Why did the Spain Lag Behind Much of Europe in the Mid-1800s?

The Industrial Revolution, which saw many countries move from predominantly farming economies to industrial ones, began in England in approximately 1840. However, Spain did not experience that movement until at least roughly 1880. Janel Miller explains some of the reasons why.

The group who built a tramline from Barcelona to Mataro in mid-19th century Spain.

Multiple Reasons for the Delay

As late as 1855, only about 20 percent of Spain’s land was considered cultivated. The rest had been “blasted by a ruinous system of exploitation.” Around the same time, criminals and beggars were rampant, formal education was not widespread and free speech was not common.

For those reasons and likely others, very few roads had been built by 1955. Compounding Spain’s ability to transport what goods it did produce and thus grow its economy was that its geography is more mountainous than all but one other European country (Switzerland). Spain also had “virtually no” rivers or canals that ships could sail on smoothly.   

In the limited instances where roads did exist, it appeared that few bridges spanned waterways well into the 1860s, hindering some transportation efforts. In addition, in the 1850s and 1860s, a majority of Spain’s workforce was employed in an agricultural-based business. Spain’s coal, which was being used in large amounts by the United Kingdom (and likely at least several other countries) to support the industrial plants being built on their landscapes, was also apparently inferior to that of some of its neighbors.

As one author put it when describing Spain during some of the years discussed here, “the rest of the world had long since awakened to a life of freedom and joined in the race of modern development; Spain was still asleep, drugged with the fumes of prescribed ignorance and dictated intolerance.”

Spain’s Gross Domestic Product

Spain’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew only about 1.1 percent annually from 1850 until 1935. This increase was better than countries such as Italy and Britain, whose yearly GDP grew 0.7 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively, during that 85-year span.

However, Spain’s GDP was lower than that of France and Germany, each of whose annual GDP increased 1.6 percent each year from 1850 to 1935.

Efforts to Modernize Hit Roadblock

Various regimes in the 1850s and 1860s enacted several laws to try and modernize its economy. Some of these laws are discussed below.

One such law was known as the Disentailment Law in the English language. This law allowed the taking of land and the awarding of lands that once belonged to the church, state and local governments to the highest bidder.

Another such law, whose name in English translated to the General Railway Act, removed many of the “administrative” difficulties in building railways that had previously been in place.

A third law was known as the Credit Company Act in the English language. This law allowed the creation of investment banks that were similar in scope to other countries that had already begun the economic modernization process.

However well-intended these laws may have been, Spain experienced a financial crisis from 1864 to 1866 that at least partially hindered that country’s growth.

In Context

Spain’s economy during the 1850s and 1860s, when looked at how it compared to some of its European neighbors, may remind some of how Haiti’s economy compares with the relatively nearby United States. (Haiti was chosen randomly for the purposes of the comparisons that follow.)

In the United States, the GDP of the United States is more than $20 trillion, placing it first among all countries, while Haiti’s GDP is approximately $21 billion, and the poorest (or almost the poorest) country in the Americas per head of population. In addition, while roughly 10.5 percent of U.S. workers are in the agricultural, food and related businesses, about 66 percent of Haitian workers are employed in farming.   

Determining the appropriate GDP to maintain a decent standard of living and the suitable number of agricultural workers a country should employ is beyond the scope of this blog.

That said, since the 1860s, Spain has gained economic ground against its neighbors, providing hope that in the future, the difference between the lower, middle and upper classes in all countries will become less apparent.

What do you think of Spain’s position in the mid 19th century?

Now read Janel’s article on the role of Brazil in World War 2 here.

References

Brittanica.com Editors. Brittanica.com. “Industrial Revolution.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution. Accessed April 2, 2023.

Tapia FJB and Martinez-Galarraga J. “Inequality and Growth in a Developing Economy: Evidence from Regional Data (Spain 1860-1930).” Social Science History. Volume 44, Number 1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/inequality-and-growth-in-a-developing-economy-evidence-from-regional-data-spain-18601930/802599439621953BD012A8797A684DC7. Accessed March 31, 2023.

Delmar A. “The Resources, Production and Social Condition of Spain.” American Philosophical Society. Volume 14, Number 94, Pages 301-343. https://www.jstor.org/stable/981861. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Simpson J. “Economic Development of Spain, 1850-1936.” The Economic History Review. Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 348-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0289.00058. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Delmar A. “The Resources, Production and Social Condition of Spain.” American Philosophical Society. Volume 14, Number 94, Pages 301-343. https://www.jstor.org/stable/981861. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Clark G and Jacks D. “Coal and the Industrial Revolution.” European Review of Economic History. Volume 11, Number 1, Pages 39-72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41378456. Accessed April 18, 2023.

Delmar A. “The Resources, Production and Social Condition of Spain.” American Philosophical Society. Volume 14, Number 94, Pages 301-343. https://www.jstor.org/stable/981861. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Moro A, et al. “A Twin Crisis with Multiple Banks of Issue: Spain in the 1860s.” European Central Bank. No. 1561. Published July 2013. Accessed March 31, 2023.

WorldPopulationReview.com Editors. WorldPopulationReview.com. “GDP Ranked by County 2023.” https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/by-gdp. Accessed April 17, 2023.

USDA.gov Editors. USDA.gov. “Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy.” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/. Accessed April 17, 2023.

NationsEncyclopedia.com Editors. NationsEncyclopedia.com. “Haiti-Agriculture.” https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Haiti-AGRICULTURE.html. Accessed April 17, 2023.

Simpson J. “Economic Development of Spain, 1850-1936.” The Economic History Review. Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 348-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0289.00058. Accessed March 21, 2023.

IBM and the Holocaust: That's How the Trains to Auschwitz Ran on Time

World War Two was full of very terrible atrocities, foremost among them being the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust. In this article, Felix Debieux looks at how the sheer number of people murdered during the Holocaust was possible, with a particular focus on the role of the company IBM.

Edwin Black, author of the book IBM and the Holocaust. Source: Juda Engelmayer, available here.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, better known as the Genocide Convention, represents a landmark in the field of international law. It was the first human rights treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly, and the first legal apparatus used to codify genocide as a crime. Since 1948, it has signified the international community’s commitment to ‘never again’ after the atrocities committed during the Second World War.

Ensuring that genocide is never repeated means providing the crime with a tight, verifiable definition. The treaty has this covered. “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”:

• Killing members of a group.

• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group.

• Deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group.

• Forcibly transferring children of a group to another group.

A legal framework for genocide, however, has not prevented the murder of countless innocents since the end of the Second World War. From Rwanda to Cambodia, history is littered with appalling episodes of human-inflicted suffering which meet the technical threshold for genocide. Each episode is unique in its origins and execution. Also unique are the experiences of those who have survived genocide, each group having fought for justice with varying degrees of success.

Anyone who has read even a little into the subject of genocide is very likely to have stumbled into the, at times, vociferous debate surrounding the uniqueness of one genocide in particular: the murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust. This article isn’t about to intervene in the debate; a morbid contest of ‘who-suffered-the-most' is neither enlightening nor sensitive to the victims of genocide. It will, however, agree with those who attest to the uniqueness of the Holocaust on one thing: that the sheer number of people murdered would not have been possible were it not for the unprecedented application by the Nazis of advanced industrial, scientific and technological capabilities.

Where did the Nazis obtain these capabilities, the logistical capacity to manage the identification, transportation, ghettoization and extermination of so many? A full answer to this question means looking beyond the Nazi government itself, and considering the partnerships the regime forged with private companies. Indeed, companies implicated in the Holocaust range from Audi and BMW - who maximised the opportunities afforded by slave labour - to Deutsche Bank, who provided loans for the construction of Auschwitz. One company which perhaps contributed more than any other was the US multinational company IBM (International Business Machines Corporation), whose tabulation technology was used to track individuals, monitor their movements, and ultimately facilitate their transportation across a network of prison, labour and extermination camps. IBM technology, quite literally, ensured that the trains to Auschwitz ran on time. How did the company become involved in the Holocaust, how much deniability can it claim, and what does this tell us about corporate complicity in human rights abuses?

IBM’s origins

To understand IBM’s part in the Holocaust, we first need to take a look at the company’s roots in early data processing and the US census. This is not as dull is it might sound. Back in the 1880s, the US Census Bureau employed a young German-American statistician named Herman Hollerith. Hollerith would go on to make a name for himself as a seminal figure in the development of data processing, eventually founding a company that in 1911 was amalgamated to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) - renamed in 1924 as IBM. The young statistician’s role in this story is critical.

While working for the US Census Bureau, Hollerith conceived the idea that would make his company rich: readable cards with standardised perforations, each representing individual traits such as nationality, sex, and occupation. When produced in their millions, these punch cards could be counted in the national census and tabulated based on the specific information they contained about each citizen. This innovation promised the US government a quantified snapshot of its population, filterable using demographic characteristics such as sex or occupation. One of CTR’s first customers was the US Census Bureau, which contracted the company to tabulate the 1890 census.

Fast forward to the 1930s, and IBM had established itself as a major player in the global computing industry with a number of offices across Europe. Chief among them was Dehomag, IBM’s German subsidiary, headed by Chief Executive and enthusiastic Hitler supporter Willy Heidinger. The ability to quantify and analyse entire populations like never before would, naturally, greatly interest a regime hellbent on purifying its citizenry of undesirables. But how did the latest tools and techniques in data processing fall into Nazi hands? For a second time, we find that a national census provided the opportunity for IBM to showcase its technology.

