent history warns.  Germany and Italy in the 1930s succumbed to brutal dictatorships, but then redeemed themselves.  Greece and Turkey were until the late twentieth century military dictatorships, Spain only became democratic shortly after the fall of Franco in 1975 and in the Far East we have witnessed the tragic fortunes of Myanmar. More poignant and topical is that the Russians have reverted to an autocratic rule after a fleeting dalliance with democracy in the 1990s.  We see in 2022 that Ukrainian democracy is in a perilous state due to the Russian invasion.

Democracy requires vigilance and should not be taken for granted, even in Britain.

What do you think of democracy in Britain? Let us know below.

Now read Stephen’s article on Britain’s relationship with European dictators in the interwar years here.

Sources

Parliament Archives – HM Government

Women’s, Suffrage in The British Empire – Christopher Fletcher, Laura E Nym Mayhall, Phillipa Levine – Routledge 2012

Gladstone and Disraeli -BH Abbott – 1972 – Collins Educational

Chris Day – Peterloo Massacre – National Archives “Blog” 2018

C J Bearman – various articles referenced:

An Examination of Suffragette Violence

Confronting the Suffragette Mythology'

Nottingham Castle field trip – exhibition of the Reform Acts

Bernardo O’Higgins and the Resurrection of Chile: To Rise and Fall Like Phaethon

The improbable lives of Ambrosio O’Higgins and his son, Bernardo, would change the history of South America forever. Two men, father and son, both strivers and achievers. Two men who did not take the traditional paths to power and high office. Two men, who through a series of improbable events, would both become, in their own ways, among the founders of the nation of Chile.  The chain of events would begin, of all places, in County Sligo in Ireland.

Erick Redington continues this series on the O’Higgins family by looking at the later life and incredible successes of Bernardo O’Higgins.

If you missed it read part one on Ambrosio O’Higgins’ life here, and part 2 on Bernardo O’Higgins’ early life here.

O'Higgins meeting Jose San Martin at the 1818 Battle of Maipu.

After the disaster at Rancagua, Bernardo, the remnant of his troops, and a core of supporters found themselves exiles over the Andes. He decided to bring his mother and sister along to Buenos Aires, the capital of the United Provinces of La Plata. La Plata had also been in revolt against Spain, but unlike the Chileans, they had been able to hold its own against attempts at reconquest. When it appeared the Spanish were going to attack Buenos Aires, Bernardo immediately volunteered to serve in La Plata’s army. He was sent west to Mendoza to prevent an invasion from royalist controlled Chile. While here, Bernardo would meet José de San Martín.

In North America, the United States had been able to achieve its independence with the mother country still on its northern border. The viewpoint in South America was radically different. Many of the leaders of the government in Buenos Aires and generals in the army like San Martín believed that none of the peoples of the continent could only be truly independent unless Spain was fully driven from South America. For San Martín, Chile and Peru would have to be secured and the Spanish driven out.

While in Mendoza, Bernardo would continue his military schooling. He asked friends to send him modern books on the art of war. He would devise elaborate and bold plans for the liberation of his homeland. One plan presented to San Martín called for a three-pronged offensive relying on a naval invasion as well as recruitment in Chile of local militia and over 6,000 local natives. This was indicative of Bernardo’s military thinking, bold, but overly complicated plans relying on multiple moving parts. San Martín was more practical minded. He wanted one army to cross the Andes and focus on the central region of Chile. Under his plan, San Martín would lead the Army of the Andes with two divisions led by Generals Miguel Soler and Bernardo O’Higgins. On January 9, 1817 the army was mobilized and began crossing the Andes. Events would move very quickly.

Andes crossing

The Andes is the longest above sea level mountain range in the world. The highest mountain is over 22,000 feet (almost 7,000 meters) tall. Even though the army crossed at the start of summer, it was not an easy journey. This journey and the legends attached to it would become one of the great historical epics of the Latin American wars of independence. Napoleon crossing the St. Bernard pass and Hannibal crossing the Alps with his elephants both went over less rough terrain than did the Army of the Andes. This was not an area where the army could live off the land. All supplies had to be carried. If it did not go perfectly, disaster would quickly result. Fortunately, the leadership of the Army of the Andes was superb, and the leadership was able to drive their men to cross this imposing mountain range in only a month, with the army intact. 

On February 4, 1817, forward elements of the army made first contact with the royalists in Chile. This took the royalist administration completely by surprise. They were not expecting an entire army to be able to cross the mountains undetected. San Martín had transported over 3,500 men into Chile. The royalist forces arrayed to meet them only numbered about 1,800 men. This was not a place the royalists were expecting an attack.

Battle of Chacabuco

On February 12, 1817, the Battle of Chacabuco began. The plan was to have Bernardo lead a diversionary attack while having General Soler deliver the main punch and destroy the royalist force. Whether it was from enthusiasm or impetuousness is disputed, but Bernardo led his men into a full-on attack against the royalists. This forced San Martín to speed up his plans and move Soler into battle earlier than anticipated. Although the battle was a resounding victory for the Army of the Andes, and hundreds of prisoners were taken, the royalist force was not destroyed and they were able to escape to the very south of Chile, where they would prove to be an irritant for a while longer.

The Battle of Chacabuco was typical Bernardo. He was a skilled commander and leader of men. He could throw a punch with the troops under his command. Enthusiastic for his men and his cause, he was driven to impetuosity. If he had made his attack only a diversion, as was originally planned, perhaps the remainder of the royalist force would have been eliminated. Many battles are won or lost on decisions made by commanders whether seize the initiative or strictly follow a plan. Although historians would argue over Bernardo’s decisions in this battle, the result was that the people of Chile gave him credit for the victory, and his star now shown brighter than ever. 

After the victory at Chacabuco, the royalists fled Santiago and retreated to their stronghold in Peru. On February 15th, an assembly of notables convened and elected a new governor of Santiago to replace the outgoing royalists. That person was José de San Martín. He, however, did not want the job. He was not Chilean and was loyal to his own country. San Martín sent a note refusing the position. In response, the next day the notables elected him again. Again, he refused. San Martín, and the leadership in Buenos Aires, wanted Bernardo. San Martín had written instructions from Buenos Aires that Bernardo was to be made leader of Chile. It had already been decided before the Army of the Andes even set out. The fact that Bernardo was the hero of Chacabuco only eased a result that was predetermined. The assembly of notables chose Bernardo to be the Supreme Director of Chile. This began what was called the Patria Nueva period of Chilean history. It would last until 1823.

The task facing Bernardo was daunting. The old revolutionary junta was gone. The assembly of notables was just an assembly, elected by no one. An entire government had to be created from scratch. Government ministries had to be built from the ground up. An army and navy had to be patched together out of scattered militias. Only a man of Bernardo’s boundless energy and enervated mind could have tackled this task. The son of the reforming viceroy would now, finally, be the reforming Supreme Director.

Leadership

Nothing happens without money. The new Chilean government needed money badly. To Bernardo, there was an obvious solution, and three days after his appointment, he ordered all royalist property in the country to be confiscated. The money that came from this property allowed for the funding of new government departments. “Battalion number 1 of the Army of Chile” was created, the first organized national army unit. An official government newspaper was created to turn out propaganda for the literate classes. Ever the scholar, Bernardo decreed the founding of a military academy. Bernardo was a reformer, and he was intent on establishing the Chilean state correctly from the start.

