How the US Misjudged Fidel Castro: Part 1 - Before the Revolution

At the moment of Fidel Castro's triumphant entry into Havana, Cuba on January 9, 1959, the charismatic revolutionary leader was a relatively unknown quantity. Many are surprised to discover that Castro at first enjoyed much popular support in this country. Early reports on the rebel leader featured positive, if sometimes guarded, reactions. Even Ed Sullivan, America’s premier show man, got caught up in the excitement. He journeyed to Cuba himself to interview the victorious rebel leader shortly after the latter’s entry into Havana. He was but one of myriad journalists who descended on Cuba to cover the exciting changes in the island.

In this series, Victor Gamma returns and considers how the US misjudged Fidel Castro. Here, we look at how the US intervened in other places in the 1950s, and its pre-Cuban Revolution attempts to understand Fidel Castro’s beliefs.

Fidel Castro with his in the Sierra Maestra, Cuba. December 1956.

In April 1959, Castro visited the United States itself, where he appeared on popular American TV shows, gave talks at Harvard and was buoyed aloft on the shoulders of an admiring audience. In the US he generally received royal treatment wherever he went. This included children sporting Castro beards and other manifestations of Castro-mania. This is strange considering the fact that his mortal enemy, Batista, enjoyed the full backing of the US but a few months before.

As we all know, this “honeymoon” period did not last. Before the end of that year, relations between the US and Castro deteriorated beyond the point of no return. The point is: if we had a more clear idea of his ideology, if he were a communist or might become one and would become an ally of the Soviet Union, we would have been justified in acting decisively to keep him from power. An operation similar to that carried out in Guatemala in 1954 or Iran in 1952 could have been mounted. In the tense competition with the Soviet Union, it was imperative to prevent a communist government 90 miles from American shores. But without a clear understanding of Castro's ideology and/or future plans no firm policy was formulated. Instead, US policy would evolve in reaction to Castro's moves. The result of that policy was that in less than two years diplomatic ties between the United States and Cuba severed and relations degenerated into clandestine warfare. Subsequently, Cuba under Castro became a disaster for U.S. foreign policy for decades. Why did the US allow such a hostile regime to take hold so close to our shores? Why were US policy makers not clear on what Castro’s motives were or what the nature of his ideology was until too late? How did we miss the warning signs?

The problem began towards the end of the Batista regime. By 1957, after almost two decades of unwavering support of Cuban regimes, the State Department began to have doubts about continued support of Batista. Batista’s efforts to label Castro as a communist and tool of Moscow failed to gain Eisenhower’s continued support. In the corridors of power, criticism of America’s Cuban policy became more vocal. Such sentiments were even becoming a matter of public record. On August, 17, 1958, Henry Wriston, president of the Council on Foreign Relation appeared on the Mike Wallace Interview. He openly uttered such anti-Batista statements as “we don't like Batista'' and “we would be delighted to see Batista and Trujillo (the dictator of Guatemala) overthrown.” The US went beyond mere distaste. In March,1958 Eisenhower stopped sending arms to Batista, “Obviously Castro had won the emotional support of the Cuban people,” he said later in justification. The CIA had even actually begun supporting opposition movements in hopes of getting rid of an increasingly unpopular dictator. 

The US and Castro

The US enjoyed major success in sponsoring overthrows of regimes in places as diverse as Guatemala and Iran. Unlike in those countries, however, the US had no plan about whom to replace Batista with. To complicate matters, the insurrection movements prowling around in the mountains and jungles of eastern Cuba were of uncertain ideology and attitudes toward the US - and time was running out. Castro’s group, called the “26th of July Movement,” which was the most important of the various anti-Batista movements, threatened yet another violent overthrow of a Cuban government. By the summer of 1958 it was becoming clear that his regimes’ days were numbered. What should US policy be? Some feared that if something were not done soon the threat of violent revolution would materialize and replace Batista with an even worse (and leftist) government. Since Castro was likely to be an increasingly dominant force, it was vital to decide whether to support him or keep him from power.

What did the US know of Castro? Much knowledge came not from official government efforts but enterprising journalists. The long struggle by the barbudos (bearded ones) attracted much sympathy from the American press, Chief among these was New York Times reporter Herbert Matthews. Castro had been reported killed by the Batista regime. But Matthews was able to locate him. After some days with Castro, Matthews sent his report to the Times. On February 24, 1957, the world was electrified by the news: “Fidel Castro, the rebel leader of Cuba’s youth, is alive and fighting hard and successfully in the rugged, almost impenetrable fastnesses of the Sierra Maestra, at the southern tip of the island.” Along with the report Matthew provided the rebel leader’s signature as proof. The article gushed with praise, included a description of Castro as an “educated, dedicated fanatic, a man of ideals, of courage and of remarkable qualities of leadership.” He had not only dramatically revealed that Castro was not dead, he successfully portrayed him in a way that garnered widespread interest and sympathy from readers across the country. Even more importantly for US policy, he also denied that Castro was a communist or that communists were a significant force in his movement. Such reporting built a groundswell of support among the American public.

Less supportive of America

But if the US had done a profile on the indefatigable rebel, they would have known that he blamed the US for many of Cuba’s problems. At his trial in 1952 he defended himself and used the courtroom as a platform to promote his views. Included in his diatribe were such statements as “The United Fruit Company owns land the north to the south socast in Orient Province-but two hundred thousand Cuban families there don’t own an inch of land!” His villains were companies and landowners. As it was, the CIA psychological profile on Castro did not appear until December 1961, much too late. 

During this time, the American embassy in Havana was not much help. From the years 1953-57 under Ambassador Arthur Gardner, strict orders to avoid contact with anti-Batista movements were in force, effectively thwarting any chance to learn more about Castro. Not only that, such a policy put the CIA in an awkward position. It could not utilize embassy personnel and interfered with intelligence gathering. To overcome this problem, that spring of 1957 Washington sent an official fact-finding mission to Cuba to find out more about Castro. After obtaining Ambassador Gardner’s cooperation, the mission, led by CIA officer Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. set out to fill in the gaps of knowledge about the opposition to Batista. The delegation spent most of its time in Santiago de Cuba, the main town of Castro's home province, Oriente. Here they hoped to obtain first-hand information about Castro's character and philosophy. Basically, the mission did not discover anything alarming about Castro. He came from a large, wealthy land-owning family. He had attended parochial schools, gone to college, and enjoyed baseball. His former teachers had nothing but good to say about him, “He was a good Catholic boy,” said one. Others insisted that he could not possibly be a communist. The team felt that the rebel movement simply reflected the desire of Cubans to be rid of dictatorship and restore a functioning democracy. So as of 1958 the fog around Castro’s political leanings had still not cleared. It was known that he had been involved in leftist politics and that his movement included communists but in the words of Kirkpatrick “we were not sure whether he was an avowed Communist.” Castro himself had refused to make common cause with Cuban communists.

What do you think about American intelligence’s attempts to gather information on Fidel Castro in the 1950s? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s series on whether Wernher von Braun was a dangerous Nazi or hero of the space race here.

Why does Vladimir Putin want to Capture Kyiv?

When the Russian Federation, on the orders of President Putin, invaded the territory of independent Ukraine on February 24, 2022, one of the main goals of the Russian troops was to conquer the capital of Ukraine - Kyiv. This attack failed and the Russian Army withdrew to concentrate on eastern Ukraine. Here, Konstant Teleshov explains why Kyiv remains an important target for Vladimir Putin.

The Baptism of Kievans by Klavdy Lebedev.

Thanks to the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people and the competent actions of the military-political leadership of Ukraine, the Russian army suffered a humiliating defeat near Kyiv and Chernihiv during the Russo-Ukrainian War, after which it was forced to retreat at the end of March 2022.

Historical meaning

In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made the country's historical past an important element and pillar of his regime, which some political experts call Putinism. He wrote several articles, one of which is called "On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians." In this article, the Russian autocrat positions himself as a supporter of the concept of the triune Russian people, which for centuries has formed a single cultural and spiritual space of historical Russia - a large ethnocultural region in Eastern Europe, historically inhabited by three peoples - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.

One of the most important components of the common historical past of these three peoples is a medieval state called Kievan Rus, which existed from 862 to 1240. During its peak, Kievan Rus occupied the territory from the White Sea in the north to the Black Sea region in the south. It consists of many principalities (provinces). One of the provinces of Kievan Rus was the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, one of the parts of which was the Principality of Moscow - the future center of the Russian Empire. The Moscow principality became an independent state only in the 13th century, becoming one of, but not the only successor of Kievan Rus.

The capital of Kievan Rus, located in the north-east of Europe, was Kyiv. The modern Ukrainian capital from the second half of the 9th century has an interesting name - "the mother of Russian cities." Why did such a paradox arise? The fact is that Kyiv was first called the "mother of Russian cities" by the semi-legendary Varangian prince Oleg, who seized power in this city in 882. This is written in the chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years", which is dated to the 12th century.

Thus, Kyiv was declared the political, cultural, economic and religious center of Kievan Rus. The name "mother of Russian cities" is similar in its meaning to the expression "mother of all cities", which is used to characterize Jerusalem as the religious center of the world. In fact, the “mother of cities” is a calque from the Greek word “metropolis”, which was used to denote a capital city.

It turns out that the real spiritual and cultural center of Russia is located in Kyiv, and not in Moscow, which is about 7 centuries younger than the capital of Ukraine. Thus, the Russian Federation is a unique country that has no control over its spiritual and historical capital. In my opinion, this is fair, since the modern Russian army has nothing to do with the army of Kievan Rus, which was one of the strongest in Europe. Russian soldiers behave like cowardly barbarians, which is also unworthy of the army of the state, which considers itself the successor of Kievan Rus. Whereas the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise (one of the most prominent rulers in the history of Kievan Rus) were more educated than European kings.

Considering all of the above, the desire to capture Kyiv fits into the ideological concept of "gathering Russian lands", which was used by all Russian princes, tsars and emperors to seize new lands since the 13th century. President Putin clearly wants to go down in history as a great ruler of Russia, such as Ivan "The Terrible" IV, Peter I and Catherine II. All of them significantly expanded the territory of Russia, and Putin, using false accusations against Ukraine of Nazism, came up with a pretext for the invasion under the guise of protecting the Russian-speaking population from genocide, also wanting to remain in the history of his country as a brilliant strategist and commander.

However, Russia does not deserve to own Kyiv. This city is used to being the center of one of the most developed European countries, while the Russian Federation is clearly not one of them. Kyiv will never want to be part of the "Russian world", which brings with it only destruction, death and lack of culture.

Strategic importance

The Ukrainian capital is also of great strategic importance. It is located on the banks of the largest river in Ukraine called the Dnieper. During the time of Kievan Rus, it was through Kyiv that the famous trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed, which connected the Baltic states and the Byzantine Empire.