A lucrative partnership

Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 was met with a spectrum of reactions. Where some saw a threat to peace, others quickly grasped at the business opportunities presented by regime change. Among those who sought to capitalise was IBM president Thomas J. Watson, who from the very first days of the Nazi government manoeuvred to form a partnership. Despite widespread international calls to boycott the new regime, Watson inserted himself extremely closely into the management of IBM’s German operation. Indeed, between 1933 and 1939, Watson travelled to Berlin at least twice annually to personally supervise Dehomag’s work. In this period, the Nazi government would become one of IBM’s most important overseas clients.

On April 12, 1933, Dehomag was presented with a huge opportunity to cement the partnership. This was the date on which the Nazis announced plans to conduct a long-delayed national census, a project which would enable identification of Jews, Roma and other minority groups deemed subhuman by the new order. First in line to offer their services was Dehomag, backed at every step by IBM’s US headquarters. Indeed, Watson personally travelled to Germany in October that year, and drastically expanded investment in Dehomag from 400,000 Reichsmarks to a staggering 7,000,000. This injection of capital gave Dehomag the means to purchase land in Berlin, and to start construction of IBM’s first German factory. The scaling up of operations in Germany would prepare IBM to take on a bigger role in Nazi atrocities. Indeed, it was tabulated census data that enabled the Nazis to expand their estimate of 400,000 to 600,000 Jews living in Germany to 2,000,000.

Some part of Watson must have known that his company's partnership with the Third Reich was immoral, if not embarrassing. Tellingly, he took great pains to ensure deniability through his continued insistence on direct verbal instructions to his German staff. Nothing was written down, even in the case of high-value contracts. And yet there was no denying the tight leash with which Watson directed business. For instance, correspondence written in German was translated by the IBM New York office for Watson’s personal comment. In one anecdote, German staff recalled having to wait for Watson’s express permission before they were allowed to paint a corridor. Watson’s tenure as CEO would see IBM’s partnership with the Nazis grow more intimate still.

Business gets intimate

Writing at a time in which multinational corporations are heavily scrutinised in the public eye for any role – no matter how small – in human rights abuses, we might be forgiven for assuming that IBM maintained at least some semblance of distance from the atrocities taking place across Nazi-occupied Europe. The reality, however, is much more disturbing. As the regime’s sole supplier of punch cards and spare parts, IBM trainees (or sometimes authorised dealers) were required to be physically present when servicing their tabulation machines – even those located at infamous sites like Dachau. More chilling still, each IBM machine was tailor-made to not only tabulate inputted information, but also to produce data which the Nazis were interested in analysing. There were no universal punch cards, and so IBM’s role in servicing the machines ensured that they continued to operate at maximum efficiency.

To give a sense of how it worked, it might be helpful to describe an application of IBM tabulation technology in action. One set of punch cards, for example, recorded religion, nationality and mother tongue. By creating additional columns and rows for ‘Jew’, ‘Polish language’, ‘Polish nationality’, ‘Berlin’, and ‘fur trade’, the Nazis were able to cross-tabulate at a rate of 25,000 cards per hour to identify precisely how many Berlin furriers were Jews of Polish origin. Train cars, which previously would have taken two weeks to mobilise, could be quickly dispatched in just two days by means of an immense network of IBM punch card machines. This same technology was also put to use in concentration camps. Each camp maintained its own Hollerith-Abteilung (Hollerith Department), assigned with keeping tabs on inmates through the use of IBM's punch cards. The machines were so sophisticated that they were even capable of matching the skills of prisoners with projects that needed slave labour. Chillingly, IBM’s code for a Jewish inmate was “6” and the code it used for gas chamber was “8”.

While Nazi Germany extended its domination across Europe, there is no evidence to suggest that IBM paused at any point to reflect on its role in facilitating industrial-scale murder. On the contrary, each nation that fell to the Nazi war machine was subjected to a census, which relied on the machinery and punch cards supplied by IBM. At the same time as Europe’s Jews were murdered in their millions, IBM decision-makers in New York were gleefully carving up sales territories. Edwin Black, who's 2001 book first bought to light the company’s instrumental role in the Holocaust, warns us not to think of IBM’s partnership with the Nazis as some rogue corporate element operating out of a basement.  Far from it. This was a carefully micro-managed alliance spanning twelve years, which generated profit up until the last gasp of Hitler’s monstrous regime.

Legacy: IBM’s reaction and the role of big tech in genocide today

Revisiting his book twenty years later, Edwin Black makes the point that – with or without IBM – there would always have been a Holocaust. ‘Einsatzgruppen murder squads and their militia cohorts would still have heinously murdered East European Jews bullet by bullet in pits, ravines, and isolated clearings in the woods’. The question, however, is would the Nazis have been able to annihilate as many victims as they did without the data processing power offered by IBM technology? For Edwin, the answer to that question is never in doubt. IBM is responsible for facilitating the ‘industrial, high-speed, six-million-person Holocaust, metering ghetto residents out to trains, then carefully scheduling those trains to concentration camps for murder and cremation within hours, thus clearing the way for the next shipment of victims—day and night’. Put it another way: without IBM, the death toll of the Holocaust would be measured in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions.

To date, IBM has never directly denied any of the evidence of its role in the Holocaust. The company has previously insisted that most of its records from Europe were lost or destroyed during the war, and that it has no other information it can share about its operations during that time. It would seem IBM sees little benefit in attempting to refute or downplay its part in the Holocaust. Indeed, in the twenty years since Black published his book, he reminds us that ‘IBM has never requested a correction or denied any facts’. Since 2001, each edition of the book has provided further evidence of the company’s guilt.

Are there any lessons that we can draw from IBM’s role in the Holocaust? Importantly, the company’s facilitation of mass murder is a stark reminder of the power of data in the wrong hands. Indeed, we do not have to look too hard to find examples of authoritarian regimes using data to perpetuate genocide even today. From China's use of facial recognition technology to monitor and persecute its Uighur population, to Myanmar's use of social media to incite violence against Rohingya Muslims, we are bearing witness to new and alarming ways in which data is weaponised to inflict human rights abuses. While we do of course need to be vigilant about the ways in which governments – our own or further afield – might use data, we also need to remain extremely wary of non-governmental actors. Indeed, if IBM’s story shows us anything, it is that large multinational corporations are adept at evading accountability and continuing to function with impunity. Despite the millions that such organisations spend on PR management and glossy marketing campaigns, it is critical that we remain suspicious of what big tech can do to surveil, censor and unduly influence our lives.

What do you think of the role IBM in the Holocaust? Let us know below.

Now read Felix’s article on Henry Ford’s calamitous utopia in Brazil: Fordlandia Here.

References

Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation (2001)

IBM and the Holocaust -- 20 Years of Corporate Denial | Edwin Black | The Blogs (timesofisrael.com)

Lessons from IBM in Nazi Germany (hbr.org)

IBM and the Holocaust - Wikipedia

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

Amazing Women in the Wild West

When we think of the Wild West, we usually picture cowboys, rangers, and formidable gangsters who followed their own laws. However, women also left their mark on this piece of American history.

In the 1800s, the way of life in the American West demanded tough character from both men and women. In order to survive and thrive, they had to be cunning, quick-witted, and often merciless. Not to mention skilled at shooting firearms. Men weren’t the only colorful figures of the Wild West. Women proved easily their equal.

It was during this transition period of the Old West that several women established names for themselves, names easily as famous as their male counterparts.  There has been little written about some of these unhearled  women but each one had a major impact in the journey West and formation of our nation.

Richard Bluttal explains.

A picture of Calamity Jane, around the year 1880.

Calamity Jane (1856-1903)

Martha “Calamity” Jane Cannary was a frontierswoman who earned her nickname after rescuing a military Captain involved in a Native American ambush. How did Martha Jane Canary go from an orphaned prostitute to one of the most famous women in the Wild West? In Wyoming, she began to develop the identity that would make her famous as Calamity Jane.

With questionable character, boldness, and the ability to captivate, Calamity Jane was a woman-of-all trades. Following the military from fort to fort on the frontier, Jane was no stranger to the Wild West.

Far from a blushing rose, Jane’s life story is peppered with wild tales that still inspire filmmakers and writers to this day. She was even known to claim children in her company as her own, only to never be seen with them again.

Calamity Jane, one of the rowdiest and adventurous women in the Old west , was a frontierswoman and professional scout, who was known for her being a friend to Wild Bill Hickok and appearing in Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show.

In 1870, she joined General George Armstrong Custer as a scout at Fort Russell, Wyoming, donning the uniform of a soldier. This was the beginning of Calamity Jane’s habit of dressing like a man. Heading south, the campaign traveled to Arizona in their zest to put Native Americans on reservations. In her own words, Calamity would later say of this time, that she was the most reckless and daring rider and one of the best shots in the West.

Some legends say that she disguised herself as a man to accompany soldiers as a scout on expeditions, including the 1875 expedition of General George Crook against the Lakota. She developed a reputation for hanging out with the miners, railroad workers, and soldiers—enjoying heavy drinking with them. She was arrested, frequently, for drunkenness and disturbing the peace.