In his enthusiasm, there were darker elements. Early on, a government commission was created which would hold tribunal over every Chilean and their role in independence. Everyone in the country would have their patriotic and unpatriotic actions recorded. All Chileans needed to justify to the state, and their fellow citizens, the title of patriot. If you were not a patriot, you could be labeled a royalist and your property would be confiscated. Any Chilean who fled was automatically classified as a royalist. Bernardo’s hammer came down especially hard on the Church. Many priests and friars who preached obedience and loyalty to the Spanish King were exiled and the Church properties they oversaw confiscated. The Bishop of Santiago was even expelled, and Bernardo would appoint a replacement.

Another controversial act of Bernardo’s early reign was his participation in the founding of the Logia lautarina in Santiago. The Logia Lautarina was a shadowy, secret organization dedicated to the independence of South America. By the statutes of the Lautaro, as it became commonly known as, if any member became a government official, that person could take no action without consulting the lodge. Also, no major appointment could be made without lodge approval. Members of the Lautaro filled many government posts and held large numbers of army commissions. Many of these members were Argentines. From August 1817 until San Martín left Chile in August 1820, the public perception was that the Lautaro ran the country. Since perception can be reality for many people, a shadowy secret cabal from another country was the true power behind the Supreme Director, and thus Chile was not truly free. This resentment would only grow.

South

With the government beginning to stabilize, a problem in the south began to materialize. When the Spanish retreated from Chacabuco, they had retired to Talcahuano, about 300 miles (about 500km) from Santiago. While at Talcahuano, the royalist commander, General Ordóñez, had retrained his forces and reinforced to about 1,000 men. The Araucanians were favorably disposed to the royalists since the benevolent treatment they had received from Captain-General O’Higgins all those years before.  It was decided by the government (and the Lautaro) that Bernardo would delegate his office to Colonel Quintana, another member of the Lautaro, and proceed south with the army to defeat the royalists. 

The farther south Bernardo’s army marched, the worse it was. The army set out in April, which is mid-autumn in the southern hemisphere. The area had been stripped due to the constant fighting. The terrain was mountainous, and the threat of ambush was ever-present. The people of this region were predominantly royalist sympathizers, and coldly received the patriot army. The terrain around Talcahuano seemed tailor made for defense. Hills surround the port, which was situated on a jutting point of land. Thirty guns stood ready to shoot down any attackers. Since they were marching in autumn, rains turned the roads into mud tracks. In keeping character, Bernardo developed an elaborate plan which called for a diversionary frontal assault which would cover for an amphibious landing against the town itself. Due to the horrible conditions, the boats prepared for the landing could not be brought into position. Despite this, also keeping to character, Bernardo ordered the frontal assault to commence anyway. Progress was made, including taking southern positions and separating the royalists from their Araucanian allies. The next day, however, the royalists were still in position and Ordóñez still had fight left in him. Faced with worsening conditions and dwindling numbers due to casualties and attrition, Bernardo ordered his army to retreat to Concepción. 

The fight in the south now devolved into guerrilla warfare with burning villages and atrocity causing reprisal causing atrocity and the cycle grew ever bloodier. After another failed attempt to take Talcahuano, Bernardo decided to try a new tactic: diplomacy. As the head of state, he felt that perhaps the benevolent intervention of a third party would convince the Spanish to end their attempts to reconquer their former colony. He wrote to the Prince Regent of Britain, the future George IV. Bernardo offered to open the ports of Chile to British trade and investment. Nothing came of this at the time, but many would see this as part of what they interpreted as Bernardo’s attempt to turn Chile into the England of South America. 

With no response forthcoming from the British, the bad news kept coming. The Carreras, Bernardo’s old rivals for power in Chile, were back. The Lautaro, was becoming more unpopular, and Colonel Quintana, the acting Supreme Director, along with it. Even Bernardo was becoming concerned about the attitude of the country. Worst of all, the royalists were embarking on another expedition from Peru to reconquer Chile. Fortunately for Bernardo, San Martín, who had attempted to go home in retirement, had returned to Chile and was ready to take command once more. To prevent any Chileans from being cut off, the army facing Ordóñez was withdrawn north. 

Independence

It was at this time that Bernardo decided to take the ultimate step in Chile’s relationship with Spain. Officially, the Chileans were fighting for their rights under the Spanish crown. During the retreat, while at the city of Talca, Bernardo signed the Chilean Declaration of Independence, with no ties whatsoever to the Spanish king. To Bernardo, this represented not some mythologized breaking with the past, but as a way of telling all Chileans that there was now no turning back. There would be no return to Spanish rule. 

In order to support this new declaration, San Martín marched south and reinforced Bernardo’s army to a total of 6,600 men. This force gave the Chileans enough to press the royalists back. After some jockeying for position, the royalists decided their only hope of survival was a frontal night attack. As many of the royalist troops were veterans of the Peninsular War, they had much more experience night fighting than their colonial adversaries. Although outnumbered, on March 16, 1818, the royalists achieved a complete victory, killing, wounding, or dispersing almost half of San Martín’s army. When his division was shattered, Bernardo received a wound in the arm which took months to fully heal. Much of the demoralization among the rebel troops came from rumors that both Bernardo and San Martín had been killed. Much of the Argentine artillery train had been captured, and the patriot army had lost significant amounts of supplies. This battle, the Second Battle of Cancha Rayada was the only defeat the patriots would suffer during the campaign, but it was such a shock and so complete a defeat that there was talk amongst the remainder of the army about retreating across the Andes. Even in his wounded state, Bernardo refused. “As long as I remain alive and have a single Chilean to follow me, I shall go on fighting against the enemy in Chile,” he is attributed to have said. 

The rumors of death in the army’s leadership, along with the panic of the populace provided the perfect opportunity for the return of the Carreras, Bernardo’s old nemeses. In order to secure his position, a still wounded and somewhat feverish, Bernardo rode for Santiago. On March 24th, only eight days after the Battle of Cancha Rayada, Bernardo formally took up his office of Supreme Director again. The wounded revolutionary hero cut a dashing figure, and his very presence and authority was enough to prevent any move by the Carrerists. 

Bernardo had no intention of staying away from battle for long. The royalists were advancing toward Valparaíso. Bernardo used his moral and legal authority to organize supplies, weapons, and provisions for every available man who could be made to fight. When the royalists arrived, the Battle of Maipú was fought on April 5th. Though this battle only lasted two hours, it would finally remove the threat from the royalists in the south. While the patriots lost about 1,000 men, the royalist army was annihilated. This victory, so short and decisive, would finally end the royalist military threat to Chile.

The consummation of Chilean independence increased the wrath, and the plotting, of the Carrerists. The younger brothers of José Miguel began plotting to invade Chile and either install the senior Carrera as head of state or begin an insurgency to overthrow Bernardo. When the two younger brothers arrived in Mendoza, they were captured and placed on trial. Although prominent Chileans attempted to intervene, and US Consul William Worthington pled the Carreras’ case, Bernardo was unmoved, as was San Martín. After news arrived of the defeat at Cancha Rayada, the people of Mendoza panicked, and the local administration decided on the execution of the brothers. They were informed of their sentences and that they would die by firing squad. Four hours after the sentence was served, a message arrived from San Martín announcing the victory at Maipú and calling for an end to the prosecution of the Carreras. 