Today Kyiv is the most important economic, political and military center of Ukraine. Of course, the capture of the capital of a neighboring state would greatly strengthen Russia's position in negotiations with Ukraine, but this did not happen, because Kyiv has long been a quality fortress. For example, the German Army was able to capture Kyiv only after 3 months of siege, having suffered huge losses in 1941.

Psychological factor

The capture of Kyiv, according to the plan of the Russian military-political leadership, was supposed to psychologically break the spirit of Ukrainian resistance to the invaders. For example, they could start spreading fake news that President Zelensky has fled or been assassinated. However, the Russian military failed to understand the psychology of the Ukrainians. They never understood that the city would be defended to the last Ukrainian soldier.

The fact is that in Russia almost all regions are completely subordinated to the capital Moscow. However, in Ukraine, each region is able to independently make decisions and defend itself. That is why, even if the Russian military managed to temporarily capture Kyiv and kill the military-political leadership of Ukraine, they would not be able to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people.

What do you think about President Putin’s motives for wanting to capture Kyiv? Let us know below.

Now read Konstant’s article on the history of confrontation between Russia and Ukraine here.

World War 2: Would Greater Use of Napalm in 1944 have Helped the Allies?

After the Normandy Invasion in June 1944, the Allied Powers had to move across France to reach Germany. However, the terrain was not always easy to cross. Here, Daniel Boustead returns and considers whether greater use of napalm could have helped the Allies as they crossed French hedgerow country in 1944.

Crowds celebrate the liberation of Paris on August 26, 1944.

The Allied campaigns which occurred after the June 6, 1944, Normandy Invasion are often not as well known to the public. In the hedgerow country in France, the Allies encountered alarming casualties from the Nazi German Army. The Allied solutions to the hedgerows were slightly effective but still had fatal flaws. The use of napalm and other explosives in Operation Cobra and other military operations allowed the Allies to break out of Normandy. Napalm was used effectively as weapon in the military campaign in France and the campaign that occurred after that. The Allies should have used napalm early on in the Normandy Campaign which would have prevented many lives being lost in hedgerow country.

The hedgerow country or Bocage, was west of the French City of Caen.(1) For the Germans, the hedgerows were ideally suited for defense. The effects of how deadly the hedgerows were to become quickly became obvious. On June 6, 1944, when German mobile artillery batteries used the hedges to accomplish their mission of camouflaging themselves.(2) This preventing Allied Aviation from either destroying them or defining their position to allow the Allies to destroy them. The hedgerow fighting lasted from June 7, 1944, until the end of August 1944 when the Allies ended up liberating most of the present-day Basse-Normandie.

Issues with hedgerows

The hedgerows consisted of a patchworks of thousands of small fields enclosed by almost impenetrable hedges. The hedges consisted of dense thickets of hawthorn, brambles, vines and trees ranging up to 15 feet in height, growing out of earthen mounds several feet thick and three or four feet  high. The hedges were equipped with a drainage ditch on either side. The walls and hedges together were so formidable that each field took on the character of a small fort. Defenders dug in at the base of a hedgerow and (hidden by vegetation) were all but impervious to rifle and artillery fire. So dense was the vegetation that infantrymen poking around the hedgerows sometimes found themselves eye to eye startled at the Germans. A single machine gun concealed in a hedgerow could mow down attacking troops as they attempted to advance from one hedge to another.  Snipers, mounted on wooden platforms in the treetops and using flashless gunpowder in order to avoid giving away their positions, were a constant threat.

On July 9, 1944, 3rd Armored Division member Belton Cooper was with most of the tank maintenance mechanics when they received fire from German Tree Snipers.(4) Belton Cooper stated that “The Tall pines of Normandy were festooned with larch bunches of mistletoe, which grew as a natural parasite”. Belton Cooper further recollected “There were so many trees and so many bunches of mistletoe that it was difficult to find the snipers who hid there”. Most of the roads were wagon trails, worn into the sunken lanes by centuries of use and turned into cavern-like mazes by overarching hedges. These gloomy passages were tailor made for ambushes and were terrifying places for men on both sides. The sunken lanes were also lethal to Allied Tanks. Confined to narrow channels, they were easy prey for German Panzerfausts (German Anti-Tank Rocket Launchers) camouflaged in the hedgerows. A tank that ventured off the road and attempted to smash through the thicket, was particularly vulnerable. As the tank climbed the mound at the base of the hedgerow, its guns were pointed helpless skyward, and its underbelly was exposed to fire from antitank guns in the next hedgerow.

Fear

The Germans defense of the hedgerows caused much fear, casualties, and losses for the Allies.  Dennis Bunn of the Scottish 15th Reconnaissance Regiment, described hedgerow fighting while driving through them in a heavy armored car. “Inside the car was intense heat and darkness, outside brilliant sunshine. I sweated and gripped the steering wheel with damp hands as I peered through a small aperture at the ground in front, the high hedge on the right, the ground sloping away to the left, at the trees, the bushes, seeing or suspecting danger in every blade of grass”(1).

From June 29 to July 1, 1944, the American Combat Command A of the 29th American Infantry Division captured the French village of Villiers-Fossard in hedgerow country.(3) However, the American Combat Command A lost 31 tanks, 12 other vehicles, and 151 men while trying to capture this French village (3). The losses which the Americans endured in trying to capture Villiers-Fossard were directly caused by German heavy small arms fire, German mortar, anti-tank fire from a German reinforced infantry battalion, and German Panzerfausts (3).

Solutions

The Allied solutions to the hedgerows were effective but had some fatal flaws. The use of Bulldozer Tanks to remove hedgerows proved faulty because they were easily knocked out by German Anti-Tank weapons. This was brutally demonstrated during the military action of Combat Command A of the 29th American Infantry Division at Villiers-Fossard. In this action the Americans lost two bulldozers early in the action to German Anti-Tank Weapons while trying to capture this village. This only left Combat Command A of the American 29th Infantry Division with only explosives to blow through the hedgerows. The American action to capture the Villiers-Fossard also displayed another faulty American tactic. The use of explosives to blow gaps in the hedgerows resulted in warning the Germans where the Americans were coming from. The Germans then directed their fire at the places where the explosives were which resulted in killing more American troops.

A more effective anti-hedgerow device were the “hedgerow cutters” developed by Sergeant Curtis G. Cutlin Jr. of the U.S. 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron.(5) Cutlin Jr. welded pointed steel blades cut from the German beach obstacles onto American tanks. This allowed them to go through the hedgerows during combat. Cutlin’s innovation was so effective and popular that in General Omar Bradley’s First Army, three of every five tanks were equipped with the “hedgerow cutters”. General Dwight David Eisenhower said about the “hedgerow cutters” they “restored the effectiveness of the tank and gave a tremendous boost to morale throughout the Army”(5).  However, the tanks equipped with the “hedgerow cutters” could be knocked out.(6)

Napalm

The use of napalm along with other explosives helped the Allies break out of Normandy. On July 25, 1944, a total of 4,150+ tons of high explosives and napalm were dropped on the Periers-Saint Lo Road.(7) A total of 125,000 rounds of artillery were also fired at the Periers-Saint Lo Road. The end result of this bombardment was that 1,000 men of the German Panzer Lehr Division had perished, and the survivors were left stunned across the Periers-Saint Lo Road. Panzer Lehr Division Commander Fritz Bayerlein said about the bombardment “My front lines looked like the face of the moon, and at least 70 per cent of my troopers were out of action-dead, wounded, crazed, or numbed. All my forward tanks were knocked out, and the roads were practically impassable”(7). Some survivors of the Panzer Lehr division would be deaf for 24 hours. Three German battalion command posts simply vanished, along with a whole German parachute regiment. Only a dozen German tanks remained operable. As Fritz Bayerlien frantically tried to restore a semblance of order by calling up units from the rear, American P-38s, P-47s, and P-51s Fighter planes and British Typhoons continued to blast his troops and tanks. The July 25, 1944, bombardment helped ignite Operation Cobra.

Operation Cobra was developed by General Omar Bradley.(8) Operation Cobra tore a funnel-shaped hole in the German defenses that was 10 miles wide at Avranches, France and narrowed to a single road and a bridge at Pontaubault. The German forces also faced another threat when Allied Forces landed in Southern France on August 15, 1944, as part of Operation Anvil-Dragoon.(11) The French and American forces landed in French Rivera region as part of Operation Anvil-Dragoon. This occurred near the city of Cannes. British Paratroopers participated in this action.(12) Operation Cobra and other such Allied military operations would ultimately liberate the whole of France. The Apex of this liberation was when Allied forces liberated Paris, France on August 25/26, 1944.(9)

There were some effective tactical air uses of napalm by the Allies in France and the military actions that occurred during and after the campaign. In August 1944 American Fighter bombers carrying fire bombs flew frequent missions against the Germans escaping the encirclement at Falaise France.(10) In August, 1944 P-38s and P-47s armed with bombs, rockets, and napalm attacked fleeing concentrations of German trucks and German armor that were retreating from Falaise France. General Dwight David Eisenhower described what he witnessed from the aftermath of the German forces fleeing from Falaise France “As being able to walk hundreds of yards, walking only on dead bodies”.(10)

An example of the effectiveness of napalm was demonstrated on August 25, 1944, on the headquarters of Feldmarschall Guenther Von Kluge, German Army Group commander at Verzy, France(10). On that day, 15 fighter bombers carrying 24 165-gallon napalm bombs and eight 500 lbs. HE bombs attacked Feldmarschall Guenther Von Kluge’s headquarters at Verzy, France. Twenty-two of the napalm tanks made direct hits on the Verzy headquarters buildings completely destroying eight houses. In the Battle of the Bulge from December 1944 to January 1945, the American Army Air Force fighter bombers used fire bombs effectively against the German motor transportation and German armored concentrations in the wooded sections of the battleground.

The Anglo-Americans faced a “meat-grinder” campaign in the hedgerow country of France against their German adversaries. In retrospect the Anglo-American military forces should have used napalm more frequently against the hedgerows in the time before, during, and after the June 6, 1944, Normandy Invasion. This factor would have resulted in less Allied soldiers being killed, wounded, or captured and ultimately brought about a quicker end to the conflict in Europe.

What do you think of the use of napalm in World War 2 Let us know below.

Now, you can read World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here, and “Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?” here.

References

1 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia.  Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 17.

2 Laurenceau, Marc. “Hedgerow warfare in Normandy-D-Day Overlord”. Last Modified or Updated 2003 to 2022. Accessed on May 16th, 2022. www.dday-overlord.com  of Encyclopedie du debarquement et de la bataille de Normandie. https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/tactics/hedgerow-warfare.

3 Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 10 to 11.

4 Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of An American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 28.

5 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time Life-Books, Inc. 1978. 21.