In 1877 and 1878, Edward L. Wheeler featured Calamity Jane in his popular Western dime novels, adding to her reputation. She became something of a local legend at this time because of her many eccentricities. Calamity Jane gained admiration when she nursed victims of a smallpox epidemic in 1878, also dressed as a man.

How did Jane get the moniker "Calamity Jane"? Many answers have been offered by historians and storytellers. "Calamity," some say, is what Jane would threaten to any man who bothered her. She also claimed the name was given to her because she was good to have around in a calamity, such as the smallpox epidemic of 1878. Maybe the name was a description of a very hard and tough life. Like much in her life, it's simply not certain.

Charley Parkhurst (1812-1879)

Charley Parkhurst was a legendary driver of six-horse stagecoaches during California’s Gold Rush — the “best whip in California,” by one account.

Times were rough for ladies in the Wild West, so this crackerjack stagecoach driver decided to live most of her life as a man. Born in 1812, Parkhurst lived well into her sixties, in spite of being a hard-drinking, tobacco-chewing, fearless, one-eyed brute. She drove stages for Wells Fargo and the California Stage Company, not an easy or particularly safe career. The job was treacherous and not for the faint of heart — pulling cargos of gold over tight mountain passes and open desert, at constant peril from rattlesnakes and desperadoes — but Parkhurst had the makeup for it: “short and stocky,” a whiskey drinker, cigar smoker and tobacco chewer who wore a black eyepatch after being kicked in the left eye by a horse. In California, she quickly became known for her ability to move passengers and gold safely over important routes between gold-mining outposts and major towns like San Francisco or Sacramento. “Only a rare breed of men (and women),” wrote the historian Ed Sams in his 2014 book “The Real Mountain Charley,” “could be depended upon to ignore the gold fever of the 1850s and hold down a steady job of grueling travel over narrow one-way dirt roads that swerved around mountain curves, plummeting into deep canyons and often forded swollen, icy streams.”

The legend really took off after her death, when the coroner learned that Charley was a female, who had been named Charlene and had once given birth. She had pulled off one of the most remarkable hoaxes on record. It was an amazing story and much talked about in California, where her exploits driving four-in-hand or six-in-hand teams was common knowledge and where so many in the livery business had personal recollections of her daring coolness in times of danger.

Using her secret identity, Parkhurst was a registered voter and may have been the first American woman to cast a ballot. She lived out the rest of her life raising cattle and chickens until her death in 1879. It was then that her true identity was revealed, much to the surprise of her friends.

Narcissa Whitman (1808-1847)

Narcissa Whitman was one of the first white women to cross the North American continent overland on her way to become a missionary to the Cayuse Nation in present-day Washington. She, and her husband Marcus, helped facilitate the colonization of the Oregon Country via the Oregon Trail before ultimately being killed during an attack on the mission site in 1847.Pioneer and Missionary in Oregon Country Narcissa Whitman (1808-1847) traveled some 3,000 miles from her home in upstate New York to Oregon Country. She was the first white woman to cross the Rocky Mountains in 1836 on her way to found the Whitman Mission among the Cayuse Indians near modern day Walla Walla, Washington. She became one of the best known figures of the 19th century through her diaries and the many letters she wrote to family and friends in the east.

Narcissa Prentiss married Marcus Whitman on February 18, 1836. She was 27; he, 33. Among the guests was one of two Nez Perce boys that Marcus had brought back with him, in hopes they would learn enough English to serve as translators once the new mission was established. He was the first Native American Narcissa had ever seen.

The Whitmans left for Oregon Country in March 1836 to begin their missionary activities among the Native Americans there. The 3,000-mile journey – made by sleigh, canal barge, wagon, river sternwheeler, on horseback and on foot – took about seven months. As the missionaries traveled in relative comfort on Missouri River steamboats, Narcissa reveled in the luxury of “servants, who stand at our elbows ready to supply every want” (March 28, 1836).

“Can scarcely resist the temptation to stand out to view the shores of the majestic river,” she wrote in her diary as the boat approached St. Louis. “Varied scenes present themselves as we pass up – beautiful landscapes – on the one side high and rugged bluffs, and on the other low plains” (March 28, 1836). She was in good spirits. “I think I shall endure the journey well – perhaps better than any of the rest of us” (April 7, 1836).

Ahead lay some 1,900 miles of prairie, mountain and desert. To cross in safety, the small missionary party joined the American Fur Company’s caravan of 70 or so traders on their way to the annual rendezvous in Green River, Wyoming. The missionaries were late setting out and ended up having to make several forced marches before they caught up with the caravan on May 26, 1836.

The next day, they encountered their first Indian villages. Narcissa and Eliza were the first white women the Indians had ever seen. “We ladies were such a curiosity to them,” Narcissa wrote. “They would come in and stand around our tent, peep in, and grin in their astonishment to see such looking objects” (June 27, 1836).

The caravan’s route followed river valleys westward toward the Rocky Mountains. This part of the journey was long and tedious, covering only fifteen miles or so in a good day. The diet by that point consisted mostly of buffalo meat (supplied by the caravan’s hunters), supplemented with milk from the missionaries’ cows. Narcissa seemed to relish the experience. “I never was so contented and happy before, neither have I enjoyed such health for years,” she wrote (June 4, 1836).

Narcissa died on November 29, 1847, along her husband and eleven other adult men. She was killed in an attack on the mission by a small group of Weyíiletpuu men who were motivated by the raging measles epidemic in their community and Dr. Whitman’s inability to cure their dying people.  

Mary Fields (1835-1914)

Better known as “Stagecoach Mary,” was a force to be reckoned with: a pioneer who made a name for herself as the first African American woman to receive employment as a U.S. postal service star-route mail carrier.

Fields was born into slavery and was freed at the end of the Civil War. She eventually made her way out west to Montana where she worked for St. Peter’s Mission. She received her mail service contract in 1895 and held her contract for 8 years. Fields had the star route contract for the delivery of U.S. mail from Cascade, Montana, to Saint Peter's Mission.

By 1895, at sixty years old, Fields secured a job as a Star Route Carrier which used a stagecoach to deliver mail in the unforgiving weather and rocky terrain of Montana, with the help of nearby Ursuline nuns, who relied on Mary for help at their mission. This made her the first African-American woman to work for the U.S. Postal Service. True to her fearless demeanor, she carried multiple firearms, most notably a .38 Smith & Wesson under her apron to protect herself and the mail from wolves, thieves and bandits, driving the route with horses and a mule named Moses. She never missed a day, and her reliability earned her the nickname "Stagecoach Mary" due to her preferred mode of transportation. If the snow was too deep for her horses, Fields delivered the mail on snowshoes, carrying the sacks on her shoulders.

Mary’s legend grew her death. She was made a hero, a symbol of female black empowerment. Yet how did Montanans truly understand about her during her time in Cascade? Were people capable of understanding the autonomy, persona, and character of a freed, literate African American woman who did not conform to the ideals put on her by society?

Mary drank and wore men’s clothing at times, she smoked and carried guns. Yet in death she has become this powerhouse woman. Mary had the ability to become the first African American woman Star Route Carrier during a time when the West was a predominantly white society, which says something to Mary’s relentless character and larger than life personality

Sacagawea: Translator and Guide (1788-1818/1819)

One of the best-known women of the American West, the native-born Sacagawea gained renown for her crucial role in helping the Lewis & Clark expedition successfully reach the Pacific coast.

President Thomas Jefferson dispatched Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to chart the new land and scout a Northwest Passage to the Pacific coast. After more than a year of planning and initial travel, the expedition reached the Hidatsa-Mandan settlement. Here they met Sacagawea and Charbonneau, whose combined language skills proved invaluable–especially Sacagawea’s ability to speak to the Shoshone.

Sacagawea, along with her newborn baby, was the only woman to accompany the 31 permanent members of the Lewis & Clark expedition to the Western edge of the nation and back.  Her knowledge of the Shoshone and Hidatsa languages was a great help during their journey. She communicated with other tribes and interpreted for Lewis and Clark. She was also skilled at finding edible plants, which proved to be crucial to supplementing their rations along the journey. Further, Sacagawea was valuable to the expedition because her presence signified peace and trustworthiness

Once they reached Idaho, Sacagawea’s knowledge of the landscape and the Shoshone language proved valuable. The expedition was eager to find the Shoshone and trade with them for horses. The success of the journey hinged on finding the tribe: without horses the explorers would be unable to get their supplies over the mountains. Recognizing landmarks in her old neighborhood, Sacagawea reassured the explorers that the Shoshone - and their horses - would soon be found. When the Expedition did meet the Shoshone, Sacagawea helped the Corps communicate, translating along with her husband.

Historians have debated the events of Sacagawea’s life after the journey’s end. Although opinions differ, it is believed that she died at Fort Manuel Lisa near present-day Kenel, South Dakota. At the time of her death she was not yet 30.

Short stories about other women

Mary Walton

Mary Walton was an early environmental pioneer. In 1879, she developed a way to deflect factory smokestack emissions using water tanks. This technology was later adapted for steam engines, which emitted large plumes of soot as they rode the rails.

Cathay Williams

She was the first African-American woman to enlist in the army, and did so by disguising herself as a man. Though she was hospitalized five times, no one ever discovered her secret. She called herself William Cathay and was deemed fit for duty. 

