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

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

A depiction of the 1882 Imo Mutiny.

Confucianism and Korean society

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

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

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

The 1881 Mission to Japan

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

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

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

Imo Mutiny

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

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

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

The Gapsin Coup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

3 Ibid, 167.

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

5 Ibid.

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

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

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

10 Ibid, 238.

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

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

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

A number of pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower from England to America and the New World. The foundations that the American republic was built on can be traced back to these people, and the sacrifices they made, when they came ashore just over 400 years ago on November 11, 1620. Noel Maldonado explains.

Embarkation of the Pilgrims, 1857. By Robert Walter Weir.

Why Did the Pilgrims Come to America?

The origins of the Mayflower Voyage date back to the early 1600s, when a group of Christians — labeled “Separatists” (the term Pilgrim wasn’t used until much later) — decided to leave the Church of England to form their own congregation in Scrooby, England. As a result, the group was constantly watched by the King’s guard, since it was illegal to hold their own services. They were fined, imprisoned, harassed, and scorned. This persecution continued until the group decided to flee to Holland. After two escape attempts, they finally succeeded, reuniting in Holland where they could worship freely.

What Was the Mayflower Voyage? 

However, after staying in Holland for 12 years, the Pilgrims weighed the cost of remaining there. The hard factory work they were required to do to sustain their families was taking a toll on their health and the health of their children. They were proud Englishmen, so watching their children become Dutch in language and marriage was not ideal. War with Spain was imminent, and, while the country allowed them to worship freely, the Pilgrims believed they were called to share the Gospel with the natives of the New World. It was at this point that the group made the decision to leave and forged their plans to cross the vast ocean to start over in the northernmost parts of Virginia.

By this time, the group had become a congregation of 300 people, led by John Robinson, a pastor, and professor in one of Leiden’s universities. In the end, only 102 people would take on the journey. There were children as young as one year of age and elderly as old as 64. About half the people on board were from the Scooby congregation that had moved to Holland, and the other half were from England. The Mayflower was a simple wine ship that was hired specifically for this journey. 

While there were supposed to be two ships making this voyage, the second ship, the Speedwell, began to leak, so all passengers had to travel in the tight cargo compartment of the Mayflower. Unfortunately, because the Speedwell had delayed the group twice, they set sail in September, which was a stormy season on the Atlantic Ocean. A trip that should have only taken 33 days took about 66 days because they encountered bad weather. 

Waiting for a Chance to Land

After the group had endured miserable conditions at sea, the Mayflower finally approached land on November 9, 1620, which was confirmed to be the Cape Cod area. They were further north than what their patent allowed, but after attempting to sail further south, they anchored the ship in Provincetown Harbor. The ship had almost wrecked in the dangerous waters of Pollack’s Rip, so they had turned back towards the harbor. There was talk of separation between the Scrooby congregation and the others on board, so the groups compromised with an agreement called the Mayflower Compact. This document established the first civil body politic in America, and would become the basis of the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.

Unfortunately, the group was greeted by the arrival of winter. This meant that there wouldn’t be any crops to harvest until the following year, and they only had the food aboard the Mayflower to last through the winter. 

That first winter, the group fell very sick; roughly half of them did not live through the cold winter. When the worst of the winter came during January and February, around two to three people would die every day, so they had to bury their dead in unmarked graves at night. Today, you can find a sarcophagus in Plymouth that protects the bones of those who died during the first winter.

Encounters With Native Americans

As time passed, the Pilgrims were able to nurture a mutually beneficial and friendly relationship with the natives. Through Squanto, the Pilgrims were introduced to the chief, or Great Sachem, of the Wampanoag, Massasoit.

This agreement would work to the benefit of both parties. While the natives shared resources and methods of farming, the Pilgrims provided protection to the tribe, resulting in both communities thriving. Because a plague had devastated the Wampanoag tribe, they were eager to form an alliance with the Pilgrims to protect them in times of war. Both groups agreed to defend one another in case of an attack. The treaty lasted an astounding 50 years.

Settling the Massachusetts Bay Area

The 51 surviving Pilgrims celebrated their first harvest with the Wampanoag during the fall of 1621. This is the event that we now commemorate as the first Thanksgiving. As the colony grew, other ships came. As their numbers grew, the Englishmen purchased land from the natives, and in 1630, Boston was founded by Puritan Governor John Winthrop.

The Puritans would eventually settle the Massachusetts Bay area. This era was known as the “great migration” because thousands of Puritan settlers made their way from England to the New World.

Uncovering the Legacy of This Important Event 

The real history of the Pilgrims is certainly one to be remembered. The Pilgrims are just one group of people in history who provide us with important lessons such as steadfastness, good character, caring for and valuing others, and treating each other with kindness and respect. The Pilgrims were able to stay true to their beliefs despite persecution, starvation, trials, and death. They were great examples of ordinary men and women that God used for His plans and purposes. As such, this group we call Pilgrims should be remembered as Christians who acted with godliness and genuine concern for those around them.

Conclusion

The true story of the Pilgrims is one of sacrifice and honor which paved the way for the freedoms we enjoy today in America. To ensure that they were free to serve and praise God in complete freedom without persecution, they made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that we could do the same today.

What do you think of the first American pilgrims? Let us know below.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

US President Woodrow Wilson was less than well towards the end of his presidency (1913-21). This led to a powerful role for his wife, First Lady Edith Galt Wilson. Here, Richard Bluttal explains her role of ‘stewardship’ that could arguably make her the first female US president.

First Lady Edith Wilson’s official White House portrait.

It was a grueling period for both. First Paris among diplomats worldwide, then a cross country trip, 8-10,000 miles.  They passed through scorching temperatures of the West, without any air conditioning.  He complained of splitting headaches, at one stop experiencing blurred vision.  She called for his doctor and said that her husband’s face was twitching and he was gasping for breath, similar to an asthma attack.  Dr. Grayson, his doctor, drew up a series of mandates, stating “Complete rest, total isolation from his job, and no one should interfere with his health.” They returned home. On October 2, 1919, his wife went to check to see how her husband was doing. He said to her, “I have no feeling in my hand,” motioning to his left hand. Minutes later, after calling his doctor from downstairs, she heard a thump like a body falling from his bed.  Running back upstairs, she found her husband unconscious and bleeding on the bathroom floor. Edith Galt Wilson had to make a quick decision - the country, or the life of her husband, President Woodrow Wilson. And why did he decide to arrange this tour, in support of the League of Nations?

From the standpoint of his October 2nd attack, what would the world know of this, let alone his administration and members of Congress. Very simple, nothing was to be said about the severity of his condition. The cover up had begun, and would continue until the end of his administration, close to two years later.  One of his doctors told Edith that the President must not be disturbed so that nature can repair the damage. Edith’s response was, “How can I protect him from problems when the country looks to him as the leader? What do we tell the world?” On October 3rd, Dr. Grayson issued a bulletin, “The President is a very sick man. Diagnosis is a nervous exhaustion”. In the remaining days and weeks, additional bulletins said that the President was recovering nicely.

Wilson’s condition

How bad was the President’s condition? In Woodrow Wilson: A Medical and Psychological Biography Edith Weinstein writes, “The symptoms indicate that Wilson suffered from an occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery, which resulted in a complete paralysis of the left side of the body, a loss of vision in the left half vision of both eyes, weakness of the muscles of the left side of his face, tongue and jaw and pharynx accounted for his inability to speak.” All additional physicians that were allowed to see him remarked, “He looked as if he was dead.”

I think it’s important to understand what might have been the issue causing the anxiety and strain that led to this medical condition. Let us review the first World War, the United States entry and the League of Nations.

In the summer of 1914, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, ignited a continental war between the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Italy. By the war’s end in 1918, the war would span the globe, claim more than 16 million lives, and change the world forever.

Germany planned to quickly defeat the British and French to the west before turning its full force east to Russia, but its initial thrusts into Belgium and northern France were checked. By the end of 1914, 400 miles of trench lines – the Western Front – stretched from Switzerland to the North Sea.

The United States initially remained neutral. But reports of German atrocities and submarine attacks on shipping bound for Britain and France – most infamously the 1915 sinking of the Lusitania, which killed 128 Americans – began to change American opinion.

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson won re-election on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” But in April 1917, Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, along with its offer to help Mexico recover territories lost to the United States in 1848, led Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany. American entry came none too soon. The British were running out of men, almost half of the French army had mutinied, and the Russian Revolution in 1917 would lead to Russia’s withdrawal from the war, allowing Germany to shift troops to the Western Front.