6 “Knocked Out M4 Sherman Tank with hedgerow cutters Normandy”. World War Photos. Updated or improved from 2013 -2022. Accessed on May 17th, 2022.  https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m4_sherman/knocked-out-m4-sherman-tank-with-hedgerow-cutters-normandy/

7 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time Life-Books, Inc. 1978 . 54 to 56.

8 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 76.

9 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 156 and 162.

10 Wolf, William. U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II: The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air-launched  Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles, and Secret Weapons. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Books of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2010. 70.

11 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 102 and 115.

12 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 107.

Bibliography

Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978.

Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division In World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998.

“Knocked Out M4 Sherman Tank with hedgerow cutters Normandy”. World War Photos. Updated or Improved from 2013-2022. Accessed on May 17th, 2022. https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m4_sherman/knocked-out-m4-sherman-tank-with-hedgerow-cutters-normandy/

Laurenceau, Marc. “Hedgerow warfare in Normandy-D-Day Overlord”. Last Modified or Updated 2003 to 2022. Accessed on May 16th, 2022. www.day-overlord.com. Of Encyclopedie du debarquement et de la bataille de Normandie. https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/tactics/hedgerow-warfare.

Wolf, William. U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II: The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air-launched Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles, and Secret Weapons. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Books of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2010.

Major General Gordon and the Pursuit of Empire in North Africa

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

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

A depiction of Major General Gordon in Khartoum.

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

To Africa

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

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

Uprising

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

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

Sudan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

Captain Henry Morgan and the Escape from Maracaibo

Captain Morgan was a privateer, militia leader, Admiral of the Breathern, Deputy Governor of Jamaica, and Knight of Charles II. He was one of the few privateers that met a reasonably peaceful retirement and death and moved from the lowest levels of society to that of the planter class aristocracy. But how did this former privateer move from a crew member aboard an exploratory vessel to the Spanish Main to the high position of Lt. Governor and Knighthood. How did he strike terror in the Spanish Dynasty, and make their troops so afraid they were willing to hide in the jungles of Central America to avoid fighting him?

Avery Scott explains.

A depiction of Sir Henry Morgan.

Captain Morgan was not a brilliant navigator, sailor, or soldier. He was lacking in many of the skills of those who came before him (Sir Francis Drake), and those who came after him (Blackbeard). But he was a brilliant leader and a brilliant thinker more than any of these men. Morgan was the greatest menace to the Spanish since Sir Francis Drake and enjoyed the nickname El Draque by the Spanish.

Early Life

Henry Morgan was born in January of 1635 in Wales. Typical of seafaring men of this time, little is known of his early life and childhood. He likely came to the New World on an expedition of Thomas Gage directed by Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell currently being the leader of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The expedition was captained by Admiral Penn and General Venables who were to travel to the Spanish Main and attempt to loosen the hold the Spanish had developed on trade and the New World. No one foresaw the difficult conditions, harsh landscapes, and bitter fighting that was awaiting them.

During this time, there was great tension between Protestant England and Catholic Spain, that resulted in letters of Marque being given to sailors to raid and pillage enemy ships. Letters of Marque or Commissions were an easy way for a country to maintain a nearly free Navy, and it allowed their military vessels to fight the enemy – not loot for treasure. Privateering commissions changed the world, and specifically the Caribbean. It was in November of 1663 that Morgan likely obtained his first command and a commission of his own. It was then that his privateering career truly began.

Maracaibo

The attack that shows the brilliance of Sir Henry Morgan more than any other is that of Maracaibo. Maracaibo is a town in Venezuela, that sits directly on a channel off the Caribbean Sea. This channel leads to Lake Maracaibo, where Morgan sets his sights for plunder. During the early stages of the attack on Maracaibo, Morgan easily moved into the town, ransacking and plundering all that was found. Few Spanish troops manned the fort, and those that did were afraid of what would happen if they were captured by the “English devils.” Morgan and his men captured prisoners and held them for ransom, and exploited others as guides. Prisoners were tortured and killed in an effort to extract any and all information about the location of valuables, and for information about the Spanish forces.

His attack was going perfectly, until a fleet of Spanish ships with the express order to end piracy in the Caribbean appeared, blocking his only exit point from Maracaibo. Remember, Maracaibo sits in a channel and leads to a land locked lake - there is one way in and one way out. Don Alonzo de Campos y Espinosa, the commander of the Spanish fleet, sent Morgan a letter instructing him to surrender, or his men would be killed in battle. Morgan read this and began discussions with his men (it is important to note that an early form of democracy was practiced onboard pirate and privateering vessels with the captain only retaining total control during battle) - it was decided they would fight their way out of Maracaibo.

Escape Plan

Morgan captured a merchant vessel earlier in his pillage, and now it was to be used as a fire ship. That is, a ship covered in flammable material and lit ablaze then sailed directly at an enemy target, the last sailors abandoning the ship in a canoe shortly before impact. Morgan knew that the Spanish Armada was manned by hardened, battle ready soldiers with superior firepower, so Morgan decided he had to win the battle with wit and courage. The merchant ship was outfitted with cannon and wooden cutouts of men on deck to appear that it was a privateering vessel ready for battle. It was not until Morgan’s decoy was running directly into the Magdalen, the Spanish Flagship, that Alonzo and crew realized what was happening. Soon the Magdalene was engulfed in flames, and soldiers were jumping ship to avoid burning alive. Another ship in Alonzo’s fleet, the Soledad, attempted to turn and run from the privateers, but had a malfunction that kept it from sailing. Soon Morgan’s men were boarding the ship as the Spanish jumped from her decks to escape, quickly fixing the ship, and making it seaworthy. It was with this brilliant maneuver, that Morgan almost secured his safe exit from Maracaibo.

Escaping the Fort

The last step to escape was getting past the Fort guarding passage into the Caribbean Sea. Once Alonzo's men had been defeated in the water, they quickly bolstered the fort's remaining soldiers. Cannon was manned and musketeers were at the ready to stop Morgan from sailing out of the bay. Morgan received a ransom payment from those in the town and agreed that if they should bring him Don Alonzo he would leave peacefully. Alonzo was unwilling to allow Morgan to pass and accepted another battle. In truly brilliant style, Morgan had his men board canoes and sail to the bank appearing to disembark. In reality his men were laying down in the bottom of the canoes, and rowing back to the unseen side of the ship and climbing aboard. Morgan has this done over the course of a day, all under the watchful eye of Don Alonzo who presumed an attack would come by land. Late in the evening, Morgan had his ships lift anchor and slowly maneuver toward the fort until suddenly they opened full sail and quickly moved out of range of the Spanish cannon. Morgan made his way back to Port Royal, and his men celebrated their victory with the traditional privateer celebration (rum, prostitutes, and gambling). After this, Morgan became a true hero to English Jamaicans and secured his place as the defender of Jamaica.

Morgan’s Brilliance

Morgan’s attacks became more and more daring and dangerous as time went on, but the most impressive showing of his brilliance of leadership was at Maracaibo. Many captains would have taken the offer of safe surrender or would have died in vain trying to fight the pride of the Spanish Navy. But Morgan was different - his men trusted him and he them. He planned for every situation and had men willing to execute his every command with military-like precision. Morgan retired to his sugar plantations in Jamaica and hoped to live a peaceful life. Eventually though, after a raid on Panama, Morgan was arrested and taken back to London. To his surprise, he was not punished but rather made a Knight, and appointed Lt. Governor of Jamaica. His charge – end piracy in the Caribbean. Morgan did just this, but the life of a politician was less appealing to Morgan, and he eventually died a wealthy alcoholic. Morgan made wise choices throughout his career. He knew when to push on, and he knew when to stop. He knew how to motivate men and how to make his enemies fear his name. It is in these qualities that Morgan became the most successful privateer since Sir Francis Drake and cemented his name to a short list of successful privateers.

What do you think of Captain Henry Morgan? Let us know below.

Now, read more tales at sea: the story of French female 14th century pirate Jeanne de Clisson is here.

Further reading: Empire of Blue Water by Stephan Talty published by Crown Publishers.

Anti-Catholicism in Early Modern England

The changing political and theological landscape of early modern England stands as a complex topic. When examining the legacy of a changing kingdom from Catholicism to Protestantism and the subsequent religious and political conflicts, the context of these conflicts stands as significant. This paper argues that while the institutions of Protestant England viewed their actions in a secular manner in enforcing the supremacy of the monarch over the authority of the Pope as secular, the ensuing legislation and cultural shift represents a broader trend towards anti-Catholic persecution. Roy Williams explains.

A portrait of Queen Elizabeth I of England in her coronation robes. Source National Portrait Gallery: NPG 5175, available here.

By examining the legacy of priests, and lay Catholics who were targeted via anti-Catholic legislation, a broader narrative can be established in understanding the importance of anti-Catholicism as a nexus of political and religious perspective. From this examination of martyrdom as the connecting point between religious and political conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism, a larger trend of anti-Catholicism beginning with the cultural impact of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs through events such as the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and the Fatal Vespers incident in 1623 can be discerned. With the establishment of anti-Catholicism as an important factor in how English Protestants viewed themselves and the larger world around them in opposition to Catholics, the larger trend of anti-Catholicism and religious persecution is magnified. To understand these larger events and the larger trends over time it stands as significant to begin with the interrogation of the anti-Catholic laws of Elizabeth I.

Elizabeth I succeeded her Catholic predecessor Mary I in 1558 ushering in a more pronounced change towards Protestantism from the Catholic restoration Mary I had attempted. Elizabeth’s larger ideological perspective of Protestantism in opposition to Catholicism is reflected in the laws of her reign which stood as the cornerstone for anti-Catholic persecution. Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act of 1559 set the stage for larger conflict between Catholics and the authority of the monarchy in establishing the supremacy of the monarch over that of the papacy as the law of the land. Elizabeth declared herself Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and instituted an Oath of Supremacy, requiring anyone taking public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church and State. Anyone refusing to take the Oath could be charged with treason. There were three levels of penalties for refusal to take the Oath of Supremacy. A first refusal to resulted in the loss of all movable goods. A second offence could mean life in prison and a loss of all real estate possessions. A third offence would result in a charge of High Treason and death.