Feuds

Although there is no direct evidence that Bernardo ordered their executions, the people of Chile believed that he had. The Carreras were not very popular throughout the country at large, but that members of the nation’s elite could be executed on the word of the Supreme Director was disturbing to many. Further, many people also blamed the sinister influence of the Lautaro. Protests began in the capital. A mob of angry citizens, stirred up by Carrerists, broke into the courtyard of the Supreme Director’s palace. The leaders of the mob were arrested, but Bernardo’s position as national leader began to feel shaky.

Next was Manuel Rodríguez, a guerilla leader and former secretary to the old junta that both Carrera and Bernardo had been members of. When Rodríguez began to become more dangerous to the nation’s stability, Bernardo offered to pay to send him to either Europe or North America. Rodríguez appeared to accept, but went into hiding, participating in the aborted Carrera brothers’ conspiracy. When Rodríguez was finally captured and placed under arrest, the time-honored excuse of “shot while trying to escape” was used to justify what was an execution in all but name. Whether Bernardo had anything to do with it was immaterial. The people believed that he and the Lautaro orchestrated the murder. 

From his perch in Montevideo, José Miguel was driven by bitter hatred and a desire for revenge not only against Bernardo, but against his Argentine backers as well. Letters and pamphlets were written calling for the overthrow of the government in Santiago. In Buenos Aires, governmental instability led to a change in leadership. The new leaders invited José Miguel to form the Legión Chilena, a force dedicated to overthrowing the Supreme Director and taking power. As would regularly happen, another new government quickly took power in Buenos Aires, and Carrera, along with his Legión, had to take to the countryside. When his troops had plundered their way to Mendoza, the governor there was able to defeat Carrera and capture him. He was expeditiously tried by court martial, convicted and executed. Bernardo should have been able to breath a sigh of relief. After all, his most bitter domestic enemy was gone, and its faction was decapitated. The resentment from the Chilean elite, however, only increased against Bernardo.

Invasion

The struggle with Spain continued without the Carreras. In November 1818, perhaps the most important appointment of Bernardo’s tenure as Supreme Director came when he appointed Lord Cochrane as Vice Admiral and Commander of the Chilean Navy. The strange and mercurial Cochrane would go on to fight with much of the Chilean government, but Bernardo recognized his talents and hoped that an Englishman could build the best navy in South America. Cochrane’s brilliance in blockading the Spanish fleet based in Peru would make Chile free from threat of naval invasion from Spanish royalists.

With the Spanish Navy neutralized, now was time for the final act of liberation, the invasion of Peru. On August 10, 1820, the Army of the Liberation of Peru embarked on ships of the Chilean navy for a seaborne invasion of the final royalist stronghold. Bernardo believed that the army had only to show itself, and the people of Peru would greet them as liberators. Through a series of daring attacks along the Peruvian coast, royalist defenses were weakened. The councils of the royalists were divided. Some called for a life-or-death defense of Lima, the premier city of Spanish America. Others wanted a retreat north into the mountains. In the end, little effective defense was made. On July 2, 1821, the patriots entered Lima without having to fight for the city. Unfortunately, San Martín allowed the defenders to escape to the north to fight another day. 

San Martín would have to pursue the royalists. This protracted the war. He began sending message after message to Bernardo back in Chile requesting supplies. The Chileans were promised the army would live off the country and resented having to pay for another’s liberation, little remembering that their liberation would have been nearly impossible without the help of the Army of the Andes. Resentment grew, and the natural focus for that resentment was the Supreme Director. 

Despite the continuing war, as well as occasional royalist bandits and Araucanian attacks, Bernardo was determined to reform his country and mold it into his image. Criminals and royalist prisoners were tasked with building roads and canals planned since the time of his father’s Captain-Generalcy. Schools were built to educate youth. While the improvements may have been popular, using prisoners was seen as heavy handed, and the funds for them had to be extracted through loans and taxes, already considered too high to begin with. Bernardo’s popularity continued to decrease. Needing to do something to bring stability to the country and improve his position with the citizenry, he issued a proclamation calling for elections for a new national assembly. 

Two years after the invasion of Peru, San Martín and Bolivar met at Guayaquil. Afterward, San Martín finally went into retirement. But the war still went on. The Chilean army was still far from home. Lord Cochrane had, by this time, withdrawn from his fleet to his estate. Taxes were too high. The Carrera faction was still making rumbles against him. On November 19th, an estimated 8.5 magnitude earthquake struck Valparaiso, damaging much of the city.  Many in the country saw the earthquake as a sign that the leadership of Chile, especially the Supreme Director, had lost God’s favor.

Rebels

The man that all opposition looked to was Bernardo’s old friend Ramón Freire. The two had fought together for years against the royalists. Both had been in the Army of the Andes and participated in its greatest triumphs. Bernardo appointed his friend as Intendant of Concepción. Over time, however, the two had a falling out and Freire began to grow frustrated with both his position and with his former friend. He would eventually resign in 1822. When Concepción went into open rebellion against the Supreme Director, Bernardo wrote to him, asking for his help in calming the situation. Instead, Freire voiced his support for the people of Concepción, and denounced Bernardo for acting against the wishes of the people. Other areas began rising in solidarity with Concepción.

Bernardo attempted to placate the rebels. Some economic reforms were repealed. A few unpopular ministers resigned.  Bernardo called on Freire to send delegates to negotiate and end the uprising. By now, the whole country had turned against Bernardo. Led by the Intendant of Santiago, an assembly was called together for January 28, 1823. After a delegation had met with Bernardo and been “roughly treated,” the assembly grew anxious and angry. They were afraid Bernardo would disperse them by force. Once it looked like force would be used by both sides, members of the assembly and Bernardo agreed to meet. The assembly called for him to resign. Bernardo refused. Then a letter was brought to him explaining that no agreement could be had with Freire in the south. After reading the letter, Bernardo resigned as Supreme Director. 

After resigning, Bernardo was placed under house arrest. Many Carreristas were openly calling for his execution. He had a collapse in his health, causing headaches and temporary loss of sight. Six months after his resignation, he was finally allowed out of house arrest and allowed to leave the country. His original destination was to be Ireland. He would live out the rest of his life in his ancestral homeland. But it was not to be. While stopped in Peru, Bolívar asked Bernardo to stay in the country to bolster the new nation’s independence movement. This, to Bernardo’s disappointment, did not include a military command.

Exile

Bernardo would spend 18 years living in Peru as an exile. He would manage his estates with moderate success. These were gifts from Bolivar to help ease the hero’s retirement. He lived long enough to see the political chaos his country had fallen into. Some Chileans would attempt to get him to return and take control again. He would refuse every offer. He would even attempt to mediate during a war between Chile and the Peru-Bolivian Confederation. Several times, he considered writing a biography of his father. “Doing justice to his memory,” he called it. He would never write it.