American troops conducted their first major action on May 28, 1918, when the 1st Division rolled back a German salient at Cantigny. Soon after, American forces were deployed along the Western Front, fighting in battles that have become part of American military lore. In early June, the 2ndDivision, including a brigade of U.S. Marines, drove German forces out of Belleau Wood after weeks of savage fighting. At Chateau Thierry the 3rd Division won the name “Rock of the Marne” for its stand on the Marne River. More Americans joined Allied counterattacks in summer and fall 1918, fighting with British, Canadian and Australian allies in Flanders and the Somme, and with the French at Soissons and across the Marne, Aisne, and Oise rivers.

On September 26 American forces launched the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, the largest battle in American history. Over 47 days, 1.2 million American troops drove the Germans back 40 miles to the vital railway hub of Sedan. More than 26,000 American soldiers died.

As American troops moved through the Meuse-Argonne, it became apparent that Germany had lost the war. An armistice was signed on November 11, 1918, effective at 11 a.m. – the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

After the war

In January 1919 the allies met in Paris to negotiate peace. Leaders of the victorious Allied powers—France, Great Britain, the United States and Italy—would make most of the crucial decisions in Paris over the next six months. For most of the conference, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson struggled to support his idea of a “peace without victory” and make sure that Germany, the leader of the Central Powers and the major loser of the war, was not treated too harshly. On the other hand, Prime Ministers Georges Clemenceau of France and David Lloyd George of Britain argued that punishing Germany adequately and ensuring its weakness was the only way to justify the immense costs of the war. In the end, Wilson compromised on the treatment of Germany in order to push through the creation of his pet project, an international peacekeeping organization called the League of Nations. President Wilson sought a piece based on his “Fourteen Points,” meant to foster international peace and cooperation. While some of the terms were included in the final treaty, including creation of a League of Nations, the pre-war colonial system remained in place. The Allies also compelled Germany to accept responsibility for starting the war, giving up territory and colonies, and pay crippling war reparations. His prime objective was to include his 14 points in the League of Nations.

It helps to examine the medical history of Woodrow Wilson. Historian Edwin A. Weinstein notes that Wilson had a history of cerebrovascular disorders dating back to 1896, sixteen years before he was elected president. Weinstein writes in his biography of Wilson, that the young Woodrow was a slow learner, and this could be a sign that he was dyslexic. He was always a high-strung person and subject to illnesses that were probably psychosomatic in nature. His letters often contain references to poor health, and his rhetoric frequently used metaphors regarding the body. Wilson was serving as an instructor at Princeton in 1896 when he suffered his first stroke. As Weinstein puts it, “Wilson’s first known stroke, in 1896, manifested itself in a weakness and loss of dexterity of his right hand, a numbness in the tips of several fingers, and some pain in the right arm. Aside from the pain, which was transitory, the symptoms and manner of onset indicate he had suffered an occlusion of a central branch of the left middle cerebral artery. This vessel supplies the regions of the left cerebral hemisphere that control movement and sensation for the contralateral extremities. The subsequent course of the disease suggests that the branch was blocked by an embolus from the left internal carotid artery.” In 1913, Wilson suffered another stroke, only this time, it was his left arm that was affected. Weinstein writes: The episode which affected Wilson’s left arm was particularly ominous from a clinical standpoint. The most likely diagnosis is that he had developed an ulcerated plaque in his right carotid artery from which an embolus had broken off. This meant that the cerebral circulation has been impaired on the right, previously unaffected, side of the brain. This evidence of bilaterality of involvement not only increased the risk of future strokes, but also created the possibility that enduring changes of behavior, based on insufficient blood supply and impaired oxygenation of the brain, might eventually occur.” Wilson seemed ill in 1915 and De Schweinitz was called. The doctor found evidence of hypertension and a hardening of the arteries, warning signs that his state of health was precarious. He informed Grayson, but Wilson continued his state of denial. Dr. Weinstein in his book also notes the following additional ailments: Wilson had multiple other neurological events that were presumably vascular in origin, November 1907 -- Developed weakness and numbness of fingers or right upper limb that lasted several months, July 1908 -- Two attacks of "neuritis" affecting the right upper limb, December 1910 -- Transitory weakness of the right hand. April 1913 -- Attack of "neuritis" involving right upper limb, May 1914 -- Abnormal retinal arteries observed, May-Sept. 1915 -- Episodes of transient weakness in his right hand.

Stewardship

What few people knew was that the President had kept his wife in the loop about all matters of state, including her sitting in on the League of Nations meetings. As noted above, the cover-up was Edith assuming complete reins of power. How was she to govern? In her memoirs she states very clearly, “The only decision that was mine was what was important and what was not, and the very important decision of when to present matters to the President.  I asked the doctors to be frank with me, that I must know what the outcome would probably be, so as to be honest with the people. The recovery would not be hoped for, they said, unless the President was released from every disturbing problem, during these days of Nature’s effort to repair the damage done.  ‘How can that be?’ I asked the doctors when everything comes to the executive is a problem. One doctor, Dr. Dercum leaned into me and said, “Have everything come to you, weigh the importance of each matter, and see if it is possible by consultations with respective heads of the Departments to solve them without the guidance of your husband.”

In the mornings, Edith Wilson would get up and begin her “stewardship,” the word she used to refer to her relative takeover of the West Wing. She would attend meetings in place of her husband, and when information needed to be passed to him, she would insist that she be the one to do it. In the evenings, she would take all necessary paperwork back to the residence, where Woodrow was presumably waiting, and inform him of what he needed to know. The next morning, she would return the paperwork to its original owner, complete with new notes and suggestions. She would also vet the carefully crafted medical bulletins that were publicly released.  Continually she would say that the President needed bed rest and would be working from his bedroom suite. If it seemed like an odd arrangement, the people closest to the matter didn’t comment on it. They lined up at Edith’s door day in and day out, waiting for the notes that she passed back and forth between them and their leader. They went no further than the first lady, if they had policy papers or pending decisions for him to review, edit or approve, she would first look over the material herself. If she deemed the matter pressing enough, she took the paperwork into her husband’s room where she would read all the necessary documents to him.

While Edith maintained that she was simply a vessel for information and that all notes passed back to presidential staff were Woodrow Wilson’s own words, White House officials soon began to doubt the authenticity of the notes. For one, they had never seen the president himself write the words, and for another, they didn’t entirely trust the First Lady. William Hazelgrove in his book Madam President goes further,” the issue of a presidential signature is a vexing one. Presidents must sign many documents and the operation of government can be held up for want of signature. But here was a man paralyzed on his left side going in and out of consciousness. Edith “helped” the president by “steadying his right hand in guiding his pen.”  Now his signature has changed, senators took this as evidence that the first lady was either signing documents or that she was guiding the president’s hand.  Hazelgrove continues, “Edith did sign documents, probably many of them. The President was a paralyzed man who could barely talk, had lost control of his bodily functions, and lived in a post-stroke-twilight.  There is no doubt Edith signed when necessary.”

Decision-making

The essence of Mrs. Wilson's usurpation lay in the absence of decision-making. She permitted only a handful of officials to see the president, and that only in the latter phase of his illness; and these audiences were often weirdly stage-managed in his darkened White House bedroom, usually in her inhibiting presence and that of Admiral Grayson. Many issues (e.g., the infamous "Red scare" raids of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were not brought to the president's attention, and it is uncertain whether he had the capacity to act even if he could have focused on them. When it became absolutely necessary to indicate what Wilson thought about a pending question, Mrs. Wilson would occasionally issue in her own handwriting a kind of bulletin from the sickroom reading "the president says" thus and so -- an unacceptable substitute for real decision memoranda.

She became the sole contact between the President and the cabinet. In fact, when Senator Albert Fall was sent by the Republicans to investigate the President’s true condition, Edith helped arrange Woodrow in bed so that he appeared presentable and alert. The President passed the test. The New York Times reported that “the meeting silenced for good the many wild and often unfriendly rumors of the President’s disability. “The essence of Mrs. Wilson's usurpation lay in the absence of decision-making. She permitted only a handful of officials to see the president, and that only in the latter phase of his illness; and these audiences were often weirdly stage-managed in his darkened White House bedroom, usually in her inhibiting presence and that of Admiral Grayson. Many issues (e.g., the infamous "Red scare" raids of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were not brought to the president's attention, and it is uncertain whether he had the capacity to act even if he could have focused on them. When it became absolutely necessary to indicate what Wilson thought about a pending question, Mrs. Wilson would occasionally issue in her own handwriting a kind of bulletin from the sickroom reading "the president says" thus and so -- an unacceptable substitute for real decision memoranda. It was a bewildering way to run a government, but the officials waited in the West Sitting Room hallway.  When she came back to them after conferring with the President, Mrs. Wilson turned over their paperwork, now riddled with indecipherable margin notes that she said were the president’s transcribed verbatim responses. To some the shaky handwriting looked less like that written by an invalid and more like that of his nervous caretaker.