The rejection of the authority of the papacy on secular grounds and the establishment of Elizabeth as the supreme governor of the church stands as one of the most significant aspects of the 1559 Act of Supremacy, “ 'I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, has, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities.”(1) This conflict between Elizabeth and the authority of the Pope stands as a significant development in the larger trends toward anti-Catholicism. Still however, the most daunting and broad aspect of the 1559 Act of Supremacy was the institution of an oath which forced all those in public life from ecclesiastical matters to political to swear an oath upholding the supremacy of Elizabeth. The oath was designed to be a form of enforcement which specifically targeted Catholics in challenging their beliefs in viewing the papacy as the supreme governor in ecclesiastical manners. This direct conflict with Catholics and the administration of justice in a manner which excluded Catholics from public and ecclesiastical life displays the first of many laws established in a larger trend towards anti-Catholicism, “And that it may be also enacted, that if any such archbishop, bishop, or other ecclesiastical officer or minister, or any of the said temporal judges, justiciaries, or other lay officer or minister, shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take or receive the said oath, that then he so refusing shall forfeit and lose, only during his life, all and every ecclesiastical and spiritual promotion, benefice, and office, and every temporal and lay promotion and office.”(2)

Act of Uniformity

Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity of 1559 established another aspect of anti-Catholicism in attempting to both unify the Church of England as well as compel all subjects to attend Protestant church services. The Act of Uniformity established the grounds for recusancy in punishing those who did not attend Protestant church services with fines and censure, “upon pain of punishment by the censures of the Church, and also upon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence, to be levied by the churchwardens of the parish where such offence shall be done, to the use of the poor of the same parish, of the goods, lands, and tenements of such offender, by way of distress.”(3) Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity established an interesting dynamic between Catholic families who could afford to pay the fine of twelve pence versus poorer families who could not afford the fines. In establishing this precedent, the fines for recusancy would increase as the larger trends of anti-Catholicism became fiercer. The larger legal condemnation of recusants would culminate in the Act Against Recusants of 1593 restricting the movement of recusants within five miles of their homes.(4) If recusants were caught further than this five-mile limit, their properties would be forfeit to the state.

Still however, it stands as significant to analyze Elizabeth’s Act against Jesuits and Seminarists of 1585 which set the stage for persecution of Catholic priests. The Act commanded all Roman Catholic priests to leave the country in 40 days or they would be punished for high treason, unless within the 40 days they swore an oath to obey the Queen. Those who harbored them, and all those who knew of their presence and failed to inform the authorities would be fined and imprisoned for felony. The significance of the Act stands in the escalation of conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Previous laws were much less severe in their treatment of Catholics, however, Elizabeth’s Act against Jesuits and Seminarists set up the potential for execution and martyrdom of Catholic priests who refused to comply, “And every person which after the end of the same forty days, and after such time of departure as is before limited and appointed, shall wittingly and willingly receive, relieve, comfort, aid, or maintain any such Jesuit, seminary priest, or other priest, deacon, or religious or ecclesiastical person, as is aforesaid, being at liberty, or out of hold, knowing him to be a Jesuit, seminary priest, or other such priest, deacon, or religious or ecclesiastical person, as is aforesaid, shall also for such offence be adjudged a felon, without benefit of clergy, and suffer death, lose, and forfeit, as in case of one attainted of felony.”(5) The trends of anti-Catholicism had become more severe and restrictive over the reign of Elizabeth, and it stands as significant to examine the larger political and cultural context which established this wave of persecution.

Context

In examining the broader trends toward anti-Catholic persecution, it becomes essential to analyze the larger political and cultural context over time. Though Elizabethan Anti-Catholic legislation was surely harsh, the realities of previous instances of Marian persecutions of Protestants stands as a significant indicator to Elizabeth’s Protestant reactions against Catholics. Mary’s persecution of Protestants who dissented against her attempted Catholic restoration can be viewed through the lens of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs which established the framework for anti-Catholic perspective. John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was first published in 1563 and provided a narrative emphasizing Protestant martyrs at the hands of Catholic cruelty. Foxe established a line of martyrs from English history, claiming the heretics of the Middle Ages for the Protestant cause. Foxe also began his narrative with the year 1000 depicting Pope Sylvester II as a sorcerer who conjured Satan inevitably portraying the Catholic church as being directly controlled by Satan himself.

By crafting a single narrative of English history in relation to Protestant martyrs being persecuted by the Catholic church, Foxe established a significant and defining framework for which English Protestants viewed themselves in opposition to Catholics. Foxe’s opposition to Catholicism stands as significant when contextualizing the nexus of political and religious conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism, “For as much as we are come now to the time of Quene Mary, when as so many were put to death for th e cause especially of the Masse, & the sacrament of thaltar (as they cal it) I thought it conuenient vpon thoccasion geuē, in the ingresse of this foresaid storie, first to prefixe before, by the way of preface, some declaratiõ collected out of diuers writers and autors, wherby to set forth to the reader the great absurditie, wicked abuse, and perilous idolatry of the Popish masse”(6) O.T. Hargrave describes Foxe’s exploitation of the Marian persecutions as a brilliant and influential example of Protestant propaganda, “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs masterfully exploited the Marian persecution, converting it, as Gordon Rupp put it, into the greatest single act of propaganda in history.”(7) The significance of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs lies in its influence on the creation of a proto-national mythology for English Protestants. From the philosophical and religious perspectives of Foxe, English Protestants crafted an identity in direct opposition to Catholicism whether domestic or foreign.

Foreign perspective

From the foreign perspective of English opposition to Catholicism, the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604 stands as a significant political and cultural event in reinforcing anti-Catholicism as a defining factor of the English public consciousness. While the war was never formally declared and largely amounted to English privateering attacks on Spanish vessels, one event stands as particularly significant in understanding the larger English trends of anti-Catholicism. In 1588, King Phillip II of Spain ordered an invasion of England to depose Elizabeth I and reinstitute Catholicism as well as stop English privateering attacks on Spanish vessels. The invasion was repelled by the English, but the most significant aspect of the Spanish defeat came from the destruction of the Armada when they attempted to retreat home around the coast of Scotland and Ireland. Due to inclement weather, over a third of the Armada was destroyed and never returned home. In dispelling the national mythology of an overwhelming success, Lawrence Stone argues that the English campaign against the Spanish was one marked by lack of money, victuals, ammunition, and the prevalence of disease, “The English preparations against the Armada in 1588 take on an aspect rather different from the traditional and perhaps heroic tale that is handed down in the history books.”(8) While the repelling of the Spanish did not represent an overwhelming military victory, English Protestants seized on the opportunity to argue that God had repelled the Catholic invaders by crashing their ships into the rocky shores. Mathew Haviland details with exuberance, the destruction of the Spanish Armada as a sign of Gods grace and his protection of England against papists,

Two works of equall grace, but greater wonder,

The Lord hath done for us, past all mans reason;

When Papists did attempt to bring us under

By Spains huge Army and damn'd Percie's treason.

I, and my house these great things will remember,

And in remembrance sanctifie two days,

In August one, the other in November;

  Both made by GOD for us to give him praise(9)

Haviland’s poem was published in 1636 and represents the culmination of Protestant attitudes towards Catholics as both an ecclesiastical and political threat to the sovereignty of England. In reexamining the events of the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588, Haviland also details another significant event in the larger trends toward English anti-Catholicism, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

James I

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 represents a significant attempt by Catholic separatists to overthrow the monarch and parliament in hopes of reestablishing Catholicism as the religion of England. While there were previous plots at the life of Elizabeth such as the Ridolfi Plot of 1571, the Throckmorton Plot of 1583, and the Babington Plot of 1586, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 stood as especially significant when understanding the context of English anti-Catholicism. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 stood as a Catholic reaction to the hopes that James I in succeeding Elizabeth I would reign in a manner more tolerant to English Catholics.

While James I was certainly a Protestant Calvinist, the reality that he was the son of Mary Queen of Scotts, a Catholic, stood as a hopeful prospect for English Catholics. When it became evident that James I would continue the broader trends of English anti-Catholicism and persecution, the hopelessness of the situation led some fanatics to attempt to assassinate James. Led by Robert Catesby and a handful of co-conspirators such as Thomas Percy, and Guy Fawkes, the Catholic traitors attempted to blow up the House of Lords on November 5th, 1605. They were discovered and subsequently charged with treason resulting in multiple executions and a broader crackdown on Catholics throughout England. Immediately after the assassination attempt James released a proclamation declaring the conspirators as “bitterly corrupted with the superstition of the Romish Religion.”(10) Mark Nicholls provides an intriguing perspective in understanding the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 within the context of English Catholic perspective, “Revenge was directed against erstwhile friends as well as professed enemies. Rather than suffering from inadequate support among the peerage, the energy and drive of the Gunpowder Plot depended on an us against them mentality, defensive, reactionary, at odds not only with the Protestant establishment but also with much of that sustaining powerhouse of English Catholicism, the conservative Catholic aristocracy and wealthier gentry.”(11) The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 stood as equally significant in nature to the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Once again, the forces of papists had been thwarted by providence in protecting the Protestant nation of England from Catholicism. It stands as a significant unification of the English Protestant ideologies which saw Catholicism as both a theological and philosophical threat as well as a political threat in being the religion of England’s enemies.

Fatal Vespers

A lesser known but equally intriguing event, the incident of the Fatal Vespers in 1623 displays another aspect of the larger trend of Protestant justification of Catholic suffering. The Fatal Vespers incident of 1623 was the collapse of a building in Black Friars in which a clandestine Roman Catholic Mass was being observed. The collapse resulted in 95 deaths including the two priests present at the Mass. Protestants utilized the disaster as a further display of God’s rejection of Catholicism. Some Protestants were careful to contextualize the event as a tragedy for those involved but also a justified occurrence ordained by God, “For the time, it was between three and foure of the clocke upon Sunday, which was the six and twentieth of October, according to the English computation, as they were hearing of a sermon, and celebrating after than Evensong(if God had not prevented it) according to the rites of the Roman Church.”(12)

In understanding the movement of perception and culture towards Catholicism, Alexandra Washam’s exploration of the Fatal Vesper event stands as a consequential moment in understanding the larger mythos and collective consciousness of the changing Protestant nation of England in reference to Catholicism. The Fatal Vespers disaster represents a cultural moment in which English Protestants amidst the uncertainty of a potential Habsburg alliance and warfare with Catholic Spain culminated in larger cultural reverberations of anti-Catholicism. Walsham points to the interrelation of popular royalism and anti-popery as a unifying cultural force in opposing Catholicism.(13)

The ease for which English Protestants were capable of justifying a tragedy in which Catholics died in mass numbers displays the broader trends of anti-Catholicism throughout English society. With the larger context of anti-Catholic legislation in tandem with larger political and national anxieties regarding England’s enemies, the Fatal Vesper incident provides an intriguing glance into the Protestant justification for Catholic persecution.

Legislation in context

In contextualizing the anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth with broader political and cultural events, the significance of the increasing tides of anti-Catholic sentiment become apparent. Without the Protestant English mythology created by John Foxe, subsequent events and conflicts between Protestants and Catholics would not be connective in nature. John Foxe’s polemical unity between theological and political perspective provides the framework for which all events between Catholics and Protestants would be perceived by English Protestants. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs establishes the nexus for which subsequent Catholic and Protestant interactions would gain their significance in a larger narrative regarding the perceived abuses and injustices of the Catholics wrought on Protestants. From Foxe’s creation of this proto-national mythology, the anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth provided the tools for which the kingdom could persecute Catholics who refused to conform to the English Protestant identity. In turning now to those Catholics who experienced persecution and martyrdom, the larger perspective can be contextualized within the lives of individuals who were affected by these broader trends.