Biddy Mason

She started life as a slave, but after winning her freedom in court in 1856, she moved to Los Angeles and became a nurse and midwife. Ten years later, she bought her own land for $250, making her one of the first Black women to own land in Los Angeles.

Goldy Griffith

Goldie Griffith, often known as the “Rose of the Klondike,” was a well-known character during the late-nineteenth-century Klondike Gold Rush. She was born in Montana in 1871 and became involved in the Alaska gold rush when she was in her twenties.

Goldie soon rose to prominence as a prospector with the ability to hold her own in a male-dominated sector. She was also recognized for her beauty and charm, and she was well-liked by the region’s miners and prospectors.

Goldie staked a claim in the Yukon in 1898, becoming one of the few women to own and run a mine during the gold rush. She was also well-known for her involvement in a number of businesses, including a saloon and a hotel.

What do you think about women in the Wild West? Let us know below.

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

The Space Race, Yuri Gagarin, JFK and the Conspiracy that Never Happened

In 1961 Yuri Gagarin went to space, but more importantly he didn’t visit the United States immediately after. John F. Kennedy personally barred him from entering, scared of his popularity—so the Telegraph, Wikipedia, and countless blogs say. It has all the makings of a classic Cold War conspiracy theory: John F. Kennedy, fear of the Soviet Union, and the Space Race. There’s just one problem: it isn’t true. Yet while the evidence refutes this Cold War truism, it explains why the story was easily accepted. This myth says much more about the nature of the United States during the Red Scare than it does about Yuri Gagarin.

Steve Ewin explains.

Yuri Gagarin in Warsaw, Poland in 1961.

There are two main versions of the Gagarin Myth. The first, as stated in Britain’s Telegraph, is that John F. Kennedy was so alarmed by Gagarin’s popularity that he barred him from the United States. The second, as an extension of the first, is that Kennedy’s method of barring was via Executive Order.

The second version is the easiest to disprove: no executive order or proclamation exists that barred Gagarin from the United States.(1) The only references to Gagarin by Kennedy as official actions of the United States are those of congratulatory messages for his achievement.

Expanding this to other offices of the executive branch also produces no evidence. The agency responsible for enforcing bans on specific individuals fell to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Thousands of pages exist regarding Charlie Chaplin, barred from entering the United States in 1952.(2) Further, the United States Customs and Immigration Service (the INS’ successor agency) has thousands of pages of documents related to John Lennon’s attempted barring.(3) In response to a FOIA request for records related to Gagarin, none were found. The stories of Chaplin and Lennon, however, are inseparable from the Red Scare and Cold War politics.

The politics of it all

The Red Scare is what makes the first version of this myth seem plausible. In 1952 the United States Congress passed, and President Eisenhower signed, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This act effectively barred any Soviet citizen from entry to the United States. A win trumpeted by American Cold Warriors, it quickly became a disaster for the United States abroad. A National Security Council report dated March 25 1955 states that the general travel restriction:

…placed [the US] in a paradoxical position, which is being exploited by Communist propaganda. Despite its traditional policy favoring freedom of travel and its record of having favored a liberal exchange of persons…the U.S. is being accused of maintaining an “Iron Curtain”; and these accusations are being made not only by representatives of international Communism but also by otherwise friendly persons in the free world.(4)

These restrictions were still in place during Gagarin’s goodwill tour post-space. Kennedy would not have needed a reason to personally bar Gagarin from the United States after his historic 1961 flight. He would not have been allowed in the United States by default.

There was a way around this. The Immigration Act of 1952 provided exemptions for official and diplomatic business. As the United States and the Soviet Union maintained diplomatic ties, an exemption was built into the act which allowed for members of “deportable” affiliations to be in the United States if on official business from their home governments. If Gagarin was invited to the United States as an official representative of the Soviet Union (or sent by the Soviet Union as one), the Immigration Act of 1952 would have allowed it. In the immediate aftermath of Gagarin’s flight such an invitation was recommended by the American Ambassador to the Soviet Union.(5)

Official discouragement

The timing of Gagarin’s flight was not opportune for an invitation. Five days after Gagarin’s triumphant flight the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion occurred. The American-backed attempted invasion of a major Soviet ally greatly damaged American prestige. Yet, by the time Gagarin was on a good-will tour, America had an answer. Alan Shepard became the first American in space on May 5, 1961. According to John Logsdon’s award winning book, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, worldwide reaction to Shepard’s flight was more favourable than Gagarin’s. According to a May 1961 report of the U.S. Information Agency, the United States was already winning the propaganda battle of space flights.(6)

A June 1961 State Department telegram is a not-quite-smoking gun. The formerly classified document states that “no invitation for Gagarin to visit [the] US” had been made. Further, it states that the United States government “has made efforts to discourage invitation.”(7) This is the closest document which exists to suggest that Gagarin was banned from the United States: a discouragement. With the United States riding the wave of international support brought by Shepard’s flight, there was nothing to fear about Gagarin. Within a year, however, this discouragement would be moot.

Kennedy himself lifted the general travel restrictions in 1962. This decision was made upon recommendation by Secretary of State Dean Rusk and in consultation with the Central Intelligence Agency.(8) In April 1962, White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger wrote a memorandum stating that Gagarin was expected to be in Washington, DC that summer.(9) On July 6, 1962, the United States informed the Soviet Ambassador to the United States that the travel restrictions had been removed.(10) On October 16, 1963, Yuri Gagarin appeared before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City.

While Gagarin’s purported banishment from the United States makes for a good Cold War story, the evidence simply does not support it. Legislation, and governmental opinion, would have allowed Gagarin entry into the United States at any point, had it been politically expedient. However, due to the political climate of the Cold War and the rivalry between the United Stated and Soviet Union, the myth took root and flourished.

What do you think of Gagarin and JFK? Let us know below.

References

1 “Written Presidential Orders | The American Presidency Project,” n.d., https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/app-categories/presidential/written-presidential-orders

2 Electronic Reading Room - USCIS. “Charlie Chaplin,” December 25, 1977. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/records/electronic-reading-room?ddt_mon=&ddt_yr=&query=Chaplin&items_per_page=10.

3 Electronic Reading Room - USCIS. “John Lennon,” December 8, 1980. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/records/electronic-reading-room?ddt_mon=&ddt_yr=&query=john+lennon&items_per_page=10.

4 U.S. Department of State, Office of The Historian. “National Security Council Report NSC 5508/1,” March 26, 1955. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v24/d94.

5 17 April 1961, US Department of State Staff Summary, Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President's Office Files. Departments and Agencies. State, 1961: April-May, pg 166/ https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/088/JFKPOF-088-001?image_identifier=JFKPOF-088-001-p0001

6 J Logsdon. 2016. John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon. Palgrave Macmillan. 96-97.

7 State to Paris, Telegram 1839, June  26 1961, 033.6140/6-2461, 1960-63 CDF, RG59, USNA.

8 U.S. Department of State, Office of The Historian. “Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to President Kennedy,” April 25, 1962. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v24/d94.

9 Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. White House Central Subject Files. Outer Space (OS). OS: 4-1: Astronauts: General, 1962: 26 March-31 May, page 38. https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHCSF/0655/JFKWHCSF-0655-007

10 American Foreign Policy, Current Documents. 1962. Department of State, 1966 .pp. 740-741.

The 1935 Italian Invasion of Abyssinia - What did Britain and France do?

In 1935 Fascist Italy, under Benito Mussolini’s rule, invaded Abyssinia, one of the few independent countries in Africa at the time. The war split opinion in Europe, and caused particular issues for Britain and France as they hoped to ally with Italy against Nazi Germany’s plans. Should they strongly intervene against Italy, or offer a more limited response? Stephen Prout explains.

Italian troops advancing on Addis Ababa during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War (1935-37).

Introduction

In 1935 Italy invaded Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia). Italy was then under the control of a fascist regime ruled by Benito Mussolini and part of his grandiose plans was to expand Italy’s modest empire. In the immediate years after the First World War’s end there was deep dissatisfaction with the terms of the Paris Peace conference, Vittorio Orlando and Sonnino his Foreign Ministers departed early betrayed by her Western allies. In the 1915 Treaty of London Italy’s former allies, Britain, France, and Russia, promised her territory in the Balkans and North Africa in return for her participation in the war on the Allied side - but these promises were broken and she left empty handed. Mussolini came to power in 1921. His aspiration was clear - it was to make Italy great, respected and feared.  Part of that plan was the expansion of the Italian Empire.

Abyssinia was Italy’s first major territorial gain and in October 1935 forces of the Italian Army conquered the country isnless than a year. The new League of nations would be outraged and on the surface Britain and France would be disapproving. Although the conflict was on a different continent thousands miles away it had grave significance for European affairs. The outcome would place an isolated Italy in the Nazi Camp and once again divide Europe into two opposing camps.

Abyssinia and its relations with Europe

The imperial powers had always been present and hovering in the background since the late nineteenth century ready to meddle in Abyssinian affairs. Italy had long carried an irreconcilable sense of national humiliation from her defeat by Abyssinian forces in 1896 at Adwa. She had not had the opportunity to repair her international standing in the same way Britain did when the Zulu army overcame British forces at Isandlwana in the 1880s. This had always been a blight to Italy’s new national pride.

As far as other European powers were concerned, in 1906 Italy along with Britain and France formed a Tripartite Pact in which spheres of influence in Abyssinia were established amongst the three powers, and they were ready to enact and occupy in the event of the country’s collapse following a period of turmoil.