Over time, Bernardo’s image in Chile improved. Chile needed its heroes. The government gave him his old rank of Captain-General back, although his promised accompanying pension was slow in coming. President Manuel Bulnes of Chile wrote to Bernardo requesting he return to his homeland. Bernardo was, as usual, enthusiastic. Passage to Chile aboard ship was purchased. Upon reaching the port of Callao, Bernardo suffered a heart attack. Recovery was difficult, but two months later, he felt well enough to travel. Once passage was booked a second time, he suffered a second heart attack. He would never see his homeland. On October 23, 1842, Bernardo passed away at the age of 64. His ashes were buried under a monument recounting his greatness.

Bernardo O’Higgins is considered one of the three men primarily responsible for the liberation of Spanish South America, along with Bolívar and San Martín. He led his country through difficult and turbulent times. He was a brave general and a brilliant leader of men. He was a driven reformer whose improvements and modernization laid the foundations for future greatness. After he was exiled, the chaos that he feared engulfed his country. He was a man driven to strive for success in all things. For Bernardo, perhaps his greatest achievement was that all these traits that can be described of him could have easily been ascribed to his father as well. He was truly the heir to his father’s legacy.

What do you think of Bernando O’Higgins’ life? 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.

Further Reading

Clissold, Stephen. Bernardo O’Higgins and the Independence of Chile. Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1968.

Kinsbruner, Jay. Bernardo O’Higgins. Twayne Publishers, 1968.

The Mid-Term Contests Americans Should Pay Attention to: Secretaries of State in History

If a poll were taken of Americans asking if they could name their state’s secretary of state, it is doubtful the number who could would eclipse one or two percent. If the poll included the follow up question, “Are you aware your state has a secretary of state,” the number would likely rise only a few percentage points. Voters are preparing to go to the polls in November to provide a referendum on the first two years of the Biden administration. Battleground Senate and House races dominate the country’s attention. Americans though are ignoring at their own peril twenty-seven potentially crucial contests — the twenty-seven states electing a secretary of state. But why should Americans care about a post many don’t even know exists?

Michael J. Trapani explains.

William Pennington, Governor of New Jersey from 1837 to 1843.

The answer to the question of why Americans should care is that secretaries of state are responsible for certifying the results of statewide elections. While their other duties vary from state to state, they share in common the role as their state’s chief election official. As Trump and his team were crafting “the big lie” following Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, phones buzzed in the offices of secretaries of state from closely contested states. Most notably, the defeated president pressured Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes,” to swing the state in his favor and threatened legal repercussions if Raffensperger did not comply.  Raffensperger ultimately stood his ground, informing Trump that the reported result of Biden’s narrow victory was correct.

Trump and his most loyal supporters maintain that Biden’s win was fraudulent and had state election officials, secretaries of state chief among them, acted correctly, the 45th president would be enjoying a second term. Team Trump, although sustaining publicly that their man won, is now scheming to ensure that should a similar scenario arise when the former president presumably runs again in 2024, Trump will emerge victorious, regardless of how the voting shakes out. Their plan is to install as many Trump loyalists as possible into positions that hold authority in state-run elections. Among Trump’s top prizes is the secretary of state of Arizona, for whom the former president’s coveted endorsement has gone to state lawmaker Mark Finchem — a man whose victory, according to a recent article in The Guardian, “should terrify the nation.” As a member of the state legislature, Finchem signed his name to a joint resolution calling on Congress to reject the legally certified electoral vote for Biden and award Arizona’s votes to Trump. Simply put, if Finchem and others like him are elevated to positions to oversee their state’s elections, Trump and Trump acolytes on the losing end of close (or perhaps even lopsided) elections could be declared victorious.

The Broad Seal War

But could a secretary of state actually determine an election? History shows that yes, they can. While the stakes were not as high as those of a presidential election, New Jersey’s 1838 disputed congressional election ended in a hullaballoo that cost the state five-sixths of its congressional representation for over three months. 

New Jersey was politically divided in the late 1830s. The state awarded its eight electoral votes to Whig candidate William Henry Harrison in the 1836 presidential election — a victory secured by a mere 545 votes. The Whigs also narrowly won the state’s six congressional seats, which represented a complete reversal of the 1834 congressional election that sent six Democrats to Washington.  

The 1838 statewide congressional election continued the trend. So close were the results that when the 26th Congress convened in December 1839, two slates of delegates, one Whig and one Democratic, arrived in Washington, D.C. Each contingent came bearing commissions as the duly elected members of Congress. Only the commissions of the Whigs bore the governor’s seal, the legally required certification of victory. The Democrats’ commissions bore the seal of the office of James D. Westcott, the secretary of state. The ensuing debacle would later be dubbed, The Broad Seal War, after the governor’s seal affixed on the Whig delegation’s commissions. 

On the first day of the session, the House clerk began the customary roll call to seat the newly elected members. When he got to New Jersey, he read off the name of Whig Joseph F. Randolph (whose victory was not disputed). He then stopped, claiming that because the remaining five seats were contested, he would be unable to seat the rest of New Jersey’s members. 

The dispute centered on the certification of votes from South Amboy in Middlesex county and Millville in Cumberland county. In the case of South Amboy, it was alleged that the legally chosen official whose duty was to certify the township’s results and submit them to the county was prevented from doing so and that another official was unlawfully substituted in his place. In the case of Millville, the township’s votes were not received by the state in a timely manner according to the law and the town’s election officials made public their intent to accept votes of aliens (to use the term of the day). At this time, New Jersey members of Congress were elected at-large, meaning voters cast up to six votes and the top six vote-getters would be elected. Whig Governor William Pennington decided to throw out the vote of the two townships in question and certify the election without them. Had the discarded votes been included in the final statewide tally, the Democratic slate (minus Joseph Randolph) would have scored a razor-thin victory. The unaltered results, presented by the Democratic delegation, were signed and stamped with the seal of the secretary of state.

The situation paralyzed the House for weeks. Whigs attacked the clerk for unilaterally deciding whose certifications were legitimate and whose were not. The New Jersey Whigs had presented the credentials legally mandated by the state; who was the clerk to do anything but seat those members? If further investigation was warranted, the House would do so once organized. Democrats fired back that had the clerk seated the Whig delegation, he would be effectively deciding on a disputed matter, a weight far beyond his responsibility to bear.

The parties bickered over how to proceed. One solution proposed having the clerk read the rest of the uncontested names so a quorum could be reached at which point, those members present would rule on the members claiming their seats under the governor’s seal. This was met with disproval by those who felt this gave the Whigs an unfair advantage. A counter proposal: Establish a quorum and rule on all those claiming the New Jersey seats. When a vote was called, a fracas broke out over whether the New Jersey delegation should be allowed to vote. Which delegation, Whig or Democratic, would be permitted to vote? Both? Neither? Wouldn’t permitting neither to vote deprive New Jersey of its constitutionally granted representation? Finally, two weeks into the session, members voted along partisan lines to elect a speaker so the House could be properly organized. Following the vote, another two weeks of arguing ensued over whether the full House or the Committee of Elections would decide on the matter. On January 14, the House voted to move the matter to the Committee of Elections, thus allowing the House to move on with its business.