When examining these larger changes throughout the law of England in reference to rising anti-Catholicism it becomes important to both contextualize the larger historiographical debates as well as the perspective from Catholic individuals who would be prosecuted according to these changing laws. While it is tempting to view the Catholic community in England following the Reformation as a larger continuation of medieval traditional pre-Reformation Catholicism, scholar John Bossy argues against such interpretations. Bossy points to a continental mission-driven direction in establishing England, a now Protestant nation, as a point of missions from Catholic authorities on the continent. In this regard, Bossy points to the Catholicism that persisted under the reign of Elizabeth I as both a dissident religious reaction to the workings of the Church of England as well as a continental missionary importation.(14)  While this interpretation is important in understanding the English Protestant perspective in persecuting Catholicism, it does not take into account the theological continuation of early modern English Catholicism and the importance of the Pope as the supreme authority of English Catholics, rather than the monarch. This very tenet of political and theological perspective is essential in understanding the larger English Catholic perspective in relation to the concept of hierarchy. John Southworth, a priest who was tried under the Elizabethan Anti-Priest Legislation of 1585, detailed this very criticism of both the government of England as well as the theological subversion of its larger rejection of Catholic hierarchy, “The Angels in Heaven did rebel against God through pride, but how were they punished? Not all the whole Hierarchy of Angels destroyed, but they onely who offended; the other Angels remained still in glory. So I say, if any Catholicks shall offend the Law, and not shew themselves true obedient Subjects, let those who offend be severely punished, and not for one mans particular offence punish all.”(15)  Southworth’s criticism established during his execution speech displays both aspects of the continuation of Catholic hierarchical traditionalism as well as a degree of dissidence in attempting to lobby for a larger liberty of conscience for Catholics throughout the kingdom.

Loyalty versus theology

In attempting to understand the issue of loyalty versus theology it becomes essential to consult the historiographical debates regarding these larger issues. While some scholars contend that the execution of priests stands as an obvious example of state violence exacted in the name of ideological and theological conformity, others argue that the lines were much more blurred and multidirectional than are perceived. Alexandra Walsham provides a framework for this nuanced perspective in attempting to explore the complex nature of persecution and toleration which existed in the world of anti-Catholicism. While the kingdom might have changed from Protestantism to Catholicism, the populace still bore many aspects of traditional beliefs established in the older Church. In this regard, Walsham argues that private consciences did not always match public behavior and many aspects of religion on the ground were treated differently than the larger attitudes established by the government.(16) While some Catholics stood in direct opposition to the political and theological changes present within the structure of England, others attempted to walk a fine line in retaining their religious liberty as well as standing loyal to the English monarchy. The Petition of the Catholic Laity of 1604 established both the grievances with which Catholic citizens believed they were held from the whole of public life due to anti-Catholic legislation as well as their utmost loyalty and reverence for the monarchy,

“We are but halfe men, if men at all, whome in these later dayes and times no man durst defend, countenance, conuerse with, or imploy, and (as your Maiestie hath well saied) we are in deede but halfe subjects, not that our bodies, mindes, willes, wittes, vnderstandinges, sences, memories, judgementes, intentions; or our breathes, bloudes, or liues are deuided, or deuouted to the supreame honour or seruice of any terrene creature, other then your Maiesty only.”(17)

The question of loyalty in the face of a changing political and theological continuum stands as one of the most consequential issues in attempting to understand the larger framework of anti-Catholicism.

In addressing larger questions of loyalty versus theology, the reality of persecution must be deconstructed through diverging frameworks. While the English Kingdom maintained its interests were solely rooted in the crime of treason based upon Catholic loyalty to the papacy rather than the English monarchy, this reasoning constituted an aspect of persecution.

Peter Lake and Michael Questier detail this divergence from both the perspective of the kingdom as well as the multidirectional nature of power which flowed through government, felon, and religious ideology. While outwardly it may appear that all power in these interactions between the government and those who were tried flowed from the direction of the government, Lake and Questier argue that these interactions were not unidirectional in nature.(18) Take for instance, the example provided earlier in the execution and final confession of John Southworth. While it appears the government had the power to monopolize violence and execute Southworth in the name of ideological and theological conformity, the reality that Southworth was allowed a position to argue his perspective in the form of dissidence against the government and the uniformity of religion points to a more nuanced and multidirectional flow of ideological power. The stage for which those executed in the name of religious uniformity were given to address their grievances or repent provides another way of analyzing the interactions between the government, the felon, and religious ideology within a larger continuum.

Protestant perspective

In exploring the larger debates of Catholic persecution, it stands as significant to understand the Protestant perspective in justifying the persecution of priests through the framework of the law. James Balmford details the divergence between what Protestants perceived as secular matters rather than religious, “It is not to be denied, that Priests are executed for affirming the Popes primacy, and reconciling to the pretended Church of Rome, &c. which are points of their supposed religion: But yet they are not executed for these (or like) points or partes as they be religious, but as they be trayterous, or dangerous to the state, in ciuill consideration. For, if Priests were executed for these, or like points, as they be religious, then the Church would proceed against them in Ecclesiasticall maner, before the secular power execute ciuill punishment.”(19) This perspective from Balford shows a willingness to view the persecution of priests from a secular perspective relating to the Acts of Supremacy, but also to display a justification for religious persecution, if necessary, in ecclesiastical matters.

While this position stood as the orthodoxy of anti-Catholic persecution throughout the period it was not the only perspective within the public realm of print. Cardinal William Allen professed a defense of the Catholic faith in the face of rising persecution and anti-Catholic laws throughout the Elizabethan period. William Allen’s perspective provided a grounded appraisal against the larger tides of anti-Catholicism. William Allen addresses Catholic persecution directly in attempting to walk a fine line of respecting the monarch but also in lobbying for a greater degree of religious tolerance for Catholics, “We are not so peruerslie affected (God be praised) as purposelie to dishonour our Prince and Countrie, for whos loue in Christ, so manie haue so meeklie lost their liues: or to reueale their turpitude, which we would rather couer (if it were possible) from the eyes of the world with our owne blood: but we set forth the truth of al thes actions, for the honour of our nation, which otherwise to her infinite shame and reproche, would be thought wholie and generallie to haue reuolted from the Catholique faith.”(20) The importance of William Allen’s address stands as a significant aspect of the difficult place Catholics found themselves as subjects in a Protestant kingdom. While some outwardly rejected the authority of the monarch and attempted to rebel through recusancy and mission efforts, others like Allen attempted to walk a fine line in recognizing the authority of the monarch while also defending their perspectives as Catholics.

Anti-Catholic sentiment

Another interesting example of anti-Catholic sentiment can be found in pamphlets relating to the arrest of the Jesuit priest Edmund Campion. In the writings of George Ellyot, the tides of anti-Catholic sentiment are presented clearly in opposition to the ministry and perceived treason of campion, “where like vagrant persons, (refusing to liuewithin the lawful gouernment of their coūtrey) they lead a loose life, wandring & running hither and thither, from shire to shire, and countrey to countrey, with such store of Romish relikes, popish pelfe, trifles & trash, as were able to make any Christian hearte (that hath seene the tryall of such practifes as I haue done) eue for sorrow.”(21) Campion, a English Catholic priest was running a clandestine ministry attempting to facilitate Catholic conversions in Protestant England. Upon arrest for treason as a priest, Campion was tortured and eventually hung, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. The martyrdom of Edmond Campion stands as a significant aspect of the larger trends of anti-Catholicism established both in theological and political perspective throughout Protestant England.

Through the laws of Elizabeth I, the establishment of anti-Catholicism as a legal and political doctrine throughout England became exceedingly important. The Act of Supremacy of 1559 established Elizabeth as the supreme governor of matters both political and ecclesiastical, creating conflict between English Catholics and the government. The oath of allegiance set forth in the Act of Supremacy created an arm for enforcement in forcing Catholics to conform to the law of the kingdom whether they agreed to or not. Moving from the Act of Supremacy of 1559, the Act of Uniformity unified the Church of England within Protestant philosophy and forced Catholics to either conform to attending Protestant church services or pay fines as punishment for their disobedience. The waves of anti-Catholic legislation culminated in both the Act against Jesuits and Seminarists of 1585, which provided the tools for the persecution of priests, as well as a resolute offense against Catholicism as a continental missionary effort in attempting to win Catholic converts in Protestant England. The trends of rising anti-Catholicism are prevalent when considering the anti-Catholic legislation of Elizabeth’s reign. Elizabeth’s reign represents the most consequential and significant aspect of the broader trends toward anti-Catholicism and religious persecution in post-reformation England.

Still however, the larger political and cultural shifts emanating from John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs remains one of the most important determining factors in understanding English anti-Catholicism as a unifying proto national force. Foxe’s narrative, which established the mythology for English Protestantism, provided the fuel for both conceptions of English Protestant identity as well as persecutions of Catholics on both theological and political grounds. The overarching narrative of innocent Protestants persecuted by papal tyranny provides the grounds for all subsequent Protestant and Catholic conflicts and justifications for persecutions of Catholics. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 builds into the larger national mythos in displaying the divine providence which protected England from the papist invasion of Catholic Spain. While the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 did not represent a decisive military victory, the reality of Spain’s defeat at the hands of stormy weather fueled a larger narrative of Protestant triumphalism against Catholic invaders. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in tandem with the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 as well as the Fatal Vespers disaster of 1623 provide an intriguing and convincing exploration of the conceptions of English proto nationalism tied directly to the currents of anti-Catholicism. While the political and cultural conceptions of Protestantism as a unifying force in the public consciousness of England exists as a significant aspect of the larger trends of anti-Catholicism and religious persecution, the importance of Catholic martyrs cannot be understated. The martyrdom of individuals persecuted through the theological and political framework of Protestant England remains one of the most significant factors in understanding the broader trends toward anti-Catholicism.