25th Amendment

The question of the 25th Amendment now comes into play. Why didn’t the Vice President immediately assume control? Amid delicate political negotiations over the League of Nations, as well as the multitude of items faced by every administration, hiding the health crisis of the president was something that could not be easily done.  But it seems that this is exactly what the small circle around Wilson did, especially the first lady. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, a man who was with Wilson in Europe and an important part of the negotiations over the League of Nations, was the first to raise the alarm that the president was in an incapacitated state.  Lansing pressed Dr. Grayson about the reports that the president had fallen ill.  Dr. Grayson lied to Lansing, telling the secretary of state that Wilson was only suffering from “a depleted nervous system” and that the president’s mind was “not only clear but very active.” However, Joseph Tumulty was more candid and suggested to Lansing that the president had suffered another stroke.  Lansing immediately declared that Wilson should transfer presidential power to Vice President Thomas R. Marshall.  Loyal to Wilson, both Tumulty and Dr. Grayson objected.

Robert Lansing called a cabinet meeting on October 6, 1919, something he was not supposed to do without President Wilson’s knowledge.  It was an important meeting because no administration had had to address a situation when a president was alive but incapacitated.  The United States Constitution’s only words for such a situation before the passage of the 25th Amendment in 1967 are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6.  It states as follows:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Wilson was not dead, had not resigned, and was disputing, at least through a proxy, that he could not discharge the powers of the presidency.  Vice President Marshall did not want to appear too eager to become president, so he declared he would not act unless Congress declared Wilson incapacitated. Also, the first lady never wanted Marshall to be President. The problem with the constitution, as it was written then, was that there was a plan for succession of the vice president in case of death, but not of disability, as said by Dr. Markel.

The cabinet meeting on October 6th did little to define or answer any Constitutional questions.  Nothing was decided except to see how Wilson’s health progressed.  Robert Lansing resigned the following year on February 20 for an “assumption of presidential authority” by calling the cabinet meeting without Wilson’s approval.

Groundbreaking

William Hazelgrove, author of Madam President: The Secret Presidency of Edith Wilson notes the following, “Edith Wilson’s presidency was short – less than two years – but it was groundbreaking. Woodrow Wilson after his stroke could not perform the duties of the presidency and Edith stepped in to fill the role. Edith's guiding principle as president was to keep her husband alive by taking over his job and restricting access to him. Edith’s presidency fits the constitutional definitions of the duties of president. The Constitution defines the president’s first role as commander-in-chief of our military. World War I had just ended but the peace had not been settled. Edith was in the middle of the negotiations to get the Treaty of Versailles ratified and to implement the League of Nations with the United States as a member. Edith exercised five out of the six duties of the presidency. But history is not just facts. It is an accumulation of events and circumstances that interact with individuals upon the grand stage of life. Verisimilitude is by definition that which appears most true, but it is only through the exigencies of shared experience that we see truth. It is the journey after all and not the destination that matters most. It is hard for people to believe the United States had a woman president in 1919. Back then, women didn't take over struggling jewelry businesses or buy and drive cars, certainly not women who had only two years of formal education. But Edith Wilson did all of these things. We cannot know exactly what transpired in the Wilson White House, but since communications were by letters, there is a paper trail that gives us an indication. It is in those letters that we see Edith Wilson's involvement in running the United States from October 1919 to March 1921. “

Yet by deferring to her cabinet officers, and tackling a handful of high priority issues, Mrs. Wilson managed to keep the ship of state afloat. What rendered this possible was the institutional momentum of the executive branch. In the absence of direct guidance from the White House, officials filled the void with their own best judgment, and muddled through.     

A few Republican critics of the president, such as Sen. Albert Fall (R-N.M.), railed against “petticoat government,” but the President’s Democratic allies largely circled the wagons, ignoring his obvious impairment, while adversaries in his own party, including Vice President Thomas Marshall, remained conspicuously silent.

Legacy

Unfortunately, in the absence of authoritative White House leadership, institutional forces could only keep the government machine well-oiled for so long. Eventually, Mrs. Wilson’s method of temporizing and triage proved inadequate. Wilson’s illness exacerbated his more negative qualities of stubbornness and his need to be right.  He absolutely refused to compromise on the Versailles treaty to get it through Congress. Wilson was so far out of the loop due to his illness that he didn’t comprehend the extent of the opposition in the Senate and that the only way to get the treaty passed was with Henry Cabot Lodge’s reservations. Edith tried to convince him to change his mind. Because of his unwillingness, the Democrats didn’t have enough votes to ratify the treaty, and the United States ended up not joining the League of Nations. Had Wilson resigned at the outset of his illness when he had suggested it, and Vice President Marshall succeeded as President, or at least assumed the role until Wilson was better, a compromise would have been reached with Lodge and the treaty passed. The United States would have joined the League of Nations and played an active role in the international peace organization in the years leading up to World War II. If Edith had put the nation’s needs ahead of her husband, Wilson’s dream of America playing a significant role on the international stage would have come to fruition.  As it was, his successor Warren Harding took America back to its isolationist stance.

What do you think of First Lady Edith Galt Wilson’s ‘stewardship’ of the American presidency? Let us know below.

Glencoe, in the Western Highlands of Scotland, is one of the most serene places in the British Isles. The valley is buttressed by soaring peaks reflecting off the shore of Loch Leven granting the modern traveler a comforting feeling of tranquility.  But the events of a February night in 1692 taint this glen with an eerie sense of horror.  Here, Brian Hughes tells us about the 1692 Massacre of Glencoe.

After the Massacre of Glencoe by Peter Graham, 1889.

O Cruel is the Snow

That sweeps Glencoe

And covers the Grave O Donald

And cruel was the foe

That raped Glencoe

And murdered the House of MacDonald

The Corries, The Massacre of Glencoe.

Scottish history is especially marked by tragedy, slaughter, and violence. From the arrival of the Roman Legions to Prince Charles Edward Stuart’s ill fated attempt to recover the throne of his father in the 1745 Uprising. With no shortage of extreme violence it is a wonder that this particular event receives a greater degree of notoriety. The reality is all too disturbing in that this government sanctioned massacre was in fact murder under trust. For almost two weeks soldiers ate, drank, exchanged stories, and played games with the men, women and children who agreed to quarter them in accordance with the sacred laws of hospitality so prevalent in Scottish Highland culture. To betray this was a mortal sin. In a horrific display of treachery, soldiers of the Earl of Argyll’s Regiment of Foot who then were billeted in settlements running up and down the glen began to ruthlessly butcher their hosts as per the orders of their commanding officers. The people of Glencoe were victims of a maniacal political plot designed to efficiently instill fear and command obedience of the often problematic clans. The Massacre of Glencoe contributed significantly to a new wave of Jacobitism greatly affecting British politics for the next half of the century. To this day the massacre is commemorated in Glencoe, where small crowds gather around an evocative monument honoring the victims who were killed in cold blood in their homes and beds whilst a February blizzard howled.

Prelude

In 1692 Glencoe was inhabited by a branch of Clan Donald. Control of the glen was granted to the MacDonalds following Robert the Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn in 1314. For centuries Clan Donald ruled a maritime empire encompassing the Hebrides and other Western Isles in addition to a significant portion of the mainland. Over the years Clan Donald’s preeminence as the most powerful clan within the Western Highlands and Isles had been waning. The Macdonalds of Glencoe were a rather impoverished sept, often resorting to raiding against their wealthier neighbors as a means of survival. They were regarded by many as a persistent nuisance especially by the Campbells in nearby Argyll.

The current Chief of the Glencoe Macdonals was Alisdair Ruadh MacIan MacDonald, known to his contemporaries as MacIan, the hereditary title of the chiefs. By now MacIan was an old man believed to have been in his sixties. His people lived in settlements along the River Coe and probably numbered about five hundred.