Abyssinia was one of two independent countries in Africa in the 1930s (the other was Liberia). That set them apart from the rest of the colonized continent (slight exceptions were South Africa and Egypt who had semi-autonomous roles as either veiled protectorates or Dominion status). Africa was still very much under European domination, mainly Britain and France. Italy was seeking expansion in North Africa, the Balkans and the Mediterranean.  Abyssinia offered that sole opportunity as far as Africa was concerned. Trying to seize British or French territory was militarily out of the question for her.

When compared to European standards Abyssinia was very much behind economically, socially, and politically. Abyssinia entered the twentieth century with many of its medieval ways and customs intact. It operated a slave trade this far into the twentieth century and it did not end until after the Second World War.  The education system excluded much of the population and the army was largely equipped with traditional weaponry. Conversely there was evidence of a nascent modernization as she had access to modest trade with the USA, Germany, Britain, and Italy at the turn of the century. For example in 1906 its exports to the USA amounted to 3 million dollars ($106 million in today’s money). Internally the education system was also progressing as a government edict made education compulsory for all males and it was no longer restricted to religious instruction.    

For Italy there was the unresolved matter of her military defeat in 1896 and the promise to expand the Italian Empire to make good the broken promises of the 1915 Treaty of London. The pretext Italy used to justify the war was a retaliation to border violations after growing tensions supported with a spurious claim to abolish the slave trade that continued in Abyssinia. Mussolini had made it clear that he wanted to build a new Roman Empire and make Italy respected and feared. Abyssinia was his opportunity and he justified the action by believing that he was acting no differently to Britain and France in Africa.  However, his mistake was not realizing that the time of empires and colonies had no place in the mid-twentieth century. Italy was fifty years too late for an African scramble.

The Dilemma for Europe

As far as the British public was concerned, on the surface this was a moral battle. An underdog nation was fighting for its existence against a more powerful aggressor. This hypocrisy seemed to largely ignore the fact that Britain still had a firm grip of its empire and was in some areas supressing with force independence movements. The resolve that was expressed however was clear and it was any action short of war, with no intention or plan for any alternative.  In diplomatic circles in Europe the perspective was very different indeed. The events in Abyssinia from the Italian invasion were more of a side show but how could a developing country some eight thousand kilometres from Europe be a concern to the Western Powers of Europe and indeed Germany?

In truth the British and French were not concerned over Abyssinia. It was public opinion and the state of the League of Nations that forced the appearance of urgency from Britain and France.  Underneath all this Italy was an ally despite its Fascist nature - and more importantly a member of the recently formed alliance that became known as the Stresa Front Alliance with France and Britain that had the aim of maintaining peace and stability in Europe and containing revisionist Germany. It was important that she was not irked or isolated by actions that Britain or France may be compelled to take on direction or pressure from the League of Nations.

Britain only had her own interests in mind and that was security in Western stability and her own colonies. The Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, John Maffey, quickly assured the Government that none of the nation’s British interests were at risk after the Italian invasion. At home not all British politicians shared the public outrage. Within the Conservative Party, Leo Amery expressed his support for the Italian actions. Churchill remained quiet on the matter. The widely held belief of Amery is that he was an anti-appeaser due his famous speech that he would make later in 1940 demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In fact, quite the reverse was true. Amery voiced support for the Japanese invasion of Manchuria as well as for Italy’s actions in Africa. Amery argued in the case of the former that Japan had a “strong case for her invasion of Manchuria” and that Britain and France should have ceded Abyssinian territory much earlier to Italy and eschew League intervention. More specifically, in 1936 he stated that the Italian intervention would give a “merciful deliverance to be released from Abyssinian control”.

Britain was also concerned with her appearance before the League of Nations and had to balance her own interests with her obligations as a leading member. The Abyssinian crisis showed how impotent the League could be in the face of aggression from a permanent member and also when combined with conflicting interests and agendas of the members. Some diplomats were quite willing to circumvent the League in such cases as Lord Curzon during Italy’s actions in Corfu.  In the background there was the concern that the presence of an independent nation on the borders of Europe’s colonies could also spread nationalistic ideas.  This was especially a worry for Britain who had lost Egypt, Ireland, and Iraq already, while India was showing noisy displays of dissent. Therefore the Italian invasion of Abyssinia would not inconvenience her nor the French too much. Ever since In the Tripartite Treaty of 1906, the three were all prepared to occupy this independent nation if their own interests were threatened or if the situation in the country did not favor them.

For Britain and France Italy was more valuable in keeping on side within the 1935 Stresa front. Italian membership and military support were vital and essential if Germany was to be contained. The Western democracies were making overtures to Mussolini to avoid his isolation while applying very modest and meek sanctions to keep up appearances in the League. Abyssinia would be a small price to pay for their own security and interests, but ultimately the 1935 Stresa Front would crumble.

The Outcome

The outcome of the war was a victory for Italy. Within a year of the conflict ending the new Prime Minister of Great Britain Neville Chamberlain was already exchanging friendly correspondence with Mussolini and in 1937 was ready to acquiesce to Mussolini’s requests for recognition of Italy’s complete annexation of Abyssinia. Spheres of influence that were established in the Tripartite Act of 1906 were forgone, and the Western Powers even passed up the chance to fight for territory in Abyssinia. This displayed not so publicly how quickly the Western Powers could move on but how unimportant the sovereignty of Abyssinia was to them. Britain and France were colonial powers, and the disappearance of a sovereign nation would help to extinguish ideas of independence reaching their own colonies.

Britain and France could potentially have saved some of Abyssinia if they chose to by invoking the 1935 Stresa Front.  By occupying their self-proclaimed spheres, they could have denied much of the country to Italian forces.  This would have been a grander gesture than the mild sanctions applied. It only strengthened the point that the fate of Abyssinia was just not important enough.

Like all wars it had atrocities and more has been focused on the use of poison gas by Italy. Equally, Abyssinian combatants also acted outside of the conditions of the Geneva convention. The International Red Cross reported the castration of Italian prisoners of war by Abyssinian troops. Furthermore, it should be also noted that while under Italian occupation the slave trade was curtailed and outlawed, something which showed no signs of being arrested under the country’s old rulers. During Italian rule two laws were issued in October 1935 and in April 1936 which abolished slavery and freed 420,000 Ethiopian slaves. While not condoning Fascist actions the campaign was not as one sided as some accounts suggest. As far as the rest of the world was concerned the indifference to the fate of Abyssinia fate was shared as only six nations failed to recognise the Italian fait accompli.

The Abyssinians endured ten years of Italian occupation. Europe had now been forced into two camps with Italy now firmly on the side of the totalitarian powers rather than a country that would contain a growing and powerful Germany. Italian actions in Abyssinia along with Japanese intervention in Manchuria were portents. Italy would soon join Germany in intervening in Spain before participating against her former allies in the Second World War. Was it inevitable or was it a diplomatic tragedy?

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

Now, if you enjoy the site and want to help us out a little, click here.

Sources

Encyclopaedia of Antislavery and Abolition [Two Volumes] -Greenwood Press, 2006 - Peter P. Hinks, ‎John R. McKivigan, ‎R. Owen Williams

Mussolini- A New Life – N Farrell – 2003 – Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

AJP Taylor – English History 1914 – 1945

Europe of The Dictators

Report of War Crimes and Atrocities Abyssinia – International Red Cross

Leo Amery’s Imperial Attitude to Appeasement in the 1930’s – Richard S Grayson – University of London 2006

The Mexican War of Independence: Sudden Independence - Part 5

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 how the Mexican War of Independence finished rapidly. This was in large part due to Agustín de Iturbide and the Plan of Iguala. However, independence did not bring calm and prosperity.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, how Hidalgo continued the war here, the impact of José Morelos here, and the changes of the 1810s here.

A print of Agustín de Iturbide as Emperor of Mexico.

The revolution in Spain meant the mother country had no credibility left either at home or abroad. The country was a basket case. For the last 30 years, some of the most feckless and dim-witted leaders in the sorry history of humanity had presided over the Spanish people and empire. Revolutions, war (worse—a guerilla war), coups, invasions, mismanagement. You name it, Spain had gone through it. The country could not get its act together. What was there left to be loyal to at this point?

The grueling continuation of the war of independence was destroying New Spain. Most of the original leaders of the war, on both sides, were either dead or out of the country. The economy had been devastated. The rebels had their backs to the wall, and there seemed to be no way for the rebels to militarily achieve their goals, namely the expulsion of the Spanish and freedom for the people of Mexico. The situation seemed hopeless. Yet, within a matter of months, Mexico would achieve its independence. This was due to the machinations of one man, Agustín de Iturbide.

Return of Iturbide

Iturbide has been seen before, in the decisive defeat of Morales’ army. He was born in Valladolid (as seemingly so many others in this war were). After studying at the Colegio de San Nicolás (again, as so many others did), he joined the royal army and progressively rose through the ranks. Recognized as a bold and forceful soldier, he achieved several victories against Morelos.

Cruelty was something that came naturally to Iturbide. He ruthlessly crushed his opponents and harshly punished civilian populations that had supported the rebels. To celebrate Good Friday one year, he had 300 rebels executed. Relieved of command in 1816 for corruption and graft in even greater excess than those around him, he spent a year on the sidelines clearing his name, which he did. Despite his exoneration, Iturbide would never forgive those who sullied his name.