The committee consisted of five Democrats and four Whigs (one of whom was future president Millard Fillmore). The partisan majority report, submitted on March 5, 1840 declared that the votes of South Amboy and Millville should be counted and therefore, the Democrats bearing the seal of the secretary of state, not the governor, were the rightful claimants to the contested seats. On March 16, the House voted 111 to 80 to seat the Democrats, finally giving New Jersey its full representation.

Final Thoughts

In 1838, the power of the office of the New Jersey secretary of state was enough to overturn an election in which votes were discarded due to technicalities. In 2020, secretaries of state refused to employ that same power to overturn the results of lawfully conducted elections. Both cases demonstrate the influence the office could have on the outcome of closely contested elections. And both cases demonstrate why we need to pay attention to the twenty-seven states holding secretary of state elections this November.

What do you think of the role of secretaries of state? Let us know below.

References

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Elections. New Jersey Election (26th    Congress, 1st Session, House Report no. 506, March 11, 1840. U.S.  Serial Set no. 371).

Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-121 (1839-40).

Ed Pilkington, “’This should terrify the nation’: The Trump ally seeking to run Arizona’s elections,” The Guardian. February 21, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/21/mark-finchem-trump-arizona-elections-secretary-of-state.

From American Reconstruction to the McDonaldization of Society

 American has seen so many changes since the end of the US Civil War in 1865. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses some key trends that have happened since then, ultimately leading to the so-called ‘McDonaldization’ of Society.

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

George Ritzer who wrote The McDonaldization of Society in 1993. Source: available here.

Rationality and logic were broken well before the 2000s and even before the 1960s. In fact, it was during the Reconstruction-era after the American Civil War that things fell apart quickly. Specifically, between 1863 and 1877. This was the catalyst for how American society would form as we see it today. During the Reconstruction-era, historical process was coming into play, such as the country adjusting the deconstruction of institutional slavery, as well as the security of our country’s unity as one – both outcomes of the Civil War. If it were not for a pardon from treason that was handed over to the Confederate generals and politicians after Lincoln was assassinated, I observe and stand on conscience that our nation would have looked much different today. I mean that politically and culturally. 

Of course with advancement of society came cooperation with differing minority groups. A differing narrative stayed alive in the black communities. By the 1930s, Southern Democratic politics had been changed. These politicians and business elites began to shift their views to how “interracial cooperation” could bring them success in the 1900s South.[1] Politics at this point and time begin to change rapidly with the introduction of industrialization. Skyscrapers would start to emerge. Entertainment became higher priority. And self-gratification such as at restaurants, movies, food, and alcohol, began to be in excess for all those who hung onto their traditional American roots.

Consumer culture

In the 1930s consumer culture was a tied knot of pestering and arrogance. Many of those at that time would begin to condemn mass-culture, which began to be viewed as fun, with an insistence on freedom for self-expression. Mainstream society began to view it as an antisocial counterculture. Critics of the consumer culture were easily characterized as “Puritan” in their own personal views on this way of life. So, we end up in the 1960s where the societal revolution would really take off. Media and corporate entities would help fast-forward this social revolution in America. The “permissiveness” of 1960s culture would be countered itself by the return of traditional religion in America.

McDonaldization

There has always been a “see-saw” like effect throughout politics and religion in history. If you pay attention to current events, you observe this. From watching the news, to social media, to living your daily lives – everybody sees the fallout from America’s fracture of the founders’ ideals. Most do not know that, but most also see it happening right in front of their own eyes. Think, Skid Row in Los Angeles, California. Tent city. The homeless empire.[2] 

This brings me to how professor and author George Ritzer came up with the clever slogan, “The McDonaldization of Society.” So here we are. We live in a society where a poll of elementary school children in 1986 concluded that 96% of them could identify Ronald McDonald over Santa Claus in name recognition.[3] Mind blowing to think that today it’s even worse. And on many differing levels. Social media, video games, movies. Everything today is on overdrive. But I digress to make the point that the McDonaldization of society, that is, creating an atmosphere of instant gratification, has caused a shift in how Americans live their lives today.

Ultimately, the McDonaldization of society was the turning point in how the entire world would come to learn and live in their daily lives. Someone once said, “The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves right now.” Well, I agree. With education being placed on the backburner by the elites in business and in government, can we pull ourselves into a new way of coping with post-modern America? 

To sum it all up, there has been much change from Reconstruction to our current post-Modern America. Yes. Many historians clarify our current era as post-Modern America. Today, we are living in a new world. Many nations across the globe are facing the same social, economic, and political problems that we face here in the United States. Fate is something that we all face. We are all handed our own cards at birth. With that said, we are all living history. We are all writing and living in history, even if you don’t even know it. 

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

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Foner, Eric, and Eric Foner. A Short History of Reconstruction, 1863-1877. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2015., XXV. 

[2] "Skid Row : McSheehy, William. Internet Archive. Accessed February 19, 2022. https://archive.org/details/skidrow0000mcsh/page/n3/mode/2up. 

[3] Greenhouse, Steven. "The Rise and Rise of McDonald's." New York Times (New York, NY), June 8, 1986. 

Women in Flight: 5 Incredible Pioneering Female Pilots

Humans have always wanted to fly. We have looked at the birds in the sky and wanted that ability. Early flying machines were designed and experimented with mostly by men.  Aviation was dangerous and many men and women lost their lives flying in the early days. The first successful plane design was the Wright brothers’, and they also had the first sustained airplane flight in 1903. It wasn’t long after that before women stepped into the world of aviation. Women have always been adventurers, explorers and thrill seekers. They have faced many more obstacles to fulfill their dreams but thankfully there were women who were bold and brave enough to push through despite any obstacles.

Here, Angie Grandstaff looks at five amazing female pilots.

Harriet Quimby around 1911.

Harriet Quimby

Harriet Quimby (1875-1912) was a New York journalist and photographer. As a journalist, she went all over reporting and looking for stories. She became interested in aviation after seeing some early airshows. Harriet met the Moisant family who gave her an intro into the aviation world in 1910. John Moisant was a pilot and Harriet took flying lessons with John’s sister, Matilde. Harriet became the first American woman to obtain a pilot’s license in 1911. She loved the freedom flying gave her and she traveled all over the United States and Mexico. She also joined the Moisant International Aviators exhibition team. Harriet wore a purple satin outfit to fly because she loved standing out. Harriet was the first woman to fly across the English Channel on April 16, 1912. This was a huge feat that was done in extreme fog with a faulty compass and a plane she hadn’t flown before. Unfortunately, her flight took place just after the Titanic sank so her major accomplishment barely made the news. Harriet was flying with the exhibition team at an airshow in Boston in 1912 when her plane went into a nosedive. Harriet and her passenger weren’t wearing seatbelts and they were thrown from the plane into the Boston harbor. They were both killed. Harriet was one of the few female pilots at the time of her death. She lived her life in the moment and was always looking for an adventure setting a bold example for girls and women everywhere.