The 17th century was a tumultuous time in Scotland. The country was nearly torn apart by a series of rebellions, civil wars, and regime changes as the country became drawn increasingly within the orbit of her larger neighbor to the south, England. Following the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange and his wife Mary ousted the last Stuart King James the Second after the decisive Battle of the Boyne in July 1690. With William now King and James in exile, the complex geopolitical landscape of the day shifted drastically as William’s primary concern was the safety and well being of his native Netherlands who was consistently drawn into conflict with a bellicose France under Louis the 14th. Many Highland chiefs including MacIan were supporters of the Stuart cause and currently found themselves in an awkward state of royal allegiance. King William shrewdly deferred to his ministers in both London and Edinburgh, granting them sway in how to best deal with the nettlesome clans, most of whom were eager to assuage prior hostilities. In August of 1691 the government offered the clans exoneration so long as they swear an allegiance to the new King William before the end of the year. Some of the clan chiefs opted to delay their submissions for various reasons, some of whom like MacIan demanded some sort of clarification from James the Second, now in exile.

Although James did eventually consent to the chiefs submitting their oaths, word would not reach MacIan until close to the end of the deadline. On December 31st in a treacherous snowstorm MacIan crossed the mountains to Inverlochy, today Fort William, to declare his allegiance. Informed by the commanding officer John Hill that he was unable to receive MacIan’s compliance, MacIan  thus became forced to travel to Inverary in Argyll many days' ride to the south and after the deadline. MacIan was desperate. Likely weeping on behalf of his people his oath was eventually accepted on the 6th of January by Sir Colin Campbell. MacIan then returned to Glencoe, likely assured of safety and government protection. Little did he know that his tardiness would have fatal consequences for himself and his people.

Preparation

For John Dalrypmple, First Earl of Stair, MacIan’s delayed oath was the catalyst he needed to enact a harsh and vindictive policy of capitulation. Unbeknownst to the clans, the Crown now had the necessary impetus for retribution. Despite the fact that certain clans such as the MacDonalds of Glengarry(Cousins of Glencoe) had yet to swear their oaths, the government now had their ideal prey, The MacDonalds of Glencoe.

Glencoe’s terrain makes it a natural fortress but likewise a prison. It can be easily sealed off from a few approaches and with very few men. The MacDonalds were not numerous in eligible fighting men and maintained no fortified keep or castle. They likewise were in the epicenter of Lochaber, a region long associated with particularly troublesome clans.

The man chosen to carry out this macabre task is a curious one. Robert Campbell of Glenlyon was sixty years of age. Poverty-stricken in addition to being an inveterate drunk and gambler, Glenlyon had entered military service as an old man probably as a means to pay off his massive debts. Being well connected to the powerful Clan Campbell, he was able to obtain a commission as Captain of the Duke of Argyll's Regiment of Foot. In 1692 the cream of the army was abroad in Flanders and precious few men were available to pacify troublesome districts such as the Highlands. Glenlyon's command served a dual purpose aside from the orders he would soon receive. Knowing full well that the task of slaying the MacDonalds would invite mass condemnation, the government now had the perfect scapegoat in Glenlyon, a man with seemingly very little to lose. In addition, Clan Campbell and Clan Donald maintained a bitter and famous rivalry that permeated over the centuries. This could simply be spun as yet another brutal incident between rival clans.

At the end of January 1692, two companies of approximately one hundred and twenty men under Glenlyon entered Glencoe. Surely their unexpected approach would have triggered confusion as well as suspicion prompting the MacDonalds to stow away any weapons in their possession. Glenlyon issued quartering papers to John MacDonald, eldest son of MacIan stating that there was no space in the fort at Inverlochy to accommodate his men who were soon to march on MacDonald of Glengarry. Hospitality was a sacred obligation within Highland culture. So much so that it was recognized and practiced even amongst feuding clans. Furthermore, providing billeting for the King's soldiers was often a responsibility of subjects in lieu of taxation. Whether the Fort was at capacity or not remains uncertain but MacIan surely was eager to prove his loyalty to King William. And what better way than to host the King's soldiers.

The people of Glencoe lived in small settlements or townships throughout the Glen from the mouth of Loch Leven to Achtriachtan. Soldiers would likely have been billeted in small groups of three to five in the various crofts and farmhouses. Glenlyon’s choice of quartering is peculiar, inviting speculation that he may or may not have had prior knowledge of the order in which he would be obliged to carry out. Instead of lodging at MacIan’s spacious and well furnished residence at Carnoch, close to Loch Leven, Glenlyon chose instead to reside at Inverrigan, roughly the middlemost of the townships. This would serve as the ideal command post if and when a military operation was to be undertaken. In any case, Glenlyon found himself a frequent guest of MacIan night after night drinking himself almost unconscious. The soldiers similarly enjoyed what little offerings the people of Glencoe provided in the midst of winter. For almost two weeks the soldiers drilled and would spend their leisure hours sharing food and drink with their hosts, who otherwise may have been seen as enemies.

Orders arrive

On the 12th of February orders had arrived from Major Duncanson to Glenlyon as he sat playing cards with two of MacIan’s sons(MacIan’s youngest son Alasdair Og was married to Glenlyon’s neice) when the grim order arrived.

You are hereby ordered to fall upon the rebells, the McDonalds of Glenco, and put all to the sword under seventy. you are to have a speciall care that the old Fox and his sones doe upon no account escape your hands, you are to secure all the avenues that no man escape. This you are to putt in execution attfyve of the clock precisely; and by that time, or very shortly after it, I’ll strive to be att you with a stronger party: if I doe not come to you att fyve, you are not to tarry for me, but to fall on. This is by the Kings speciall command, for the good & safety of the Country, that these miscreants be cutt off root and branch. See that this be putt in execution without feud or favour, else you may expect to be dealt with as one not true to King nor Government, nor a man fitt to carry Commissione in the Kings service. Expecting you will not faill in the full-filling hereof, as you love your selfe, I subscribe these with my hand att Balicholis Feb: 12, 1692.

Glenlyon proceeded to dismiss himself from his guests without giving away the slightest suspicion. He declared that he and his command were at once to march against Glengarry and that there was much to be done.

As the tell tale signs of a blizzard swelled in the skies above Glencoe orders began to be discreetly passed down to the soldiers informing them of their orders. It is widely assumed that the Highland soldiers within the ranks were horrified upon receiving their orders in which they were obliged to execute. Some stated that they bore no transgressions upon meeting the MacDonalds in a fair fight but objected to the simple and horrifying truth admitting that their task was nothing more than murder.

Massacre

As the early winter darkness began to set in and the inhabitants of Glencoe retired to their crofts, a ferocious blizzard swept through the valley. This was no night to be in the elements, but for the first time in two weeks an immense amount of activity stirred the glen. The soldiers were out and about cleaning their weapons while others fixed bayonets. More than one sentry stood guard at the various outposts talking amongst themselves. For Alasdair Og this was too much. Already skeptical, he soon ventured from his warm quarters to MacIan’s home describing with ardent concern his suspicions to his father. MacIan, doubtful of his son's concerns, dismissed him but gave him permission to further investigate. This he did, arriving at Glenlyon’s headquarters at Inverrigan there finding the Captain awake and loading his pistols. Expressing his concerns, Alasdair demanded to know why so many soldiers were out and about at a most abnormal hour and in such ghastly conditions. Glenlyon proceeded to ease Alasdair’s reservations by once again explaining his false orders to march on Glengarry and stating would he really intend harm on the family of his niece? While not wholly satisfied, Glenlyon's explanation was enough for Alasdair as he returned home. But unbeknownst to him in the very house in which he had exited, nine inhabitants sat bound and gagged as the hour of five which would greenlight the massacre had not yet arrived.

The first killings probably appeared near Invercoe, where the River Coe meets Loch Leven. Nearby at MacIan’s home in Carnoch a small group of soldiers under Lieutenant Lindsay knocked on the door asking to see MacIan stating that they intended to be off soon and wanted to thank him for his hospitality. A servant soon roused MacIan explaining the situation. Not forgetting his manners, MacIan instructed the servant to bring a dram to the soldiers as he began to rise from his bed and dress. Suddenly the soldiers forced into the house and  through the door firing two shots into MacIan with the killing blow passing through his head.(This was probably fired by Lindsay) Shortly thereafter his home was looted of valuables as the savage band left. All throughout the glen small fire teams went from house to house shooting and butchering their former hosts, scattering livestock, and torching structures in a coordinated yet barbaric effort. It is said that the Lowland soldiers took particular pride in their grizzly task having not a care for Highland culture as they proceeded to violate the sanctified practice of hospitality. Many in Glencoe would have been prematurely awakened by the musket fire and thought it wise to escape into the nearby hills even without proper clothing or provisions being completely at the mercy of the elements. Both of MacIan’s sons John and Alasdair in fact escaped the slaughter, likely leading many of the refugees away from harm.