Conclusion

Through the writings of martyred priests, such as John Southworth and Edmund Campion, the reality of Catholic persecution can be discerned in a concrete and personal manner. The persecution of Catholic priests stemming from the Elizabethan Anti-Catholic legislation posits a significant aspect of understanding the connection between political and theological anti-Catholic trends. While many of the justifications for persecuting priests such as Southworth and Campion exist within a secular manner, the larger cultural and political changes throughout England point towards a complicated arc of anti-Catholicism based in a mix of political and theological ideology.Throughout this paper, multiple accounts of anti-Catholic sentiment and legal doctrine have been introduced in a manner which attempts to comprehend the nuances of anti-Catholicism as both a theological and a political motivator. While it is impossible to explore every aspect of anti-Catholic sentiment from the reign of Elizabeth onwards, the interrogation of primary and secondary sources provides a larger narrative in understanding the changing political, cultural, and theological consensus throughout England. In compiling this body of research, the goal of attempting to provide a counter narrative in the revisionist tradition remains the foremost objective. By countering the historical Protestant triumphalism of the post-Reformation age with an analysis of the wider currents of anti-Catholicism provides a deeper look at the English Protestant persecution of Catholics. Despite the presentation of the post-reformation Protestant triumph over Catholicism whether from a political or religious standpoint, from the reign of Elizabeth onward, broader trends pointed toward an age of English anti-Catholicism and religious persecution in the name of uniformity. The reality of English anti-Catholicism proves the reality of religious persecution from Protestants to Catholics as well as the institution of anti-Catholicism as a formative and powerful unifying force in the changing conception of English nationhood.

What do you think of anti-Catholicism in early modern England? Let us know below.

Now read Roy’s article on the 1914-23 Armenian Genocide here.

References

1 Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act, 1559, 1, Eliz.,C.1.

2 Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act, 1559, 1, Eliz.,C.1.

3 Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.2.

4 Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.2.

5 Act Against Jesuits and Seminarists, 1585, 27, Eliz., C.2.

6 John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments (London, 1563), 957.

7 O. T., Hargrave “Bloody Mary’s Victims: The Iconography of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 51, no. 1 (1982): 7–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42973872.

8 Lawrence, Stone. “The Armada Campaign of 1588.” History 29, no. 110 (1944): 120–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24401778.

9 Matthew Haviland, A Monument Of Gods Most Gracious Preservation Of England From Spanish Invasion (London, 1635), 1.

10 James I. By The King Whereas Thomas Percy Gentleman, And Some Other His Confederates, Persons Knowen To Be So Vtterly Corrupted With The Superstition Of The Romish Religion (London, 1605), 1.

11 Mark, Nicholls. “Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot.” The Historical Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 787–807. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175128.

12 John Hauiland, The Fatall Vesper (London, 1623), 5.

13 Alexandra, Walsham.“‘The Fatall Vesper’: Providentialism and Anti-Popery in Late Jacobean London,” Past & Present 144 (1994): 36–87.

14 John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 35-50.

15 John Southworth, The Last Speech And Confession Of Mr. John Sovthworth (London, 1679), 2.

16 Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance And Intolerance In England, 1500-1700 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 23-30.

17 John Mogar, A Petition Apologeticall (England, 1604), 36.

18 Peter Lake and Michael Questier, “Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows,” Past and Present 153 (1996): 65–107.

19 James Balmford, Priests Are Executed Not For Religion, But For Treason (London, 1600), 5.

20 William Allen, A True, Sincere And Modest Defence, Of English Catholiques (Rouen, 1584), 1.

21 George Ellyot, A Very True Report Of The Apprehension And Taking Of That Arche Papist Edmond Campion (London, 1581), 3.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Act Against Jesuits and Seminarists, 1585, 27, Eliz., C.2.

Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.2.

Elizabeth’s Supremacy Act, 1559, 1, Eliz., C.1.

The Act Against Recusants, 1593, 35, Eliz., C.2.

Allen, William. A True, Sincere And Modest Defence, Of English Catholiques. Rouen, 1584.

Balmford, James. Priests Are Executed Not For Religion, But For Treason. London, 1600.

James I. By The King Whereas Thomas Percy Gentleman, And Some Other His Confederates, Persons Knowen To Be So Vtterly Corrupted With The Superstition Of The Romish Religion. London, 1605.

Ellyot, George. A Very True Report Of The Apprehension And Taking Of That Arche Papist Edmond Campion. London, 1581.

Foxe, John. The Acts and Monuments. London, 1563.

Hauiland, John. The Fatall Vesper. London, 1623.

Haviland, Matthew. A Monument Of Gods Most Gracious Preservation Of England From Spanish Invasion. London, 1635.

Mogar, John. A Petition Apologeticall. England, 1604.

Southworth, John. The Last Speech And Confession Of Mr. John Sovthworth. London, 1679.

Secondary Sources

Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).

Hargrave, O. T. “Bloody Mary’s Victims: The Iconography of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 51, no. 1 (1982): 7–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42973872.

Nicholls, Mark. “Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot.” The Historical Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 787–807. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20175128.

Questier Michael, and Lake Peter “Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows,” Past and Present 153 (1996): 65–107.

Stone, Lawrence. “The Armada Campaign of 1588.” History 29, no. 110 (1944): 120–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24401778.

Walsham, Alexandra. Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500-1700, Politics, Culture, and Society in Early Modern Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006).

Walsham, Alexandra.“‘The Fatall Vesper’: Providentialism and Anti-Popery in Late Jacobean London,” Past & Present 144 (1994): 36–87.

Major General Gordon in China and the Taiping Rebellion

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

Gordon shortly after the Crimean War.

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

Crimea

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

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

China

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

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

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

Events in China

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

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

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

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

Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

Legendary Musician Robert Johnson: Me and the Devil Blues

It is one of music’s great mysteries that one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century has remained unknown to a vast number of people. The story of this man’s life is one of myth, folklore, and legend. His playing technique and general style have gone on to inspire countless musicians. These include Bob Dylan, Keith Richards, and most notably, Eric Clapton who claimed him be ‘the most important blues singer who ever lived.’ This man is Robert Johnson.

Matt Austin explains.

The crossroads where Robert Johnson supposedly sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for his Blues skills, according to the myth. It is at Clarksdale, Mississippi. Source: Joe Mazzola, available here.

To those who are even slightly aware of Robert Johnson, there is one resounding detail that is synonymous with his name. This is the tale that the legendary blues singer visited a Mississippi crossroads late one night where he sold his soul to the Devil, and in return, was granted exceptional musical talent.(2) This myth lies at the heart of Johnson’s otherwise relatively unknown life and as such it has become impossible to focus on the impact of this great musician without this looming detail.

The legend of the deal with the Devil is nothing new in the music world. This story traditionally derives from Germanic folklore, whereby the fictional character Faust surrendered his soul to an evil spirit in exchange for otherwise unattainable knowledge and power.(3) This phenomenon has therefore become known in Western culture as the ‘Faustian Bargain.’(4) The notion that hugely successful musicians had attained their talent through supernatural means was first explored as a popular theme in the 18th Century. Early examples of this include classical violinists Giuseppe Tartini and Niccolo Paganini, the latter considered by many to be ‘the greatest violin virtuosi to have ever lived.’(5)

This popular music myth exploded in the early 20th century, with numerous individuals earning connections to the Devil. This includes jazz composer Ferdinand ‘Jelly Roll’ Morton and blues musicians Peetie Wheatstraw and namesake of Robert, Tommy Johnson.(6) In addition, this theme is not without its place in slightly more recent music history. Most notably, both Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison were thought to have developed ties with the supernatural.(7) Even the Rolling Stones were not immune, as they jumped on the Satanic Bandwagon with their 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”. This, however, was no real surprise given lead guitarist, Keith Richard’s, absolute fascination with the blues and Johnson in particular.

Leading historians on Johnson, Gayle Dean Wardlow and Bruce Conforth, have been determined in their efforts to highlight the real story of the mythical bluesman. They have fervently denied any links to the crossroads or the supernatural, instead shifting their focus onto Johnson’s actual life, which remains ‘obscure, save for a few inaccurate anecdotes.’(8) What we do know for certain about Johnson is that he was born in 1911, and died in 1938 almost without a trace, save for 42 recordings, consisting of 29 original tracks and 13 alternative takes, in addition to a couple of grainy promotional photographs.

Life

From the impressive amount of information that historians have painstakingly managed to piece together about Johnson’s life, it is understood that he split most of his time between his biological family in the Mississippi Delta, and his adopted family in the bustling city of Memphis, Tennessee. While his experiences in 1920s Memphis may have first inspired Johnson to pick up a guitar, it was in the heart of the Delta where he would truly hone his skills, as he travelled along the Mississippi river, stopping wherever he could to perform at small-town juke joints and bars. It was during this time that he realised he could earn more money by playing his guitar than working in the fields.(9) Following his family into a life of sharecropping was not going to cut it for the young Johnson. He wanted to play the Blues. This passion and desire for music led to him becoming a highly renowned bluesman in the Delta region, and as his skills developed, so did his reputation. He was soon more popular than artists he had once looked up to, such as Charley Patton, Son House, and Willie Brown. As a result of this, after several years of performing for local audiences in the Delta, Johnson successfully auditioned and earned his opportunity to become a recorded artist in 1936.(10) This was an unimaginable privilege for an impoverished African American from the Deep South. He would however, only get the chance to record once more following his debut session and no sooner had Johnson achieved his dream, his playing days were over with his untimely death in 1938 at the age of just 27.

The facts surrounding Johnson’s death are largely unclear and much like his life, it has remained a thing of myth and mystery. Wardlow and Conforth, in their efforts to promote the most accurate account of Johnson, refer to the story of fellow bluesman David ‘Honeyboy’ Edwards.(11) His account has been deemed by far the most reliable, lacking any romanticism or falsehoods. In essence, Johnson, a notorious ladies man, began flirting with a married woman at a Delta juke joint in which he was playing.(12) The woman’s husband soon became enraged with jealously and he slipped Johnson a glass of poisoned whiskey, which, following several days of extreme sickness, eventually killed him.(13) In a cruel twist of fait, it was the three things Johnson had held most dear: women, whiskey and the Blues, that ultimately cost him his life.

Legacy

Following his death, popular knowledge of Robert Johnson remained very limited for many years. It wasn’t until 1959 that his music was first made widely accessible. This occurred as a result of historian Samuel Charters’ landmark book The Country Blues, in which he introduced the public to Johnson’s music, claiming that ‘almost nothing is known about his (Johnson’s) life.’(14) This still echoes true today and what exists now is a messy concoction of fact and fiction. It is within the murky waters of Johnson’s story where the myth of the Devil at the crossroads shines most bright. This is due to a number of factors. One of which being the abundance of unreliable recollections from Johnson’s contemporaries, most notably that of Son House, whose accounts of Johnson dramatically altered throughout the years. Blues fans rediscovered House in 1964, as the singer had largely vanished from the public eye during the Second World War. Following his rediscovery, he subsequently released new music and was frequently interviewed about his former life in the Delta. His story about Johnson attested to the fact that the young musician did leave the Delta for a period of several months in his early career. When he left, he was an enthusiastic, yet mediocre guitarist, but when he returned, he was a confident and established bluesman who could outplay his contemporaries with minimal effort.(15) Another key factor that would later fan the flames of the crossroads myth, are the serial misinterpretations of these accounts by historians and folklorists. Many have inserted their own personal beliefs into the story, implying that House’s comments indicated that Johnson had gained his exceptional talent through some supernatural force, which House never alluded to.(16) Nevertheless, the lack of information surrounding his life, combined with the fascinations of historians and fans alike, formed the core building blocks upon which a largely fictionalised portrayal of Johnson has developed.