Iturbide was young and dashing on the battlefield. Handsome, and cutting a good figure on a horse, he looked like a hero out of central casting. But still, he was born in New Spain. The leaders of the viceregal government, particularly Calleja, had never really trusted him. Ambition is a good thing, in moderation, and Iturbide was full of naked ambition. During the war, he had risen from lieutenant to general. Having powerful enemies, this fact is a testament to the skill he did have. Iturbide was a good general, and a very good leader of men, which is something that gets forgotten with later events. It does explain, however, that when he did say to the effect “move in a different direction”, everyone did.

He had never forgotten his humiliation. Like an old wound that would not heal, the ordeal he went through to clear his name festered. Added to this resentment was the humiliation of what was happening in Spain. Now, he was fighting for a government that did not support the ideals he held dear anymore. There was a liberal government in Spain, and the king had been forced to reintroduce the constitution. What was the point? Perhaps, there was another way.

Seeing Another Way

Why would independence mean, by default, a social revolution and the chaos inherent in republican rule? Why would liberal ideas, which Iturbide and the rest of the royalists thought were foolish at best, and malevolent at worst, automatically guide an independent Mexico? Couldn’t an independent Mexico be guided by conservative ideals, based on order and structure in society?

What if, as the most powerful leader on the royalist side, and as a native-born Mexican, Iturbide could bring the two sides together? If the independentists and the royalists joined forces, then everyone could get what they wanted. The rebels would get a Mexico free from Spain and Spanish oppression. The royalists would get a conservative Mexico with a monarchy at its head. And Iturbide…he would get to be the leader of it all.

In 1820, Iturbide was given command of troops in the south of New Spain. This put him in direct conflict with Vincente Guerrero. The two fought several battles, with both men gaining victories over the other. However, despite the clashes, both men were exchanging letters, decrying the fighting, and trying to convince the other of their good intentions. The letters, and the subsequent negotiations, would lead to both commanders coming to an agreement.

The Plan of Iguala

On February 24, 1821, the proclamation of the Plan of Iguala was made. It was a plan made by Iturbide and supported by Guerrero. There was a list of 24 articles that laid out how the newly independent Mexico would be governed. In a brilliant piece of branding, the combined armies of Iturbide and Guerrero would be known as the Army of the Three Guarantees, after the first three articles of the plan. These were an independent Mexico, Catholicism was to be the official religion, and racial and political equality was to be had by all. There was something in the plan for everyone. Independence for the rebel leaders. Protection for the church for the royalists. Civil equality for the masses. Under this umbrella, it was felt everyone in New Spain could unite and transform the country into Mexico.

Iturbide and Guerrero met at Acatempán. When they saw each other, they embraced as a symbol of their new union, receiving cheers from their watching armies. For Iturbide, there was the concern of convincing his army to go along. This is where the previous successes of the royalists doomed the viceregal government. The former viceroy, Apodaca, had been able to sway many former rebels to come over to the royalist side. There was a not insignificant proportion of the royalist army that were former rebels. This meant many were happy about this turn of events and formed the basis of support within the regular army for this new turn. In addition, many were touched by the prospect of quick advancement in a new national army after independence. Antonio López de Santa Anna, for example, was a captain. He, at first, refused to come over to the rebel side. He was offered the rank of lieutenant colonel if he did. He began to “waver” in his firmness and was offered the rank of colonel. When he joined Iturbide, it was as a general.

The key to military support was the army of Anastasio Bustamante, commander of the royalist army in Guanajuato. Known as one of the royalist’s best commanders, and probably just as aggressive and ruthless as Iturbide, with 6,000 men under his command, he could make life very difficult for the Army of the Three Guarantees. It was not to be. Not only did Bustamante declare for the Plan of Iguala, he symbolically came over as well. This royalist commander, who had executed as many rebels as he could get his hands on, took the skull of Hidalgo out of the cage in which it had been on public display since his execution and buried it will full honors.

After Bustamante came over, the movement snowballed. Commanders in the north declared for the Plan of Iguala. By August, Iturbide marched his army into Puebla with Guadalupe Victoria, now out of hiding, by his side. Puebla was a good prize on its own, yet its position was most important for Iturbide. A new viceroy, Juan de O’Donojú, had arrived in New Spain and was in Veracruz. Iturbide had cut the route between Veracruz and Mexico City.

O’Donojú was in a tough spot. He had just arrived at his new posting and the rebels were taking over the country. He and his family were stuck in Veracruz and the city was notorious for terrible yellow fever outbreaks. His family was becoming ill, and he feared for their lives. O’Donojú was not a dumb man. He could see the writing on the wall. The only thing left to determine was if Spain could have relations with this new Mexican nation, or if the two nations would be determined enemies. O’Donojú preferred friendship.

The Treaty of Cordoba

The new viceroy came out of Veracruz to negotiate with the rebels. The two sides were able to hammer out an agreement very quickly, and the viceroy and the general signed the Treaty of Córdoba. Article 1 of the treaty stated that Mexico would receive independence from Spain as the Mexican Empire. So far so good.

The problem arose with Article 3, which stated that Ferdinand VII was to be invited to take the throne. How serious this offer was is unknown. Many conservatives supported the reactionary king, and for the liberals, Ferdinand was still the “desired one” from all those years ago. Should Ferdinand refuse, the throne would descend through his brothers. Here was the rub.

When informed about the treaty, Ferdinand immediately repudiated it and denied for all his relations any rights to the throne of Mexico. Going even further, Ferdinand notified the other courts of Europe that should any royal house accept an offer of the Mexican crown, that would finish all diplomatic relations between Spain and that country. To him, New Spain was simply another rebellious colony that would be suppressed in time. This, however, was for the future.

There was now a treaty that guaranteed independence. Iturbide, Guerrero, O’Donojú, and the rest now began a triumphal march to Mexico City. On September 27, 1821, the Army of the Three Guarantees entered the capital, bringing the War of Independence to an end. Unfortunately, the unifying act of both conservatives and liberals arriving in the capital to begin a new national life would not be the end. The conflict between the two sides began.

The Plans Fall Apart

First, a government had to be set up. The Treaty of Córdoba laid out a framework. Article 2 stated that the government would be a monarchy but limited by a constitution. Article 6 laid out that an assembly would be created, to be made up of the “most eminent” men. It was explicitly said that this assembly would be named, not elected. The assembly would then name a president (Article 9), set up the rules for the election of a national Cortes, or legislature (Article 10), and set up a regency council of three men (Article 11). The goal of the regency was to rule in the name of Ferdinand VII, or if he were to refuse, find another to take up the throne.

Of course, Ferdinand refused. With the automatic rejection from his brothers, who would be made emperor? Even Joseph Bonaparte, the usurper against whom the entire empire had risen in 1808 was allegedly offered the throne, but he refused. With no ruling houses taking the job, yet still supporting the concept of a monarchical government, someone had to be found.

In February 1822, elections were held for the first Mexican Congress. With no history or tradition of democratic rule, the elections were obviously weighted toward the wealthy and powerful. The assumption by all concerned was that the congress would assemble and ratify the choice of the new Emperor, Ferdinand VII, to be Ferdinand I, Emperor of the Mexicans.

When it became clear that Ferdinand would not be coming by the time the congress convened, the members declared that they would not be bound by the Treaty of Cordoba and would not allow all power to be concentrated into the hands of one person (which was not what the treaty said, by the way). Congress, it declared of itself, was the ultimate holder of sovereignty with a legitimate claim to exercise, not only the legislative powers, but executive and judicial as well. In addition, the congress struck at the army, considering it a threat. The army was to be reduced to 60,000 men. Further, no member of the regency council was to be allowed to hold a military command, striking directly at Iturbide.

Same Song, Different Words

There had been several attempts to name Iturbide emperor. At least twice, back in September and October, 1821, he had rejected calls to assume the throne. On May 18, 1822, soldiers of the 1st infantry regiment marched out of their barracks and demonstrated in favor of making their old commander, Iturbide, the emperor. Appearing at his doorstep, the soldiers called out for their hero to take the crown. This time, he would “reluctantly” acquiesce. The congress, now surrounded by mobs of soldiers and citizenry voted for Iturbide to become emperor. Only 15 congressmen voted no.

On July 21, 1822, Iturbide was officially declared Emperor Agustín I in the National Cathedral of Mexico. Modeled on the coronation of Napoleon, the ceremony had all the pomp and circumstance befitting the birth of a new, grand empire. New titles of nobility and offices were created for Agustín’s cronies. Orders of chivalry issued row upon row of shiny medals for the heroes of the revolution in an attempt to buy loyalty to the new regime.

The Infighting Begins - and Truly Never Ends

Immediately, the new emperor and congress squabbled. The country was bankrupt, and the lavish spending was the first issue upon which the congressmen felt they could attack Agustín. Not having any money, but needing more, especially to pay his power base in the army, the emperor’s government authorized the printing of paper money, causing massive inflation and economic dislocation, driving discontent. By August, Agustín ordered the arrest of 15 members of congress. Due to the discontent this caused, he would disband congress by force.

The conservative forces rallied around the figure of the emperor and the liberals rallied around the congress. Two divergent views of how the future of Mexico would be. Now, seemingly, those views were irreconcilable. Not even a year before, both sides had united around the Plan of Iguala and marched triumphantly into Mexico City side by side. There had been so much hope, and so much hope had died.