When it was over, it is said that thirty eight people of Glencoe lay dead. Although many more probably succumbed to the elements, this number remains rather small in proportion to the quantity of people within Glencoe. Also, the reinforcements from Duncanson and Hamilton arrived late, failing to seal off the exits to the glen thus enabling many more to escape. Were Duncanson and Hamilton similar victims of the weather? Or, did they purposefully delay in order to escape culpability of their dreaded order? Whatever the questions it matters not as MacIan was  dead while his house and villages to which he lorded appeared burned and derelict at the first light of dawn, and his people now dead or displaced from their homes had fled to the braes.

Aftermath

It was not long before word began to spread of the horrid butchering. Many were quick to blame the Campbells for this breach in Highland trust with some believing this to be true even in the present day, but this was no unique crime of Clan Campbell. The MacDonalds of Glencoe had been made examples of in a most gruesome manner, fully sanctioned by King William’s Government. In the end the short term goal of the massacre had been achieved in that many of the Western Highland clans behaved in a less belligerent manner, though they were none the more placated. News of the massacre invoked anger amongst many in Scotland, not only Highlanders. Official commissions of inquiry were launched but ultimately no individuals were indicted. Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, the intended culprit, had passed away in 1696 in Bruge as the Earl of Argyll’s Regiment had soon afterwards been posted to Flanders. Many of the escapees would go on to rebuild their homes and crofts attempting to reclaim some semblance of their old lives. MacIan’s body was found and brought to Eilean Munde, a small island in Loch Leven and the traditional burial site of the Glencoe Chiefs. There he rests to this day, somewhere beneath the soft ground surrounded by the placid waters and soaring peaks of Glencoe.

What do you think of the terrible events in Glencoe in 1692? Let us know below.

Sources

https://digital.nls.uk/scotlandspages/timeline/1692.html

Glencoe: The Story of the Massacre, Prebble John

Glencoe: The Infamous Massacre 1692, Sadler John

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The British Empire did not suddenly start its decline in the post World War Two period; instead it was an event that began much earlier. The British Empire had been expanding and stretching out across the globe since the 1600s. After the American War of Independence Britain began to build a new empire with a new urgency. The British Empire grew to some thirteen million square miles and to govern over five hundred million subjects. This article focuses on Britain’s decline after World War 1 by looking at Egypt, Iraq, Ireland, and India.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq. He was King from 1921 to 1933.

The Decline of the British Empire

The contraction of the British Empire had already begun in the nineteenth century starting with Canada. Up until to 1921 Britain’s presence in the world was occupying a quarter of the planet’s land surface. Certain countries at distinct stages within that empire enjoyed a more independent status than others. Australia and New Zealand achieved their independence peacefully but others like Ireland would be forced to take a more violent approach in fighting Imperialist domination.

Independence was driven by motives such as the general desire of those nations to run their own affairs and the need to detach themselves from colonial repression and bloodshed (such as in Ireland and India). There was also the inequalities of trade in India, Iraq was piqued that they had found themselves rid of Ottoman only to have lost that freedom to British rule and subsequently lose control of their natural resources, and then just as important colonial rule often involved being dragged into the conflicts of far off European nations.

The Dominions

Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand independence came in the form of Dominion status which was achieved by a more diplomatic avenue. Dominion status was defined as ”autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

Britain granted a Dominion Status in the 1907 Imperial Conference to a select number of nations. Australia and New Zealand were enjoying this privileged status since 1900 and 1901 respectively. South Africa would follow in 1910 after a series of unifications within its borders. Canada had already enjoyed this status since 1867. The Irish Free State would follow in 1922.

In 1926 the Imperial Conference revisited Dominion status with the Balfour Declaration which would be formalised and recognised in law with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The British Empire now was now known as the Commonwealth of Nations. The Imperial hold had loosened but Britain initiated the change to allow complete sovereignty for the Dominions. The First World War left Britain with enormous debts, and reduced her ability and in turn her effectiveness to provide for the defence of its empire. The larger Dominions were reluctant to leave the protection of Britain as many Canadians felt that being part of the British Empire was the only thing that had prevented them from the control of the United States, while the Australians would later look to Britain for defence in the face of Japanese militarism. Except for the Irish Free State this change did not stop these dominions from supporting Britain in her declaration of war against Germany in 1939.

But between the interwar years there were further challenges to Britain’s Empire from various parts of the world. By the time the Great War was over India, Egypt, Ireland, and Iraq were all taking a less than passive approach in their demand for independence.

Egypt

Britain had partially governed Egypt since the 1880s under a veiled protectorate primarily to look after her interests and investments. It was never officially part of the British Empire in the same way for example as Rhodesia, Malaysia, India, or Cyprus. As soon as the Great War ended Egypt was demanding her own independence. By 1919 a series of protests had morphed into uprisings against British rule known as the 1919 Revolution. In that same year at the Paris Peace Conference, Egypt had sent representatives to seek independence from Britain. The sheer volume of international issues following the war distracted the allies and put Britain’s particular attentions elsewhere and Egypt left empty handed.

In 1920 an Egyptian mission led by Adli Pasha was invited by Britain to address the issues in Egypt. This mission arrived in the summer of that year and presented a set of proposals on independence for both Britain and Egypt to agree but after a return visit in June 1921 to ratify the agreement the mission left in “disgust”. No agreement could be reached on these proposals by Parliament or the Dominions at the Imperial Conference, notably over the control of the Suez Canal. More unrest in Egypt would follow resulting in martial law and by December 1921 the British realized that the situation was clearly unsustainable, and so they declared the Unilateral Independence of Egypt in February 1922. This independence would be in a limited form as the British still had control of the railways, police, courts, army, and the Suez Canal. By 1936 British rule had unwound further as King Farouk agreed an Anglo- Egyptian Treaty leaving just a garrison of troops to guard Britain’s commercial interests in the Suez Canal. This unwelcome presence was enough to involve Egyptian territory in the Second World War to the chagrin of the Egyptians.

Iraq

In 1932 Britain granted Iraq independence after a brief post war mandate that presided over the newly formed nation after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. From as early as 1920 Iraq had revolted against British occupation. Iraq now broke free of Ottoman rule only to find it had been substituted by their new British masters. The British military quickly quashed the revolts but like Ireland and other areas of the empire military repression was not the lasting solution, and the British continued in vain in Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra.

Part of the answer was giving the throne to a British friendly monarch King Fayṣal, with British control in the background. A plebiscite in August 1921 augmented his position. A treaty of Alliance replaced the formal mandate obligating Britain to provide advice on foreign and domestic affairs, such as military, judicial, and financial matters - but the matter was not yet over.

King Faisal would still depend on British support to maintain his rule. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 provided for a close alliance which essentially meant Iraq had limited control on matters of foreign policy and would have to provide for an ongoing British military presence on her territory. The conditions granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country for a twenty-five-year duration. Despite being a sovereign state by 1932 this treaty would find Iraq being involved in World War Two as the British fought against Nazi infiltration.

Ireland

Ireland, like India and Iraq, was another violent struggle for independence, and this was closer to home shores. The conflict would inflict wounds that both sides would not easily forget and forgive at least well into the twenty-first century.

The desire for home rule was long anticipated and had been on the negotiating table since the nineteen century premiership of William Gladstone. All efforts to push the Home Rule Bill of 1886 had been thwarted by the political opposition because it was feared an Independent Ireland would pose a security threat providing an opportunity for Britain’s foes. Also, for the diehard Imperialists this might prompt other demands for independence across the Empire.

The patience of the Irish nation would grow thin. A third Home Rule Bill was almost formalised in 1914 but the outbreak of war suspended its implementation. The ever long wait and the lack of clarity over the fate of Northern Ireland’s Six Counties caused an escalation in violence. The most notable event was the Easter Rising in 1916 but more violence and further escalations occurred in the post war years as the British tried to reassert control with military means. It was by then too late for such measures.

Ireland would make unsuccessful attempts to gain support at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris and in particular President Wilson. In 1920 the Government of Ireland Act (fourth Home Rule Bill) was introduced by the British Government. It was far from satisfactory as far as Ireland was concerned as they wanted to completely break away from its relationship with Westminster and its unpopular allegiance to the Crown. It also divided off the Northern Ireland from the rest of the country which remained part of the United Kingdom.

In 1922 dominion status was granted but it was not enough for the independence movement. The newly Irish Free State wanted total severance from the crown and the removal of the oath of allegiance. Dominion status was not satisfactory in the immediate post war years, and the Irish made strenuous representations to the League of Nations that they had the capability to become a fully independent nation, which they would achieve by 1937.