Additionally, the crossroads story has had a somewhat negative impact on Johnson’s legacy, in that it significantly takes away from his ability as a musician. Whether he met the Devil or not, he was without doubt an exceptionally gifted guitarist, whose technique and style has set the standard for modern Blues. As such, his music has inspired countless musicians and his name has become synonymous with the genre.

Crossroads

Nevertheless, Robert Johnson’s visit to the crossroads is undeniably a watershed moment in music history. This event, albeit a myth shrouded in mystery and scepticism, has gone on to define not only Johnson’s life, but also the Blues as a genre. Many of Johnson’s recordings were highly evocative of his connection to the supernatural; arguably his most famous song, “Cross Road Blues” depicts his infamous deal with the Devil. Meanwhile one listen to the ghostly “Hellhound on My Trail”, is enough to understand that he certainly portrayed a deeply troubled individual. It is easy to observe therefore, how a man whose life left much to the imagination, has become a fascinating subject of mythical proportions. The small collection of eerie recordings left behind by Johnson, several of which made months before his death, only serve as a haunting reminder of the tragic reality of a young, flawed, but highly skilled and ambitious musician.

The Blues and the supernatural have developed an intrinsic connection, to the point of becoming almost inseparable, and it is Robert Johnson, the man who walked side by side with the Devil, whose legacy has evolved into the ultimate embodiment of music’s most captivating legend.

What do you think of Robert Johnson’s life? Let us know below.

1 Stephen LaVere, The Complete Recordings (Box Set Booklet). Robert Johnson. (New York: Columbia Records, 1990), in an essay by Eric Clapton, 23.

2 Patricia R. Schroeder, Robert Johnson, Mythmaking, and Contemporary American Culture (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 1.

3 “Faustian Bargain,” Britannica, accessed 14/05/2022, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Faustian-bargain.

4 Ibid.

5 Alex James Taylor, “Faustian Pacts: Musicians said to have made deals with the Devil,” 13 May 2019, Satanic Verses, Hero Magazine, accessed 14/05/2022, https://hero-magazine.com/article/148564/faustian-pacts-musicians-said-to-have-made-deals-with-the-devil.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Bruce Conforth and Gayle Dean Wardlow, Up Jumped the Devil: The Real Life of Robert Johnson (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2019), 1.

9 Ibid, 65.

10 Ibid, 143-144.

11 Ibid, 253-254

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid, 1

15 Ibid, 117-118.

16 Ibid.

The Sinking of the British Ship Lancastria in June 1940: A Personal Tale

Here, Michael Sheldrick explains his personal story about the Lancastria tragedy that took place 82 years ago today on June 17, 1940…

June 1940 was a month that changed the course of the Second World War. It was both Britain’s darkest hour, and witness to a tragedy that remains little known to this day; a tragedy that changed my family, forever.

The sinking of the Lancastria in 1940.

As a child growing up in Britain in the 1990s, my sister and I would every so often be left with my grandmother, Claire. A tiny, frail woman, Claire lived in a terrace house in the oldest part of Swindon (an area locals these days refer to colloquially as “Old Town”).

Owing to Claire’s serial chain smoking ways, a stale cigarette odor lingered in every nook and cranny. To avoid the unpleasant smell, I would usually eat meals in the back garden. I can picture it clearly: me eating tinned meatballs, Claire sipping re-heated coffee while lighting herself yet another cigarette. By that point in her life, Claire rarely had much of an appetite except on the rare occasion she would pour a cup of leftover lukewarm coffee over a bowl of Kellogg's corn flakes, garnished of course with raisins.

With the best of Vera Lynn audible from inside, I would ask Claire all about “The War.” She always referred to the Second World War as “The War”, such was the overbearing impact the conflict had on her, and by extension, our life. Claire would recount to me her experiences as a young woman working with what was then known as the Auxiliary Territorial Service, which tasked women with a range of vital roles during the Second World War. In my Grandmother’s case, she was charged with assisting Anti-Aircraft operations. It was one conversation in particular, long buried in my subconsciousness, that would suddenly return to me decades later.

Claire had told me that she had decided to sign up to the ‘war effort’ following news that her older brother Colin, serving as a soldier in France, was missing in action. I distinctly remember asking Claire what happened to him. Looking in the distance, as if talking more to herself than me, she described how Colin had been aboard a ship that had been bombed by the luftwaffe and his body had never been discovered. She said there was a grave somewhere in France but “of course, there is nothing beneath it.” As far as I recall her saying, no one had visited it.

Decades later

Claire passed away shortly after sharing that story. Decades went by and Colin’s story retreated to the far recesses of my mind. That is until a hot summer's day in August, 2019. I was on the New York subway, traveling to where I now work, listening to an audible book about a journalist trying to recover the remains of an American soldier who had died in Japan during WWII. The journalist was explaining that official US policy holds that the US Government is committed to recovering the remains of any and all American soldiers who died during the course of duty.

Suddenly, my mind lit up. I could hear Claire’s words re-telling Colin’s fate, along with many unanswered questions. How exactly did Colin die? What ship was he on that was bombed? Where is his grave, and the ship, now? And why didn’t anyone in my family seem to know the answers?

I spoke with both my dad and his older brother, my uncle, as a starting point. Unfortunately, they knew little more than what Claire had told me decades ago. My uncle told me that he remembered someone once telling him that Colin had died during the British evacuation at Dunkirk apparently due to the betrayal of a shipmaster who had given the ship’s departure time and location to the Germans. But he admitted, he could not remember correctly if that is exactly what he heard. It's simply the case, they both told me, and in a departure from today’s tendency to overshare, that those who served in The War, such as both their parents, did not discuss these things in too much detail.

My own research quickly hit a dead end. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC), generally pretty comprehensive and accessible online, had no trace of a ‘Colin Thomas’ born in 1918 and with recognizable parents. It was like he never existed.

Then finally, one Saturday evening, late into the night, I realized my error. An error based on a very simple oversight, and yet one that remarkably no one else had picked up on either. My mum had sent over scans of a very old black and white photo of a four month old Colin, dated June, 1918, that she found amongst Claire’s old possessions. Only it had “Baby John Colin Lee Thomas' ' written on the back. Aha! Although it seems he went by Colin all his life, his full name had been lost to history. Armed with this new information, I went back to the CWGC archives and just minutes later I was staring at a picture of what appeared to be my Grand Uncle’s name on a memorial plaque at the Commonwealth War Graves section of Dunkirk Town Cemetery.

Uncovering the mystery

“I’ve found him…” I remember murmuring out loud to my housemate as I scrolled down. There he was: Private John Colin Thomas, died 17 June 1940, aged 22, Son of John Weldon Thomas and Amy Thomas, of Hall Green, Birmingham; my great grandparents.

On the surface at least it seemed like my uncle might have been right. Judging by the location of his memorial plaque, had Colin died in the Dunkirk evacuation? Not quite. Some quick googling revealed that the final evacuation from Dunkirk had taken place on June 4th, 13 days prior to when Colin had officially died. Something wasn’t right.

Further digging eventually revealed that Colin had actually ‘died’ some 335 miles south of Dunkirk, off the coast of the small port town of Saint-Nazaire, aboard the SS Lancastria, the sinking of which, as I would soon discover, remains the largest single loss of life in British maritime history. Indeed, more people died in this tragedy than that of the death toll from the sinking of the Titanic and Lusitania combined. Now I had found my uncle, I dove into the Lancastria’s story; a story I ashamedly hadn’t even known the existence of.

Colin at the age of 22, as he would have been in 1940. Courtesy: Michael Sheldrick, shown with full permission.

Lancastria

The SS Lancastria was a 16,243-ton, five decked ship that up until the outbreak of war in 1939 had been a lavish luxury cruise liner. It toured the Norwegian fjords, and across the Mediterranean and West Indies before being hastily requisitioned by the British Government and outfitted as a troop ship. It spent the early months of the war ferrying soldiers back and forth from Canada to the UK, assisted in the evacuation of Norway, before finally being called upon to play a pivotal role in ‘Operation Ariel’; the name of the lesser known campaign that followed the aftermath of the evacuation of Dunkirk. The scenes leading up to it were no less dramatic.

Overwhelmed by the might of the Nazi blitzkrieg, French defenses had quickly collapsed in the days following the last departure from Dunkirk. Countless civilian refugees, French soldiers and the vast remainder of British forces in France - some 150,000 men - hurriedly escaped south. On June 14th, an urgent call went out to the crew of Lancastria, then docked in Liverpool, to make haste for the French port of Saint Nazaire. That very same day, the Nazis occupied Paris. Things were dire.

Colin, I discovered, was by this point based at a weapons and equipment storage base at Nantes, the old historical capital of Brittany located about 40 miles from the sea. Having been an articled clerk prior to the war, Colin was one of many support troops, engineers, repair men, transport and communications staff, wireless operators, air force ground crew, store minders, cooks, bakers, and clerks that supplied the main British Expeditionary Force. Known collectively as “the Grocers,” the vast majority of these personnel were located, at least initially, far behind the main defense lines and most would never have expected to see conflict. Of course, few expected either that France would fall so quickly to the German onslaught.

In the wake of Paris’ capture, General Alan Brooke, the commander of all remaining British forces in France, pleaded with Churchill to issue a general order for evacuation. During an intense thirty minutes call in the early hours of June 15th, a desperate Brooke informed Churchill of the irreversible collapse in French morale saying it “was impossible to make a corpse feel.” Churchill relented and at 10am that same morning, a general evacuation order was given. Later that day, word reached my uncle’s base in Nantes.

As those at the base rushed to depart, numerous reports document a rushed frenzy ensuing to burn and destroy any equipment, vehicles and armaments that could not be carried out to prevent them from falling into German hands. Meanwhile, others helped themselves to remaining food and drink stockpiles. As 19-year-old Henry Harding from Wales would later recount: “Everything was thrown open… you could help yourself to whatever it was you wanted, so we took chocolate.”Then, with German planes already in control of the skies above, they headed out to converge on what author Johanthan Fenby describes as “the last escape hatch left.”

Within the next 24 hours, Saint Nazaire was overcrowded with British soldiers and refugees. Local French citizens cried as the British began clambering aboard requisitioned ocean liners. It was into this scene of chaos that the Lancastria would arrive the next day, June 17th. It was to prove a fateful day.

More than six thousand reportedly boarded the Lancastria with Colin’s corps amongst the very last to board. Those who had boarded first were greeted by men in fancy white uniforms with gold buttons who assigned them all rooms. While they waited for others to board, a lucky few tucked into sausages, bacon and eggs with hot buttered toast for breakfast. It must have been quite the comfort after days after a hurried dash to the coast.