The Stinson Sisters

Katherine (1891-1977) and Marjorie (1895-1975) Stinson grew up in a family that supported their dreams of flying. Katherine was the oldest and paved the way for little sister Marjorie. In 1912, Katherine was the fourth American woman to obtain a pilot’s license when she was just 19 years old. The Stinson family moved to Texas in 1912 and established a flying business. They offered a mail carrier service for some time and flying lessons. Katherine was known as a daredevil. She became the first woman to perform a loop and her stunt work had her outflying the men. Katherine built her own planes and was the first pilot to use flares to skywrite. She attached the flares to her plane and wrote CAL over the California skies in 1915. She set records for distance and duration plus did a six-month tour in China and Japan where she performed for thousands. Marjorie received her pilot’s license in 1914 at the age of 19 as well and worked with Katherine as a stunt pilot. Marjorie expanded the family flying business when she obtained 500 acres near the San Antonio River. Marjorie was the lead flight instructor at Stinson Field. She trained hundreds of pilots during the early years of World War I.  Katherine and Marjorie had petitioned the U.S. government to allow them to serve as pilots in 1917 but they were denied because of their gender. Katherine joined the war effort as an ambulance driver and served in France while Marjorie continued to train Canadian and American male pilots for war. After the war, both sisters continued working as stunt pilots. Katherine retired from flying in 1920 and Marjorie retired from flying as well in 1928. These sisters broke barriers as pilots and as women. Their spirit of adventure and love for flying made an impact in the field of aviation.  

Bessie Coleman

Bessie Coleman (1892-1926) was born in Texas to African American sharecroppers. Bessie lived during a time where Jim Crow laws and racial discrimination were rampant which made her accomplishments even more amazing. Bessie moved to Chicago in 1915 and joined her brothers who were living there. She became a well-known manicurist. This was one of the jobs that allowed African American women to obtain some financial freedom at that time. Bessie became fascinated with the tales of flying she heard from military men, including her brother, who were returning from World War I. As an African American woman, Bessie faced significant barriers to her dream to fly. She was denied entry into American flying schools, so she looked to France where people of color were able to obtain their pilot’s license. Bessie learned the French language and saved her money to prepare for a trip to France. She also obtained financial support from African American millionaire, Robert Abbott.  Bessie went to France in 1920. She received her pilot’s license and became the first African American woman to do so. When she returned to America, Bessie performed as a stunt pilot and barnstormer in many airshows. She was a popular speaker and encouraged African Americans to pursue aviation. In 1926, Bessie was preparing for an airshow in Florida and took a flight with her mechanic. He lost control of the plane. Bessie wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and fell to her death.  Bessie’s life was short but the impact she had on aviation especially for African Americans was immense. Her legacy is still going strong. Mae Jemison, the first African American woman to go into space, carried a picture of Bessie Coleman with her on that journey.      

Willa Brown

Willa Brown (1906-1992) was born in Kentucky to an African American father and Native American mother. Willa’s parents moved their family to Indiana in hopes of a better education for their children. Willa was a bright student and went on to earn a bachelor’s degree in business and Master’s degree in business administration. She had many jobs and became interested in flying when she lived in Chicago. Willa was interested in the mechanics of flying as well as flying itself. She took flying lessons at Harlem Field in Chicago. In 1935, she became the first African American woman to obtain a pilot’s license in the United States plus obtained a commercial pilot’s license and a master mechanics certificate. Willa’s husband, Cornelius Coffey, opened the first African American owned flight training academy. Willa was an instructor and director at this school.  She wanted to see more African Americans in aviation. Willa was a founding member of the first African American aviator’s group, National Airmen’s Association of American. Willa advocated for the U.S. military to be desegregated and her school became part of the government funded, Civilian Pilot Training Program. They trained African American men who were training at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. This led to the creation of the Tuskegee Airmen. Willa trained hundreds of these men who became Tuskegee airmen and instructors. She was very politically driven and became the first African American woman to run for Congress. Although she lost, it didn’t stop her from her life’s mission. She continued advocating for the rights of African Americans especially in the military and aviation for the rest of her life.

The Night Witches

The Night Witches were a group of Russian women who flew during World War II. They were dubbed ‘The Night Witches’ by the Germans because they only flew their bombing raids at night and their wooden planes sounded like a sweeping broom. Like in most countries around the world, Russian women were barred from combat. Russia was in a very bad spot militarily when they decided to allow women to pilot their planes. In October 1941, a group of women were recruited by Colonel Marina Raskova to fly combat missions into Germany. Marina was called the Soviet Amelia Earhart. She was the first female navigator in the Soviet Air Force and was well known for her flying abilities. Many Russian women wanted to help with the war effort especially in combat roles and these female regiments gave them that chance. Marina selected 400 women from 2,000 applicants and these became the all-female regiments: the 588th, 587th and 586th. Normally, flight and combat training can take years, but these women were just given an intense few months of training. They faced much skepticism and harassment from the men in the military. No new uniforms or boots for these women, they were given hand-me-downs from male soldiers. Some had to stuff their boots with different material to make them fit. The hand-me-downs didn’t stop there. The planes given to these all-female regiments were old wooden biplanes. These planes offered no weather or bullet protection, no parachutes, no modern instruments, no radio. Each plane carried two crewmembers and two bombs. The weight of the bombs required these planes to travel low which is why these missions were carried out at night. The female pilots had to use maps, compasses and flashlights to help them navigate. Although these women were in planes not fit for battle, there were advantages. Their wooden planes couldn’t be detected on radar, they could outmaneuver the bigger planes and land/take off almost anywhere.  All those advantages plus coming in at night meant these regiments did serious damage. From 1942-1945, the Night Witches dropped 3,000 tons of bombs, 26,000 incendiary shells and much more. Despite their amazing efforts and accomplishments, these women faced serious discrimination from male soldiers. The discrimination made them even more determined to fly and they embraced the German nickname ‘The Night Witches’. Once the war was over, women were once again kept out of combat roles and the feats of the Night Witches faded from memory.   

Let us not forget these women and all women, past and present who are pushing the boundaries to chase dreams and ultimately changing the world for women everywhere. 

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

Now read Angie’s article on 5 Amazing Female Businesses in 19th Century America here.

References

https://www.wai.org/pioneers/100womenscript

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/lieutenant-willa-brown

https://www.fai.org/news/harriet-quimby-america-first-female-pilot-licence

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/flygirls-bessie-coleman/

https://www.nationalaviation.org/our-enshrinees/stinson-katherine/

https://authentictexas.com/marjorie-stinson/

https://www.ctie.monash.edu/hargrave/stinson_bio.html

https://www.wrightmuseum.org/2020/10/01/the-soviet-night-witches/

Bernardo O’Higgins and the Founding of Chile: The Fight for Legitimacy

The improbable lives of Ambrosio O’Higgins and his son, Bernardo, would change the history of South America forever. Two men, father and son, both strivers and achievers. Two men who did not take the traditional paths to power and high office. Two men, who through a series of improbable events, would both become, in their own ways, among the founders of the nation of Chile. The chain of events would begin, of all places, in County Sligo in Ireland.

Erick Redington continues this series on the O’Higgins family by looking at the earlier life and military career of Bernardo O’Higgins.

If you missed it read part one on Ambrosio O’Higgins’ life here.

The charge of O’Higgins at the 1814 Battle of Rancagua.

Bernardo O’Higgins today is seen as one of the founding fathers of Chile and, along with San Martín and Bolivar, is housed in the highest pantheon of South American liberators. Yet from seemingly obscure beginnings, this man who had to fight to be recognized by his own father would fight to make his nation recognized on the world stage.