A number of laws that were passed, including the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936 and the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act 1937, removed the Imperial Role of Governor General. Then, using religious grounds following the outrage from King Edward’s abdication, Ireland finally severed all remaining ties with Britain to become a fully independent nation. The Irish experience and the way they achieved their independence constitutionally would be noticed and emulated by other colonies much later.

India

India was also challenging British rule in this interwar period. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1917 that became the 1919 Government of India Act was an early attempt to establish a self-governing model for India. Indian nationalists felt that it fell short of expectations after their commitment to Britain in the First World War. The post war period had been hard on India, the flu epidemic and Imperialist free trade had affected society in all kinds of ways. The Rowlatt Act also fuelled the nationalist anger and allowed for the detention of any protesters and suppression of unrest. Protests encountered a typical coercive and violent reaction by Britain. This use of force was particularly heavy handed in Amritsar in April 1919 when Brigadier General Dyer had his troops open fire on a crowd killing almost four hundred local protestors. It was sufficiently bloodthirsty to cause even the bellicose Churchill to deem it “utterly monstrous,” but a subsequent enquiry failed to deliver justice to the perpetrators and exacerbated the situation. The British response was all in vain and in fact it fuelled Gandhi’s Non-Co-operation campaign. The issue would not go away but it would take another twenty-seven years to achieve independence.

Conclusion

The decline of the Britain’s Empire only accelerated in the post war period. The “Wind of Change” that Harold Macmillan spoke of on his visit to Africa in the 1950s was the just a continuation of the Empire’s sunset from many decades earlier. By the 1970s little of the Empire remained save for a few scattered islands around the world.

What do you think of the decline of Britain’s Empire after World War One? Let us know below.

Now read about Britain’s 1920s Communist Scare here.

References

Britain Alone – David Kynaston – Faber 2021

AJP Taylor – English History 1914-1945 – Oxford University Press 1975

The Decline and Fall of The British Empire – Piers Brendon – Vintage Digital 2010

Nicholas White – The British Experience Since 1945 – Routledge 2014

Losing Ireland, losing the Empire: Dominion status and the Irish Constitutions of 1922 and 1937 - Luke McDonagh

International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 17, Issue 4, October 2019, Pages 1192–1212

The surprise World War 2 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, caused many Americans to shift their focus from wondering and worrying about the well-being of other countries’ residents to fear that another attack on the United States might be forthcoming.

To quell those fears, the United States government allowed Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens living in the United States to be sent to internment camps. The U.S. also assisted European allies in their battles against Germany and planned and carried out the Doolittle Raid against mainland Japan.

Janel Miller explains.

One of the U.S. planes after landing in Vladivostok, USSR following the Doolittle Raid in April 1942.

Multiple Raid Scenarios Considered

The idea of the Doolittle Raid – the first-ever raid on Japan – was hatched within weeks of Pearl Harbor. High-ranking members of the United States military spent several months fine-tuning an aerial attack on the Asian country’s industrial centers of Tokyo, Tokyo Bay, Yokohama, the Yokosuka Navy Yard, Nagoya, Ōsaka and Kōbe.

Air Force member James Harold Doolittle, who had previously set several aviation records and also had become one of the first men in the United States to earn a Doctor of Science degree in aeronautics, volunteered to lead the attack and was chosen to do so.

The hope was that the Doolittle Raid on Japan would cause anxiety among the country’s residents, damage many of its resources, slow its production and military advances abroad, enhance the United States’ relationships with its allies, and receive the support of the American public.

Several types of planes were considered for use in the raid. However, various characteristics of some of the aircraft were deemed unsuitable for the mission. Specifically, the Martin B-26 Marauder had “unsuitable handling characteristics” and the Douglas B-23 Dragon’s wingspan was “too great … to be comfortably operated from a carrier deck” that would carry the planes to a location off the Japanese coast). Ultimately, the North American B-25 Mitchell (hereafter referred to as B-25s) was chosen for the raid.

Different times of conducting the raid were also considered. One proposal called for the B-25s taking off from a carrier (ultimately, the Hornet was chosen for the mission) several hours before daybreak. This offered the pros of hitting the Japanese targets as daylight approached, providing the maximum amount of surprise and good visibility but the cons and dangers of the B-25s taking off at night and illuminating the Hornet while out at sea. Another proposal involved the raid occurring while there was a significant amount of daylight while flying over Japan. However, to do so would have eliminated the surprise element of the raid.

Doolittle recalled in a 1983 interview that several different ways of escaping should the Japanese catch up to the B-25s in the air before the raid could begin were also considered.

“The plan was that if we were within range of Japan, we would go ahead and bomb our targets, fly out to sea and hope, rather futilely, to be picked up by one of the two submarines that were in the area,” he said. “If we were within range of the Hawaiian Islands — say, Midway — we would immediately clear their decks and proceed to Midway so they could utilize the [fleet of ships supporting the raid] properly.”

“If, on the other hand, we weren't within range of anyplace we could go, we would push our aircraft overboard so that the Hornet's deck would be cleared, and they could protect themselves,” Doolittle added.

Details Of Raid Described

The final Doolittle Raid plan called for the Hornet to take the B-25s approximately 600 miles east of Tokyo. Then, on April 18, 1942, the B-25s would disperse and their crews drop bombs on their respective Japanese target, flying at treetop level on the approach to the target, climbing to 1,500 feet while dropping the bombs, returning to treetop level and flying to the Chinese city of Chuchow.

Those who would be in the B-25s were all volunteers who were thoroughly trained in cross-country flying, night flying and navigation, as well as “low altitude approaches to bombing targets, rapid bombing and evasive action,” according to the U.S. Navy. Doolittle told a 1983 interviewer that the bond between those flying the planes and those controlling the carrier was not immediate.

“We felt a little out of place on a carrier, and they felt a little out of place having us there,” he said. “But when we went under the San Francisco Bridge, over the radio said, ‘Hear ye, hear ye.’ Everybody aboard was told not exactly where we were going, not exactly what we were going to do, but that this was a mission against Japan. From then on, there was complete rapport,” Doolittle added.

Richard Cole, who occupied one of the B-25s on April 18, recalled in 1957 that “everyone prayed but did so in an inward way. If anyone was scared, it didn’t show.”

Each B-25 carried four 500-pound bombs, two .50-caliber machine guns, a .30-caliber machine gun, spare fuel tanks and two dummy wooden machine gun barrels. Although the B-25 planes from the United States took off from the U.S.S. Hornet earlier than planned, they still managed to drop about 14 tons of explosives on their Japanese targets.

Japan had been monitoring the United States Navy’s radio in the days leading up to the Doolittle Raid. Although it did not have the specific date of the raid ahead of time, it felt an attack was imminent. The Asian country received word from a fishing boat on the day of the attack of the U.S. raid that was coming. Despite these warnings, Japan’s success in fighting back was limited. The country also sent bombers and carrier fighters in a fruitless attempt to search for the fleet of U.S. ships supporting the raid. A member of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration stated roughly six months after the raid that the U.S. participants in the raid was carried out on military targets "with remarkable accuracy."

A lack of fuel kept the B-25s from landing at Chuchow. Fifteen of the B-25s crash-landed in Japanese-occupied territory or abandoned their aircraft in the waters near Japan and China. Another B-25 landed in the Soviet Union. Not all of those in the B-25s returned to American soil alive. Three were killed in the crash landings or while parachuting, three were executed after being captured by the Japanese and another died of disease and starvation while in captivity.

Mission Largely Accomplished

The Doolittle Raid “was important to morale both here and in Japan,” its namesake said at a 1983 event.

About one month after the attack, United States Senator and member of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee Millard E. Tydings (D-Md.), reported that the raid was causing Japan to develop a new plan for winning the war.

"This lesson will not be lost on the Japanese, and their present apparently altered strategy is an indication that there is no greater fear in Japan right now than the fear of repeated bombings such as was inaugurated by General Doolittle," he continued. Thus, another Japanese attack on United States’ soil seemed highly unlikely, and the raid also saved the Soviet Union from a Japanese attack, Tydings said.

In Context

The concept of retaliating, rather than sitting passively by and doing nothing, is all too common, especially in wartime.

For example, in 1773, colonists protested British taxes by famously dumping tea – one of the most popular beverages of the time – into Boston Harbor prior to the American Revolution. During the Civil War more than 90 years later, General William T. Sherman and his troops blazed a deadly path across Georgia in response to the South seceding from the Union several years earlier. Much more recently, in 2003, the United States declared that the major battles the U.S. had engaged in while in Iraq in response to the tragedies of September 11, 2001, were over.

In the years since the Doolittle Raids, the United States’ relationship with Japan has improved beyond recognition. Perhaps, just perhaps, one legacy of the Doolittle Raids may be that with time, bitter arch-rivals can become friendly non-competitors.