Eventually though, the vessel was so cramped that officers pleaded with Lancastria’s Captain to take no more. He pushed back, saying he had been ordered to take as many as possible without respect to international law. They were all anxious to leave. They had good reason to be. There had been reports of other ships being attacked by the Luftwaffe although fortunately no major disasters had yet struck.

As thousands crammed onto the assembled ships, news was already spreading in the port that France’s newly appointed leader, Marshall Pétain, had that morning agreed to open armistice talks with Germany. Across the English Channel, Churchill was soon meeting France’s soon to be leader in exile, Charles de Gaulle, in the gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. While that same day, up in Belgium, Hitler was said to have hit his thigh in glee upon hearing the news of France’s capitulation. As Churchill would declare later that day, “the Battle for France was over.”

Sinking

After waiting painstakingly for its escort, the Lancastria finally began to pull out of the dock. Yet, any relief those aboard felt was quickly dashed as shortly thereafter six Luftwaffe planes came down from the skies. A minute later siren on the ship sounded. Heard “a chilling banshee scream… howling from the sky.” Initial bombs missed but a series of successive bombs hit their mark, with one payload going straight down the ship’s fennel. It was fatal. The ship went down in 20 minutes. Thousands onboard perished.

To read the survivor accounts is harrowing. Collectively, they portray a scene straight from Dante’s inferno. One 15 year old who helped with the rescue described the scene he saw as “hell… abominable, the height of horror.”

We will never know for sure exactly how Colin died, and perhaps that is for the best. Most of those packed in the ships hold died instantly from the initial bomb explosion. Many others drowned, either because they couldn’t swim or were trapped. Only 2,000 life belts were on board for at least 3 times that many men. Splinters of wood from walls and floors impaled people standing nearby. Oil flowed out of a ripped oil tank. Those who survived the initial sinking choked on the oil that flooded the surrounding waters. But most ghastly and cruelly, the Luftwaffe planes returned to gun down those swimming to shore.

One account stands out from the rest however. A handful of soldiers standing on the Lancastria’s rapidly sinking hull as it descended into the water, proudly and defiantly singing the war time classics of Roll Out The Barrel and There Will Always Be An England.

I have discovered the initial telegram that was issued in the immediate aftermath of the Lancastria’s demise. Colin is listed as ‘Missing In Action.’ It is hard to say exactly when my great grandparents and his two sisters would have been notified. I do know that when they did it left a deep scar on my grandmother, claire, and a burning desire, in her words, “to kill Germans.” A self-described “Tom Boy”, Colin was her hero and in joining the defense forces she was determined to ensure his life was not in vain.

Only in more recent decades has the story of the Lancastria become more known. Despite it, or perhaps because of it, accounting for more than a third of all losses in the war up to that point, and wanting to maintain British morale, Churchill felt justified in putting a censorship notice on the media and even survivors from talking about it. After all, it must not have been hard to imagine England falling next to the Nazi war machine. It was so kept so tightly under wraps that those who survived did not talk to wives and relatives about it until decades later.

75th anniversary

It wasn’t until the 75th anniversary of the Lancastria’s sinking, in 2015, that the British Parliament formally acknowledged it. Standing in for the Prime Minister, George Obsborne said: "It was kept secret at the time for reasons of wartime secrecy, but I think it is appropriate today in this House of Commons to remember all those who died, those who survived, and those who mourn them."

Unfortunately, it is the brutal reality that for most those who died onboard Lancastria is just one of many tragedies during the war. What should make this one stand out from all the rest? Added to this is the fact that unlike Dunkirk’s “victory in defeat”, which continues to provide the source material for so many TV shows and films, a tragedy of Lancastria’s proportions is unlikely to stir British patriotism. The stories of the 150,000 men left behind in France after Dunkirk has been largely forgotten in popular mainstream history books on the Second World War.

Even amongst members of my own extended family I encountered indifference. I remember one of my dad’s cousins, Colin’s own nephew, replying curtly to a message I sent that no one ever spoke to him about Colin and I probably know more than he does.

I could not let the story end there however. I thought about Claire all those years ago telling me about her beloved brother. And I thought of Colin's memorial plaque in Dunkirk. It occurred to me that not one member of his family had visited it in the past eight decades. My dad said it was a shame he did not find this out in Claire’s lifetime. He would have taken her to see it. She couldn’t go, but we could.

So shortly before the 80th anniversary of the Lancastria’s sinking, my sister, dad and mum, took the ferry across. At 8am on a cold, misty, winter day we visited the grave. We had taken with us a small bottle of whiskey. We poured each of us a small cup, and then a fifth one. Then, crouching to the small plaque, we raised a toast.

John Lee Colin Thomas, lost on the Lancastria on June 17, 1940. Lost but not forgotten.

What do you think of Michael’s touching article? Let us know below.

Isolationism in the United States from World War One to Trump

There were many factors behind the United States becoming more isolationist during the 1920s and 1930s. However, here it is argued that the primary factors were the history and mindset of America, the overall ending of the First Word War, and the extreme economic turmoil of the 1930s and the Great Depression.

Alan Cunningham explains - and also adds some more recent context with the Trump years.

A US ‘NO FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS’ anti-war sign prior to the US joining World War II.

The attitudes and overall mindset many Americans Margaret MacMillan, a professor of history at Canada’s Ryerson University and a fellow at Oxford, describes America’s disdain of European powers as being ingrained within the country since the American Revolutionary War, writing, “the very act of rebellion by the 13 colonies was a turning away from the old, corrupt European powers”. MacMillan also writes how this sentiment did not end at the turn of the 19th century, but continued with the ever present fear that the British would return and try to reclaim their lost territories (as had occurred in the War of 1812) and was strengthened by a fear of Catholicism, which she asserts was just as reviled in the 19th century as Communism would be in the 20th century, noting, “the fear was the same and helped to fuel isolationism”.

The end of the First World War brought about the desire to improve the domestic standing of the country, with many Americans believing they had performed their global duty and preserved their own safety and should not become involved in the creation of international legal bodies or more ingrained into the European-led system. According to Jeremy Suri, a professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin, “Americans in the 1920s felt betrayed by leaders and allies who had taken them into a long and costly war that ended with the strengthening of Europe's largest empires and a communist revolution in Russia”; certainly engaging in a conflict that many thought would be “over by Christmas” and that resulted in one of the largest countries (in terms of population and outright size) becoming a Communist power was an outcome many disliked. Seeing soldiers who now suffered from what would today be called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), had ghastly wounds and hearing the media report on victories and losses with horrific death toll numbers also would have moved many to want to cease involvement in similar conflicts.

Domestic focus

What many Americans desired was to focus on their own domestic economy and social issues, this “internal growth and development” coming about through increased tariffs which, “restrict[ed] the influx of imported goods, thereby increasing domestic production”. However, as Suri points out, “Isolationism and intolerance in the 1920s smothered the openness and cooperation necessary for healthy economic growth. Closing markets triggered, in part, the Great Depression, cutting off the country from needed resources, consumers, and allies abroad”. These types of economic policies that are wholly domestic and involve no other outside relationship with foreign markets became a recipe for disaster. They contributed to one of the worst periods in American history, when unemployment was extremely high, food became harder to find, and it seemed democracy could come under strain. The Depression forced Americans to focus on improving their own economic standing which resulted in Americans being left out of decisions that would lead to Hitler’s rise to power, the rise of Fascism in Europe, and the growing threat of Japan as a military power. As the State Department’s Office of the Historian bluntly puts it, “[there were] clear dangers [that] emerged during the Great Depression of the 1930s”.

Because of these reasons, it is apparent why the U.S. did not feel the need to embrace the larger world and Europe in economics and foreign policy, basing this on their own desire for pause and respite and building off centuries old sentiments about their country’s place in the world. However, one of the more intriguing questions is why the U.S. chose isolationism over other solutions that seemed to improve foreign relationships, build strong economic ties, and improve the safety and security of the United States in addition to the globe (something that is often mentioned in U.S. politics)? Suri again provides an explanation to this, writing, “Americans embraced isolationism and intolerance because they were false solutions to deeper structural problems. Technological innovations like the assembly line and the automobile displaced millions of people, but instead of adjusting, citizens turned to leaders who promised to halt change. As demographics were re-defining ethnic, racial and religious identities, politicians pledged to keep America white, Anglo-Saxon and protestant”. In the end, the meaning behind why Americans voluntarily chose to isolate was built upon the fact that it seemed to be the easiest and fastest option, not because it was the most beneficial (though those who supported it certainly found reasons to justify the measure) to improving America’s place in the world.

Modern day

There are many similarities to American sentiments in the 1920s to current, modern-day public sentiments. Suri also discusses this, writing, “Trump has identified some serious problems within American society: economic inequality, social displacement and deep distrust in established institutions. Millions of Americans feel they have been cheated, and they blame political elites. They are looking for changes that will restore hope and dignity to their lives. In response, Trump is recycling the repertoire of the early 20th century because it appears to address these contemporary concerns”.

Simply put, Trump capitalized on fear throughout the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, fear of the other, fear of the establishment, and fear of the upper and lower classes. This can easily be seen in the rhetoric he utilizes in which he made note through his 2016 campaign that he would build a wall and keep illegal immigrants out of the country (fear of the other), he attacked other Republicans on their stances (fear of the establishment), and capitalized on a large amount of American’s distaste of the Affordable Care Act and the fact that the Obama administration seemingly allowed the Wall Street bankers to continue their business without repercussion. While many economists (Paul Krugman for instance) and journalists (like Andrew Ross Sorkin and Bethany McLean) agree that the 2008 bailing out of the banks was the best course of action to save America’s economy and preventing another Great Depression, members of both the left and right political ideologies disliked this action and resented the bailout. Much like how the Great Depression prevented the U.S. from becoming more entrenched in foreign policy actions around the world, the 2008 financial crisis left many Americans desiring to recoup their lost income and benefits and focus on their own domestic issues instead of turning an eye to the rest of the world. The president’s remarks about Muslims and immigrants also capitalizes on the American public’s fears surrounding those groups (going back to Islamophobia); there are quite obvious similarities to public fears of Irish and Chinese immigrants and Catholicism in earlier periods. 

I believe that the factors that influence Trump and those who support him are very similar to those non-internationalist policies we saw in the 1920s. They are built upon the same biases of hatred and fear along with desires for fairness and improvement in the economic system. Also, it is interesting to think about how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq play into this. Many Americans now are tired of being involved in foreign military operations and nearly every president since 2001 has run on the platform of removing troops from Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. The forces that propelled the U.S. into an isolationist stance in the 1920s also propelled Trump to the White House in the 2016 election and will absolutely be a factor in the 2024 U.S. presidential elections.

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

Now read Alan’s article on how public opinion impacts foreign policy in America here.