This was the great tragedy of the Mexican War of Independence. The conservatives believed that they could simply transfix the edifice of the Spain of old onto the new structure that was Mexico. The good old days could come back, only this time they would be in charge. They believed that the people could easily be led by their intellectual and social betters, and building a conservative Mexico would be simple if everyone could just be put back in their place. The conservatives were blind to the idea that they expected everyone to go back to their old social and economic stations but them. They could rise to the top of the social pyramid, but everyone else should stay in their place. That would be only right and just in their eyes.

Unfortunately, the liberals were just as good at fooling themselves. They believed in the greatest lie ever told, that human nature is changeable with laws, constitutions, and good intentions. If the perfect constitution could be drafted, an elected government of Plato’s philosopher kings could transform society and the hearts of men. Everyone would be brothers who would live in social and economic harmony. It was obvious. Once good government for all the people was instituted, knowing the right and subsequently doing the right would finally be possible. Everyone would live happily ever after.

Then Santa Anna opened Pandora’s box.

What do you think of the sudden independence of Mexico and the results? 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.

How did Roosevelt’s Paralysis Affect his Presidency?

Franklin D. Roosevelt was US President from 1933 to 1945 - the years of the Great Depression through to the end of World War 2. What is less well known is that he was paralyzed by illness in 1921 and did not have full use of his legs from that time. Here, Richard Bluttal explores the affect of paralysis on Roosevelt’s presidency.

President Roosevelt in a wheelchair with a girl in February 1941. Source: FDR Presidential Library & Museum photograph by Margaret Suckley, available here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was US President from 1933 to 1945 - the years of the Great Depression through to the end of World War 2. What is less well known is that he was paralyzed by illness in 1921 and did not have full use of his legs from that time. Here, Richard Bluttal explores the affect of paralysis on Roosevelt’s presidency.

Speaking at a Georgia rally in 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt addresses the crowd, as was his practice, from a standing position, holding onto a podium bolted to the floor. By inadvertence, this one, however, was not bolted and midway into his speech podium the presidential candidate pitched forward into the orchestra pit. The audience was spellbound as the candidate and podium were retrieved from the pit and set back upon the stage. Roosevelt finished his speech, taking up from the point at which he had stopped, without giving either comment or acknowledgement to his fall. At the conclusion he received a standing ovation.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt woke up on August 10, 1921, with plans to take his wife and three older children out for a sail in New Brunswick, Canada, he had no idea that it would be the last day he would have full use of his legs. Enjoying some vacation time after running for vice president under James Cox, FDR and his kids sailed the scenic waters near Campobello Island. Afterward, they had a swim in a nearby pond and then he raced the kids back to the cottage. But it was when they returned to the cottage that Roosevelt began to feel odd, feverish and more tired than usual. He decided to skip dinner and go right to bed. “And he never walked without help again,” says Biographer Geoffrey C. Ward. When he woke the next morning, he couldn’t move his left leg, and then his right leg gave way. “I tried to persuade myself that the trouble with my leg was muscular,” Roosevelt wrote later, “that it would disappear as I used it. But presently it refused to work. And then the other.” Two days later, he lost the use of all his muscles from the chest down. He also had a high fever and pain in his neck and back.

Paralysis

The life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is an astonishment. In 1921, at the age of 39, he was struck by this attack of infantile paralysis which left him paralyzed below the waist for the rest of his life. In a time when the severely handicapped were seldom even seen in public, FDR resumed his political career. He was twice elected governor of New York and in 1932 he was elected president of the United Sates. No one else in the recorded history of mankind has been chosen as the leader of his people even though he could neither stand alone nor walk unassisted.

His leg muscles were graded as "poor" and "trace" -- and thus were unable to function in any useful manner. In order to stand upon his legs FDR had to don long-leg steel braces. The gluteus maximus muscles of his hips were similarly impaired. The muscles of his trunk were weak and as a result, in the early stages of his rehabilitation, he was forced to wear a corset and to struggle with a pelvic band attached to his braces.

Paralysis resulting from an attack of infantile paralysis, or poliomyelitis, is confined to the nerves that control the voluntary muscles. FDR had virtually normal function of his sensory and autonomic nervous system. This meant that his digestive tract, his bowels and bladder functioned normally, as did his sexual organs. The onset of the disease had a shattering impact upon the man and his expectations. Clearly both he and Eleanor, his wife and closest political adviser, believed that public knowledge of the extent of the disease, like family scandal, would endanger FDR's political future. The severity in nature of the attack was kept secret from all but the closest family members and at first the press was told only that Roosevelt had contracted a case of influenza.

As noted by author Hugh Gregory Gallagher, FDR tried everything that had been used in the past. He tried massage, salt-water baths, ultraviolet light, electric current, walking on braces with parallel bars at waist height, walking while hanging from parallel bars mounted above his head. He tried horseback riding strapped to the saddle; he tried an electric tricycle his mother had brought from Europe. He tried exercises in warm water and exercises in cold water. He tried various theories of muscle training: working with gravity, against gravity, with resistance and without. He tried osteopathy. Even the eminent doctor, Emile Coue, ("every day in every way I'm getting better and better,") was consulted on his behalf.

During his 12 years in the White House, Franklin D. Roosevelt was hardly ever photographed in a wheelchair. Not surprisingly, the longest-serving president in American history disliked drawing attention to his polio symptoms, he still led the country from a wheelchair. He was helped -- most often lifted bodily -- into or out of cars, tubs, chairs or beds. Journalist John Gunther reports it was a startling experience to see the president of the United States being carried up and down stairs "like a sack of potatoes," as his son James once described it.

Roosevelt stood up only for ceremonial occasions and only for as long as was absolutely necessary. He was able to stand only with the support of his braces and crutches. His braces caused him pain and he despised them roundly. He was able to "walk" only by the use of "hitching" the muscles on either side of his trunk. Leaning on his crutches, he would hike first one leg, swing it forward, transfer the weight of his body upon it and then, hiking up the other, he would swing it forward. This means of locomotion was a slow, lurching process. It was made worse by a drop foot which forced him to swing his foot around and forward in a wide arc so as to clear the ground.

Running for president

He never learned how to walk again but he learned, instead, how to get on with his life using what muscles he had left. He learned this at Warm Springs, Ga. At Warm Springs, he created what was in many ways the first modern rehabilitation center. Warm Springs was a reflection of Franklin Roosevelt's personality and philosophy, his enthusiasm and motivation. These were the same qualities Roosevelt later brought to the presidency. They were fully as effective in Washington as they had been in Georgia.

Though the public may not have been aware of the extent of his disability, most knew that his battle with polio left him with limited mobility. James Tobin, author of The Man He Became: How FDR Defied Polio to Win the Presidency, believes that Roosevelt’s disability may have helped him to be elected and given him more empathy for the common man. Tobin told NPR’s Dave Davies that FDR had “a kind of passion for people who are suffering that he couldn’t have had if he had not deeply suffered himself.”

Surprisingly, the subject of his inability to walk never became an issue during his campaign for president in 1932. FDR preferred not to speak of it, even to his family, as he did not want sympathy or pity—what he referred to as “sob stuff.” But the fact is FDR’s disability only strengthened his determination and resolve. He was perhaps a better president as a result of his condition, as it taught him perseverance and gave him a sense of compassion and acceptance for those less fortunate. “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people,” he said. “A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”

Optimism

Roosevelt's fate could have been similar to that of many polio victims, except for his political ambition and his inherent optimism. Roosevelt understood very well the fate of a disabled person, not to speak of a disabled person with political ambitions. Physical disability was an automatic disqualification for public life, let alone for the highest political office. His chances lay in his ability to hide his disability. Yet, these very efforts reflected "a view of the disabled body as stigmatizing, shameful, and as a physical marker of weakness of intellect and character"

Roosevelt realized that when you were crippled — and that was the word that he would use — you have a tendency to make people uncomfortable. People don't know what to say, they don't know where to look, they don't know how to treat you, they don't know whether to feel pity for you, when pity is the last thing that you want. He had to persuade people to feel comfortable in his presence. The therapists and he began to work on his gait, to work on the way he would walk with the canes and crutches and assistance he would use. So his walk, although slow, began to look more and more natural. And he would seat himself, and he would throw up his head, he would begin to talk — he was always talking, actually — to put people at ease. And this whole physical routine that he developed of putting people at ease was enormously effective, and it made people forget that he was disabled.

In a speech in Rochester, N.Y., he was talking about the needs of disabled children in the state of New York and he mentions himself. He says, "I myself have been through this ordeal, and I am a symbol of what can happen when people with disabilities are strongly supported." And nobody had expected him to say this out loud; nobody had expected him to address this issue in this way, to turn the disability on its head and make it into this advantage. And so it had [an] electrifying effect on the audience. ... I think Roosevelt ... realized this was a strong part of his presence as a candidate, and it was something that actually appealed to people.

In the decades after his death, a narrative emerged about the extent of Roosevelt's deceptions to hide his condition from the American people. It's true that Roosevelt made every effort to appear as able-bodied as possible, only appearing in public through carefully orchestrated maneuvers that showed him "walking" a short distance. The press was discouraged from focusing on vulnerable moments, and for the most part, he was photographed either sitting down or speaking at a carefully fastened podium.