Bernardo’s story begins with his father Ambrosio O’Higgins. Ambrosio, an unmarried member of the Spanish colonial administration in the Captaincy-General of Chile, had impregnated the daughter of one of his friends, Isabel Riquelme. The young Bernardo would have the last name Riquelme until his father died. This did not mean that Ambrosio refused to recognize his son. As an ennobled Spanish aristocrat, Ambrosio came from a culture that recognized illegitimate children would sometimes arise from liaisons with lower social classes existed and that the father, while not necessarily recognizing the official parentage of the child, could provide for the child in some way without losing too much face. This is what Ambrosio did for Bernardo. 

The Riquelme family was from Chillián, a small city in south-central Chile. During the 18th century, this area was full of rich agricultural land, but was also a backwater of a colonial backwater. Chile was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru, and with little infrastructure and horrific terrain for travel, this was not a place to rise to greatness. Ambrosio recognized this, and decided to fund his son’s education, including paying for Bernardo to leave his hometown, and get a more worldly education. Bernardo would be placed with Juan Albano Pereira, friends of Ambrosio’s in Mendoza (now in Argentina, but then part of Chile) who had mercantile connections with Ambrosio. After some time with the Albanos, Bernardo was sent to a Franciscan Monastery for a short time before going to Lima, the capital of Peru. Although he would make contacts in Lima that would last him a lifetime, Bernardo’s time there was unhappy. Although there are passing reports of the two men meeting, father and son had no confirmed meetings though both were obviously aware of their relationship. An illegitimate child could be supported in this environment but could not be brought too close. After only a year, Bernardo was sent to Europe to both get him out of the way, and to provide him with a better education. 

London

Ironically, Ambrosio chose as the destination for his son Great Britain, the same country he had fled all those years before as a poor, oppressed Irish farmer. London at this time was one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. English radicals, French royalists, embittered revolutionaries, and political dissidents of all stripes crowded the coffee houses and pubs of London. Relative freedom of the press allowed for ideas banned in other nations to be widely disseminated. It was also during the French Revolutionary Wars. The ideals of the French Revolution were sweeping Europe, and for a young and ambitious man like Bernardo, the intellectual atmosphere was exciting. As a man with something to prove, the revolutionary times provided opportunities. 

One of the people who would have the most impact on Bernardo’s life at this time was Francisco Miranda. This Venezuelan revolutionary was a man with infinite plots and schemes in mind to liberate the peoples of South America. Called by some as the Moses of the South American Revolutions, his boundless drive and energy would inspire all the great leaders of Spanish America’s revolutionary generation. Miranda would begin corresponding with Bernardo and would write in a teacher-student style that Bernardo, desperate for a father figure, would take to strongly. 

Due to financial struggles, Bernardo was forced to leave Britain and eventually return to Chile. In 1800, he began his journey which became a small epic of attempts to escape the British blockade (Spain, by this time was allied to France against Britain) and contracting yellow fever, during which Bernardo was so close to death he was read last rites. When he arrived, Bernardo was forced to stay with his old friends, the Albanos, to recover his health. Bernardo was not the only one who was in declining health. His father, Ambrosio, would die only a few months after Bernardo’s return. The man he had so much wanted to impress was now gone forever. Ambrosio did not neglect his son in his will. He left Bernardo a hacienda named Canteras at La Laja in Southern Chile, including 3,000 head of cattle. This was not insignificant for a young man who had to live poor in London only a short time before. It was also at this time that Bernardo Riquelme began adopting his father’s last name O’Higgins. When Bernardo took control of the estate, he settled into the life of a now gentleman farmer. It would be the quietest seven years of his life.  Bringing the latest agricultural science he learned in Europe, the hacienda immediately began to prosper greater than it ever had before. Later in life, Bernardo would reflect on the happiness of this time. The times of peace could not last, however.

King Carlos IV

In the first decade of the 19th century, Spain was governed by King Carlos IV and his prime minister, Manuel Godoy. Spain had been an ally of France since the mid-1790s and had come to be dominated by Napoleon’s French Empire. By the middle of the decade, Napoleon began to worry about the reliability of his ally to the south. Carlos IV and Godoy were both incredibly incompetent and cartoonishly corrupt in their administration of both Spain and the global Spanish Empire. The wealth and resources of the empire were wasted though inefficiency and corruption. Napoleon had created the new law code for France, the Code Napoleon, and had turned France into the preeminent military power of the time. He believed that some Napoleonic efficiency brought to Spanish administration would be more helpful to his cause of dominating Europe than the unexcelled stupidity of the current regime.

In 1808, Carlos IV was forced to abdicate the throne by his son, the future Fernando VII. Carlos then appealed to his ally Napoleon, to restore him to the throne. Napoleon, seeing this as an opportunity to rid himself of this pest, agreed to mediate between father and son, promptly detained both, forced them both to renounce the throne, and placed his own brother King Joseph of Naples on the Spanish throne as King Jose I. 

When word reached the people of Spain of the Abdications of Bayonne (where the mediation had taken place), Spain erupted in revolution. An uprising in Madrid, known to history as Dos de Mayo left hundreds of Spanish civilians dead. Stories of French atrocities began to spread. Civil order broke down in the country and armies appeared to resist French occupation and Napoleon’s puppet king. Revolutionary leaders organized themselves into juntas to fill the gap left in administration. The British began aiding these juntas, and they also decided that independence movements in Spanish America could be used to weaken Napoleon’s ally. A Supreme Junta was established in Seville, ruling in the name of Fernando VII and there were now rival governments vying for the loyalty of Spaniards.

Revolution

Revolutionary thought had already reached Spanish America at this time. Enlightenment philosophies and French revolutionary thought were in vogue throughout Spanish America. Another source of revolutionary attitudes was the dramatic increase in the popularity of Masonic lodges, which would play a significant role in South American independence. Bernardo had been first exposed to many of these ideas while in Britain. Now, divided loyalties among the people led to a situation where everyone had to take sides.

The President of Chile (the acting head of government in the colony) was Brigadier General García Carrasco. He was a military man. By 1809, the situation within Chile had become revolutionary. Support for the Supreme Junta and Fernando VII was seen as a way to safely oppose García Carrasco. On May 25, 1810, the military administration moved against the supporters of Fernando VII and arrested several prominent citizens, who were ordered by the general into exile. After a power struggle with prominent Chileans, the general was forced to resign. With this resignation, the people of Santiago, the capital, began preparations for the creation of a junta for Chile. As many reasoned at the time, the colonies in the Americas belonged to the king, not to Spain. Therefore, if Juntas were being created all over Spain to rule in his name, then it would be only natural for them to be created in the colonies as well. In Buenos Aires, a Junta had taken control the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata. Many in Chile wanted to do the same.