What do you think of impact of the Doolittle Raids? Let us know below.

References

Loproto, Mark. “How America Changed After Pearl Harbor.” https://pearlharbor.org/america-changed-pearl-harbor/. Published February 1, 2017. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Pippert, Wesley G. “The National Was Gripped by Hysteria and Fear When …” https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/14/The-nation-was-gripped-by-hysteria-and-fear-when/2681363931200/. United Press International. Published July 14, 1981. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Loproto, Mark. “America’s Response to Pearl Harbor – An Unexpected First Target.” https://pearlharbor.org/americas-response-pearl-harbor-unexpected-first-target/. Published January 8, 2018. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Krebs A. The New York Times. “James Doolittle, 96, Pioneer Aviator Who Led First Raid on Japan, Dies.”https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/29/us/james-doolittle-96-pioneer-aviator-who-led-first-raid-on-japan-dies.html. Published September 29, 1993. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html.  Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Encyclopedia Britannica Editors. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Doolittle-Raid. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Interview with United States Air Force General James Harold (Jimmy) Doolittle (Ret.). https://www.usni.org/press/oral-histories/doolittle-james.  Recorded February 1983. Accessed January 17, 2023.

Encyclopedia Britannica Editors. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Doolittle-Raid. . Accessed January 11, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html. . Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Interview with United States Air Force General James Harold (Jimmy) Doolittle (Ret.). https://www.usni.org/press/oral-histories/doolittle-james. Recorded February 1983. Accessed January 17, 2023.

Goldstein, Richard. “Richard Cole, 103, Last Survivor of Doolittle Raid on Japan, Dies.” The New York Times.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/obituaries/richard-cole-dead.html. . Published April 19, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Fish, B. Additional Historic Information [on] The Doolittle Raid (Hornet). https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAQQw7AJahcKEwiQ-tvOvcr8AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuss-hornet.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FWebsite-Extended-Info-Doolittle-Raid.pdf&psig=AOvVaw2s2f85P-1fNrjzIr2XnAmm&ust=1673902936487101. . Accessed January 15, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html.  Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

"Losses During April Are Admitted Today." Spokane Daily Chronicle, page 1. Published October 22, 1942. Accessed January 15, 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/564334859. .

Goldstein, Richard. “Richard Cole, 103, Last Survivor of Doolittle Raid on Japan, Dies.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/obituaries/richard-cole-dead.html.  Published April 19, 2019. The New York Times.

Krebs A. The New York Times. “James Doolittle, 96, Pioneer Aviator Who Led First Raid on Japan, Dies.”https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/29/us/james-doolittle-96-pioneer-aviator-who-led-first-raid-on-japan-dies.html. Published September 29, 1993. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Reynolds, HK. "Nippon Is Out To Capture Chinese Bases." The El Paso Times, page 3. https://www.newspapers.com/image/429555500.. Published May 25, 1942. Accessed January 15, 2023.

History.com Editors. History.com. “Boston Tea Party.” https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party. Published October 27, 2009. Accessed January 15, 2023.

History.com Editors. History.com. “Sherman’s March to the Sea.” https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march. . Published February 22, 2010. Accessed January 15, 2023.

White House Archives. “President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.” https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html. Published May 1, 2003. Accessed January 15, 2023.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. “Japan-United States of America Relations.” https://www.mofa.go.jp/na/na1/us/page23e_000329.html. . Published September 14, 2022. Accessed January 15, 2023.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

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

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at what happened during the Mexican War of Independence with the important figure of José Morelos - and how things didn’t turn out quite as the rebels intended.

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

An 1865 painting of José Morelos. By Petronilo Monroy.

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

Morelos’ Formative Years

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

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

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

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

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

Joining Hidalgo

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

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

Building a Movement in the South

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

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

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

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

Morelos Strikes the Royalists

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

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

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

Calleja: the Antithesis of Morelos

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

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

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

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

Morelos Brings Success Militarily and Politically

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

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

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

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

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

Calleja Hits Back Hard

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

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

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

It All Comes Tumbling Down

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

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

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

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

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

The End

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

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

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

What do you think of the time of José Morelos in the Mexican War of Independence? Let us know below.

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

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

Marvin McCrary explains.

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

Exodus

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

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

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

Establishing Zion in the Mountains

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

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

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

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

Annus Horribilis

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

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

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

The Utah Expedition

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

It was the summer of 1946, the place: the vast wastes of the Pacific. A mighty armada of military personnel and scientists gathered around a cluster of tiny islands and coral reefs. They were about to unleash something terrifying: the first planned atomic test, named Operation Crossroads. The location chosen, as far away from human beings as possible, was a small island group called the Bikini Atoll, a part of the Marshall Islands. These pin-prick islands thrusting their head just above the western Pacific could have been on the far side of the moon as far as most people were concerned. But they would soon become a household word. One reason was the atomic test, the other, although notably less violent, would send even greater tremors throughout the world than the 23-kiloton bomb exploded on July 1, 1946. In one of the more enjoyable examples of the Law of Unexpected Consequences, the result of this test was the increased popularity of a very skimpy type of clothing called the Bikini. How did a cutting-edge weapon of mass destruction become linked with popular beach wear? The story begins in that first post-war summer.

Victor Gamma explains.

Micheline Bernardini wearing a bikini in 1946. Source: Hulton Archive, here.

Ever since Hiroshima, atomic energy had intrigued the general public and produced far-reaching cultural effects as well. In the United States, the Atomic Cafe opened in Los Angeles that year. Not long afterward, Lyle Griffin would found “Atomic Records” as a label.  France would have its own unique reaction: a daring new line of swimwear. With this design the redoubtable French recaptured the lead in the post-war fashion industry while barely missing a beat. The product they unleashed on the world would have a more far-reaching impact than a cafe in California.

The bikini was the latest result of the ultimate product of historical processes reaching back generations. The twentieth century could be called the Age of the Plummeting hem line. From the turn-of-the century, when bathing gowns and bathing machines dominated the scene without a leg showing, to the 1940’s two-piece, Inch by inch the women’s beachwear shrunk until by the 1940s two piece outfits that exposed the midriff were well established. The hips, back and breast were still well-covered and it was still unacceptable for women to expose their belly button in public. World War II sped up the trend towards greater skimpiness. War-time shortages of fabrics led to rationing. On March 8, 1942 the United States War Production Board issued Regulation L-85 which ordered the swimwear industry to reduce by 10% the amount of fabric for women. The swimwear industry responded with a number of changes. Basically they became less frilly, more functional and in the process, exposed more skin, including two-piece suits with bare midriffs. In the United States, geographically the war was a distant event Americans only read or heard about. Thus, unlike in war-torn Europe, Americans were free to indulge their favorite habits, such as enjoying a day at the beach. American fashion designers had done their patriotic best to meet war-time shortages by removing some superfluous material.  But those worn in the US were quite modest compared to the bombshell French designers were about to drop.  

In 1946, after years of shortages and air raid sirens, Europeans looked forward to the first peace-time summer in 6 years. That and the reality of conditions in France led many to seek distractions. The economy was in shambles, citizens felt the bite of food shortages and much of decaying buildings in Paris showed the results of years of neglect. More than anything, the war-weary French yearned to enjoy sunny days at the traditional vacation spots. For many this meant packing up the family and heading to the beach. These had been closed for much of the war. In the spirit of healthy patriotic capitalism, some saw a way to help out and make money at the same time. Said one fashion designer, “In 1946 France had just come out of the war and people needed to live again - I felt I had to design something that would make people understand that life can start over and be beautiful.” Men like this were busy at their design desks focusing on ideas that would match the liberated mood of the season.  Among these were a former auto engineer named Louis Réard and clothing designer Jacques Heim.

An Unlikely Connection 

The fashion industry thrives on novelty and the changing of seasons. Knowing this, Réard and Heim both raced to create a new swimwear for the fast approaching summer. Partly influenced by on-going shortages of material caused by the recent World War, both were intent on pushing the limits on size. Both also shared the current obsession with atomic energy. Heim, who owned a beach-supply shop on the French Riviera, introduced a two-piece swimwear in May, 1946. This was actually a re-launching of an earlier design influenced by Tahitian dancers. He called his creation “The Atom” after the smallest known particle of matter. It featured a bottom that covered the navel, even if barely. Heim hired skywriters to fly over the most popular beaches declaring the “Atom:the world’s smallest bathing suit.”

Unfortunately for Heim, his ambition and talent was shared by Réard. He followed Heim’s progress with the attention of a shark and decided to use his product and marketing as a launch pad for his own creation. Despite his engineering background, he found himself running his mother’s lingerie shop by the 1940s. A natural competitor, Heim’s creation pushed him to do something even more attention-getting. The observant engineer noticed women at the beach at St. Tropez rolling up the edges of their swimwear to get more tan. In what would be a fortuitous turn of events, his mother’s shop also served as the shoe shop for the famous cabaret Les Folies bergère. Here he most likely saw costumes very similar to his own creation. Some dancers wore outfits using as little as 30 inches of fabric consisting of a bra and two inverted triangles. All of this inspired the intrepid engineer to surpass Heim. Why couldn’t he take what was basically a cabaret outfit and merchandise it for use in a mainstream setting? He rushed to his design desk and trimmed material off the bottom design. The result was a daring combination of halter top connected by a neck and back strap. The lower piece was simply two inverted triangles connected by a gstring. It was indeed smaller than Heim’s, using a mere 30 inches of fabric. The main difference between Réard and Heim’s design was that Réard challenged convention by exposing the navel and much of the buttocks. He promoted his creation as a direct challenge to Heim “smaller than the smallest bathing suit in the world.”  Réard chose a newspaper pattern for his new swimwear confident that it would be newsworthy. It was also a shameless ploy to win the favor of the journalist community. 

Next came the task of choosing an appropriate name. What would resonate with the public? The news-savvy engineer knew that the attention of all France was riveted on the atomic tests taking place that summer. Réard could thank Operation Crossroads for choosing the location they did. They could have easily selected a nearby island such as Allinglaplap. As it was, the site chosen contained just the perfect combination of syllables. As the engineer-turned-fashion icon later explained “At that time everybody spoke of the island of Bikini in the pacific, enchanted, tiny, fine sand, a paradise. The idea came to me to make a swimsuit tiny like that island.” More likely, Réard simply wanted to beat Heim in the competition. Réard’s creative genius made the connection between two seemingly unrelated things: his daring swimwear and the current atomic tests. With the natural instincts of a Madison Avenue advertising talent, he put the two together: The new atomic age and a revolutionary new line of swimwear. Next, he chose a very attention-getting slogan - 'The Bikini will be explosive.’ Two weeks after the Able atomic bomb test, Réard registered the name Bikini for his latest swimwear creations. What the wily Frenchman was in effect saying was that his design was as momentous an occasion as the Atomic Bomb. In his words, “Like the bomb, the bikini is small but devastating.” 

Search for a Model    

Of course, the full effect could not be appreciated without someone to wear it for the public. He especially needed models who specialized in swimwear. Since the design would be considered scandalous, this took some doing. His string two-piece left very little to the imagination. Essentially, the model would be appearing semi-naked in public. None of the usual models were willing to wear his ‘bikini’ let alone waltz around in public in a skimpy two-piece. Réard, in fact, was forced to find a strip-tease dancer. Fortunately for Réard there were dancers of the other type: someone not shy about exposure in public. In a fortuitous circumstance, Réard’s shop was located not too distant from the Casino de Paris. This was a well-established music hall that attracted patrons from all over the world for generations. Famed for the lavish costumes, the Casino dancers wore a wild diversity of costumes including some resembling Réard’s later bikini. The Casino de Paris also sometimes featured topless and nude dancing. Among the dancers in 1946 was an 18-year old strip-dancer named Micheline Bernardini.  When Réard offered to hire her to model his new two-piece, she readily agreed. She donned the string two-piece bathing attire and stepped into history. 



Public Exposure

Next Réard arranged a press conference to take place as an outdoor fashion show at the Piscine Molitor, a popular public swimming pool in Paris. The date was July 5, 1946, five days after the Atomic detonation at Bikini Atoll. At the event she posed for a number of photographs. Reard arranged a press conference. Bernardini posed and held a matchbox, indicating that the entire outfit could fit in the tiny container. Never one to miss a beat, Réard kept repeating his advertising slogan; "Bikini--smaller than the smallest bathing suit in the world." 

That summer’s fashion wars waxed hot the following weeks as Heim and Réard vied with each other to capture the market. Réard hired his own skywriters to specifically counter Heim’s claim, beachgoers looked up to see "smaller than the smallest swimming suit in the world.” The merciless engineer continued his campaign to overshadow Heim by proclaiming that he had “split the atom.” Sadly for Heim, his competitor was a natural showman and, although he was first and initially sold more, it was Réard’s name bikini that stuck.

Reaction

The reaction was indeed explosive. Like it or hate it - it could not be ignored. “Four triangles of nothing,” asserted one newspaper. Heim and Réard’s instincts proved correct. France, buoyed by recent liberation and excited to enjoy life again (a French specialty), fixed its attention on the latest fashion breakthrough. Some in the press remarked that the bikini design must have been inspired by the atomic tests because the wearer looked like a survivor from a nuclear blast, whose clothes were reduced to tatters. Others speculated that the primitive islanders living near the blast influenced the simplicity of the design. Whatever the press commentary, much of the public loved the daring new outfit. The delighted Réard was deluged by fan mail to the tune of 50,000 within a short-time of the event at Piscine Molitor. The obscure Miss Bernardini also became something of a celebrity, receiving at least 500,000 fan letters. Réard would continue hammering his message with an advertising campaign that included the slogan “It’s not a genuine bikini unless it could be pulled through a wedding ring.” The witty engineer followed up with such descriptions of this design that it "reveals everything about a girl except for her mother's maiden name." Another gem from the quotable designer was that the bikini had "just enough to protect the property without spoiling the view." 

Despite the sensationalism generated by the press, as well the pronouncements of cultural spokespersons such as Diana Vreeland: “The bikini is the most important thing since the atom bomb,” mainstream life at the beach continued to reflect more conservative dress until the 1960s. Except for the jet-set that adopted the latest Paris fashions and took them to their favorite hot place, international sales were disappointing. Other than a core of enthusiastic supporters and women of the more daring type, the insubstantial design was too revealing for most people. Although by the 1930s women’s swimwear displayed the entire leg, midriff and had a plunging neckline, Réard’s design pushed well beyond those limits. "I can't think of any situation in the thousand years before the 1960s when it was acceptable to show the navel, " said Kevin Jones, a curator and fashion historian at the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising in Los Angeles. “It was avant-garde; it was ahead of its time,” said Miss Rayer, co-author of a book on the bikini’s history. “In that epoch, we were still puritan.”

Legacy

When the bikini began to appear on the beaches, it was banned almost everywhere. Citations were given in Italy for wearing a bikini as late as 1957. In more progressive nations, the bikini began to gain traction, so promoters attempted to endorse it. But time was on the side of the bikini. They, of course, dominate most beaches today. By the 2000s the bikini industry generated over $800 million yearly. By the time Réard died in 1984, bikinis would amount to as much as 20% of the swimwear market. But more than introducing a popular product, Réard’s creation reflected changing standards. What Réard essentially did was to mainstream a mode of dress that had up to that point been relegated to places of ill-repute. In 2007 Le Figaro trumpeted “For women, wearing a bikini signaled a kind of second liberation…It was … a celebration of freedom and a return to the joys of life.” Since Réard’s time the bikini and swimwear have continued to evolve, as have cultural attitudes about issues related to femininity and modesty. In the future, innovation, creativity and the continuous quest to push the boundaries of acceptability are sure to provide new expressions. 

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

Now read Victor’s series on how the US misjudged Fidel Castro here.

Bibliography

Rubin, Alissa J. “From Bikinis to Burkinis, Regulating What women Wear.” The New York Times, August 27, 2016.

From Bikinis to Burkinis, Regulating What Women Wear - The New York Times 

Hendrix, Steve. “You have this French man to thank - or chastise - for creating the modern bikini.” The Lily News, July 10, 2018.

You have this French man to thank — or chastise — for creating the modern bikini

“Man Who Invented the Bikini Bares his Thoughts.” The Dispatch, Nov. 5, 1974. 

The Dispatch - Google News Archive Search 

Stanton, Audrey. “The Scandalous History Of The Bikini.” The Good Trade, August 2, 2019.

 The Scandalous History Of The Bikini — The Good Trade

Image fair use rationale: Educational. This photograph plays a fundamental part in the history of the bikini. It is essential to explain the history of the bikini in the post-war period.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

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

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

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

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

Life at sea

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

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

The role of the naval surgeon

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

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

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

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

The Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Wars

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

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

Hospital ships in the Napoleonic war

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

2 Ibid.

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

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

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

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

7 Ibid.

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

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

10 Ibid.,p.56.

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

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

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

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid, p.8.

16 Ibid.