During all this international commotion, Bernardo was civil governor of La Laja. During a previous war scare, he had offered to raise two regiments of cavalry for defense against the British. In 1811, the Junta named him Lieutenant Colonel of the Second Regiment of Cavalry of La Laja. At this time, he was already set on the path that, he believed, a revolution should take. Meeting with other leaders, Bernardo pressed for two immediate objects: the calling of a Congress together and the loosening of restrictions on trade to improve the economy. Freer trade was easily accomplished, and a Congress was called, at this point in the name of Ferdinand VII, to create a new government for Chile. For the new Congress, Bernardo was elected as a member for Los Angeles. With the opening of Congress, many issues came to the forefront. Rivalry between Santiago and Concepción. A failed royalist coup. The most embarrassing for the new Congress was the arrival of HMS Standard, a British warship on a mission for Fernando VII. A message was given to Congress requesting delegates be sent to a new Cortes in Spain. Chile, and the other colonies, were to receive seats in the Spanish legislature. Of course, a large financial contribution was expected to accompany the delegates. The Congress existed and acted explicitly in the name of the king. To accept would be to reaffirm their loyalty to Spain, which not everyone wanted to do. To refuse would be rank hypocrisy. Congress would delay long enough to make the issue moot.

Accompanying the Standard was one José Carrera. Son of a member of the Supreme Junta, he was extremely ambitious, and saw Chile as the perfect field for his ambition. He began conspiring with radicals in Congress, called the Eight Hundred, to remove the moderates to bring forward the cause of independence. On September 1, 1811, the moderates were driven out of Congress, and radicals assumed the positions of power. After the coup, the radicals sidelined Carrera and his family. Now with the precedent set that might, not law, would be the ultimate arbiter of power in Chile, Carrera then arrested men of the Eight Hundred and made himself dictator. Members of Congress then demanded Carrera make an account of himself before them. When he did, Carrera berated Congress and a few hours later disbanded Congress. Chile had had three coups in ten weeks. All Bernardo could do was resign his seat.

The south, and Concepción in particular resisted Carrera. The dictator then turned to Bernardo to help smooth over the situation. Concepción controlled most of the military resources of the country, and Carrera needed this region to solidify his control. Playing on Bernardo’s patriotism, Carrera was able to convince him to go south. After negotiation and a draft agreement which Carrera stalled in implementing, Bernardo realized he was being played and went into open opposition. He placed himself under the orders of the leader of the south, Juan Rozas. When Rozas’ government collapsed, Bernardo returned to his hacienda fed up with the state of affairs. He was an idealistic revolutionary who had run into the wall of practical politics and power struggles. He wanted independence but saw his country falling into infighting. 

Spain returns

This self-imposed retirement did not last very long. In 1813, Spain made its first attempt to reconquer Chile. Invading first in the south, Concepción fell quickly to the Spanish. Of all the colonies in South America, Peru was probably the most royalist. The Viceroy decided now was the time to reestablish control. Carrera called Bernardo to command his cavalry regiment. Bernardo swiftly took command and led a force of troops south to engage the royalists. At Linares, Bernardo’s force encountered the royalists, charged, and drove them out of the town. This was the first battle of the war, and it would bring Bernardo promotion and make his name more well known. 

After Linares, the situation in the south bogged down. Terrain was terrible for the linear warfare of the early 19th century. The three divisions of the reinforced southern army were under different Carrera brothers. The dictator was rapidly losing credibility. After the royalists attacked and defeated the Chilean advanced guard, Carrera was forced to abandon the best defensive positions in front of Santiago. At the Battle of El Roble, Carrera abandoned the field, and a wounded Bernardo rallied the retreating troops and led them to an astounding victory. The junta back in the capital then demanded Carrera give up control of the army. Carrera denounced the junta and his brothers threatened to march on the junta, just as they had Congress previously. The junta was finally able to get enough courage to decree Carrera’s dismissal and made Bernardo the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army. At first reluctant to take the command as he did not believe in the prudence of changing command in the middle of a war, Bernardo was convinced and accepted. 

Although he had reached the highest position in the Chilean army, it was not to last. Bernardo would only command about 1,800 men who were lacking in almost every supply including weapons and ammunition. A lack of horses meant that artillery was pulled by the soldiers. The royalist army, though no better supplied had morale and initiative on its side.                   When a royalist army was approaching another Chilean force under Juan Mackenna, an old friend and also of Irish extraction, Bernardo took his army to relieve Mackenna. When their armies were joined, Bernardo would lead the army in a race with the royalists to reach Santiago. Both sides, by this point, were tired of campaigning. Both sides were exhausted. Negotiations began between the royalists from Peru and the junta governing Chile. Bernardo and Mackenna negotiated for the Chileans. The result was the Treaty of Lircay. In this treaty, the Chileans restated their loyalty to Fernando VII, under whose name they were fighting anyway. They also agreed to send representatives to the Cortes and money to Spain. Chile was to be integrated into Spain. The major concession the rebels were able to get was recognition of the junta. Both sides seemed to be blaming the whole war on a misunderstanding caused by Carrera. 

War returns

This was nothing more than a temporary truce. The Viceroy in Lima denounced his commander who negotiated the treaty. About 5,000 reinforcements were sent to Chile to suppress the rebels. On the Chilean side, the Carreras were offended by the treaty and acted. On July 23, 1814, Jose Carrera overthrew the government, again, and quickly acted to extend his power over the rebel cause. Bernardo was faced with a dilemma. He was not happy with the treaty and wanted to see Chile freed from Spanish domination. As commander-in-chief, he also knew that the country needed a respite from the fighting. There was also the issue of Carrera himself. This was now the third time he had used force to remove his opponents. Bernardo could not abide this. He would march his troops on Santiago and remove Carrera himself. On August 26, only a month after the signing of the treaty, the forces of Carrera and Bernardo met at the battle of Las Tres Acequias. The two forces met in an engagement among the advanced guards with Carrera’s troops pushed back. Bernardo became confident and ordered an attack with his main force. When the attack failed, his troops began retreating in disorder. When Carrera sent in his cavalry to pursue, it broke what was left of Bernardo’s line and the army began to flee south. 

After the battle, Bernardo learned that the royalists had landed their army from Peru and were marching on Santiago. He reached out to Carrera to put aside their differences and unite to defend the country. Both men, after all, believed in the independence of Chile from the Spanish. It was all for naught. When the Chileans united their forces under Bernardo’s control, they were still outnumbered by the royalists. Infighting had sapped their strength. On October 1, what became known in Chile as the Disaster of Rancagua occurred. The Chilean army was a motley assortment of men ill fed and equipped. The royalist army contained veterans of the Napoleonic Wars from Europe, which were now over. These men had been fighting for six years and knew war on a larger scale than the Chileans did. The Chileans were simply no match for the royalists. Nearly surrounded by the royalists, no reinforcements to be hoped for, and the town he was defending on fire, Bernardo was forced to withdraw from battle. It only took a few days for the royalists to make the distance to Santiago and take the city, the Chilean army was so defeated. 

For Bernardo, there was nothing left. The government had been overthrown. The army, his army, was annihilated. For himself, and the leaders of Chilean independence, their country was lost to them. The leaders began to go into exile, fleeing to other areas not under control of the Spanish. Bernardo would flee across the Andes and into La Plata, not knowing what the future held.

What do you think of Bernando O’Higgins’ earlier life and the war? Let us know below.

Now, read part 3 about the later life of Bernardo O’Higgins and how Chilean independence was earned here.

Further Reading

Clissold, Stephen. Bernardo O’Higgins and the Independence of Chile. Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1968.

Kinsbruner, Jay. Bernardo O’Higgins. Twayne Publishers, 1968.