But the president's disability was never a secret. Prior to entering the White House, he had been profiled in major publications like Time and Liberty, which displayed his heavy leg braces and detailed the excruciating efforts he underwent to hoist himself around on unresponsive legs. The Liberty article, in particular, addressed the elephant in the room of whether a "cripple" was fit to be president, concluding that FDR was more physically sound than most men half his age. On a personal level, those close to Roosevelt felt that dealing with his disease made him a better leader. The younger FDR had been known to harbor arrogance along with his impressive intellect, but that version was replaced by a more grounded, empathetic person. "There had been a plowing up of his nature," noted his longtime labor secretary, Frances Perkins. "The man emerged completely warm-hearted, with new humility of spirit and a firmer understanding of philosophical concepts.”

Conclusion

Roosevelt embraced his status as a polio survivor and fully leveraged his position to help others who were similarly afflicted. He held the first of his "birthday balls" in 1934 to raise money for polio research, an endeavor that eventually became the March of Dimes and led to the discovery of a cure in the form of a vaccine developed by U.S. researcher Jonas Salk. By meeting his disease head-on, Roosevelt turned it into a non-issue when it came to doing his job while spearheading a way to stamp it out as a public menace.

FDR’s permanent association to a failing body serves as a reminder that in addition to steering America through the Great Depression and World War II, FDR managed to convince a public that his physical disability was no hindrance.

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

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

Consider the Birds: When Bipartisanship Took Flight in the USA

A bipartisan bill that has lasted over 100 years was signed in 1918 in America. The bill was America’s earliest wildlife conservation life and has saved the lives of millions of birds. Will McLean Greeley, author a new book on the subject, explains the important role of Senator George P. McLean in its creation.

Will’s book is A Connecticut Yankee Goes to Washington, Senator George P. McLean, Birdman of the Senate. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Senator George P. McLean.

Imagine Democratic President Joe Biden at a White House bill signing ceremony handing the signatory pen to Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.  They then shake hands, celebrating a shared legislative accomplishment that would endure for over one hundred years.  That’s essentially what happened on July 3, 1918, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson and Senator George P. McLean (R-CT) unveiled the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, America’s earliest and most important wildlife conservation law.   The MBTA, which is still in effect today, has saved millions if not billions of birds from senseless killing and likely prevented the extinction of entire bird species.

My new book A Connecticut Yankee Goes to Washington, Senator George P. McLean, Birdman of the Senate is about the struggle to lead societal change, exploring the intersection of culture and politics.  While the book offers fresh insights into a neglected milestone in conservation history, it also contains a rare and intriguing example of bipartisanship, that elusive ideal that polls show most Americans desire but whose leaders seem hopelessly unable to deliver.   What, if anything, can we learn about bipartisanship from the MBTA, when President Wilson and Connecticut Republican George P. McLean overcame their past enmity and found common ground to save the birds?

From Hunter to Conservationist

When Senator George P. McLean came to Washington in 1911 the protection of birds was his top priority.  A hunter in his youth, McLean renounced the sport as an adult because of declining bird populations and rising avian extinctions.  Conservation historians refer to the latter half of the nineteenth century as the “Age of Extermination,” when birds and other wildlife were on a fast track to eradication.  Early settlers of North America had viewed birds and other natural resources as limitless; but by around 1900, this illusion of abundance was replaced by the realities of scarcity and extinction.  What had gone wrong?  Following the Civil War, the nation’s population surged from 31 million people in 1860 to 72 million by 1900.  There were simply more mouths to feed, and opportunistic bird hunters eagerly met the need.   Adding to this rising demand was the insatiable desire for bird plumage to adorn women’s hats.  But it was advances in gun technology that supercharged bird mortality rates, namely the advent of the automatic shotgun around 1890.  The slaughter of birds went from hundreds of thousands each year to millions, then tens of millions, and higher.  There was no easy solution to stop or slow the killing.  States and localities were free to devise their own hunting laws and enforce them however they wished.

Senator McLean Finds an Unlikely Ally

This perilous situation for birds is the backdrop to Senator George P. McLean’s tenure in the US Senate from 1911-1929.  McLean’s first speech on the Senate floor was on the importance of protecting migratory birds.  Change starts small, usually by just a few visionary and courageous people.  Leaders of change must then create consensus and form broad-based coalitions.  McLean did this by holding highly publicized hearings on bird destruction.  He next enlisted the support of Audubon clubs and other conservation groups, business leaders like automaker like Henry Ford, newspapers, magazines, and even gun manufacturers, who had contributed to the problem but had an obvious stake in its solution.  Opposition to bird protection came from hunters, the millinery or hat industry (that employed 83,000 people in the early 1900s), and states-rights advocates.  This loose coalition opposing bird protection used a variety of tactics to delay or stop McLean’s bill.  Their opposition solidified after America entered the First World War in April 1917.  Opponents of bird protection argued with patriotic fervor that McLean’s unnecessary quest for bird protection should be delayed indefinitely.

Undeterred, McLean found a seemingly unlikely ally from across the aisle, President Woodrow Wilson.  Despite their past differences on many issues, McLean and Wilson were both political reformers.  Each claimed his place within the Progressive movement, a political and social-reform crusade that brought major changes to the US during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Progressives sought to remedy many of the social and political injustices of the Gilded Age, a time of rapid industrialization and immense wealth creation following the American Civil War.  While Wilson agreed to help McLean, he had a caveat: Wilson insisted that Democratic leaders in Congress take ownership of the bill, forcing McLean into the background.   McLean accepted his reduced role, calling to mind the political dictum expressed by President Harry Truman many years later: “It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets the credit.”

The Renewing Effect of Generational Change

Wilson and McLean collaborated effectively to pass the MBTA even though the nation was a full combatant in World War I, suffering through a global flu pandemic, and experiencing rising political, labor, and social unrest in response to an unpopular war.  Is such bipartisan collaboration possible today to address concerns like climate change, gun violence, and immigration policy?  While a quick-fix solution to create bipartisanship is unlikely, there is hope for the future.  It is important to remember that George P. McLean came of age as a young leader around 1900, part of a new generation of reformers like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  These young reformers had to throw off the aging “Old Guard” political leaders of the Gilded Age, rooted in patronage and corruption.  In a similar fashion it may take a generational change to end today’s polarization and excessive partisanship.  Our aging political leaders are seemingly unwilling or unable to change.  Millennials and Generation Z, or those born after 1980, may emerge as a new progressive movement, emulating the Progressive Era leaders of the early 1900s.  Recent polling by both Gallup and CNN reveal that Millennials and Gen Zers tend to approach complex issues critically and creatively and are more likely to be centrist and less partisan than earlier generations.  We can only hope that future generations will look back at today’s dysfunctional political polarization with cringeworthy disbelief.  Much like we wonder why free cigarettes were distributed to soldiers during World War II and even included with ration kits.

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

Will’s book is A Connecticut Yankee Goes to Washington, Senator George P. McLean, Birdman of the Senate. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

RIT Cary Graphic Arts Press; March 2023

https://www.rit.edu/press/connecticut-yankee-goes-washington

The 1775 Battle for Quebec - The Importance of Benedict Arnold

In September 1775, a small handpicked group of men boarded a makeshift flotilla embarking from Cambridge, Massachusetts. Having successfully bypassed Royal Navy scout ships this ramshackle fleet made for the wild and desolate Coast of Maine. Their objective was to disembark and march through the thick North Woods to the Citadel of Quebec, which stood like a sentinel at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Their intended route had never been taken which proved to have dire consequences as distances and conditions were critically misunderstood. Conducting such an operation took considerable skill, determination, and sheer force of will to which the leader of this expedition did in fact possess. His name was Benedict Arnold.

Brian Hughes explains.

A portrait of Benedict Arnold. By Thomas Hart.

Prelude

Following the initial outbreak of hostilities at Lexington and Concord an obscure Captain of Connecticut Militia arrived outside of Boston Massachusetts to join the coalescing colonial forces turning up in their masses to contest British rule. Benedict Arnold had been a successful sea-going merchant and Apothecary owner from the prosperous city of New Haven, Connecticut. It didn’t take long for Arnold to draw the conclusion that the Colonials found themselves in a difficult situation. Having successfully contained British forces within Boston, this ragtag Army of Patriots lacked the necessary artillery required to dislodge them. Arnold proposed capturing the guns from the dilapidated Fort Ticonderoga, located at the strategic nexus of Lake George and Lake Champlain. Arnold was granted a commission as a Colonel and would lead the enterprise in tandem (though begrudgingly) with the leader of the infamous Green Mountain Boys, Ethan Allen. The enterprise turned out to be successful, having secured more than enough weapons and materials for the besiegers who were then able to displace their foes.

Having now made a name for himself, Arnold displayed impressive military acumen by deducing that a major British counterattack was inevitable and measures would need to be taken in order to avert such a predicament. Traditionally, armies operating in the North American theater of war utilized the strategic Champlain-Hudson Corridor, a nearly continuous series of waterways from Quebec to New York City. With the absence of numerous roads this aquatic highway was the most efficient and logical method for transporting men and material throughout this vital region. Both the French and British armies made consistent use of these lakes and rivers throughout the French and Indian war as had various indigenous peoples for time immemorial. When the British returned, they would arrive in the north and attack from here.

Knowing full well that Quebec was to be the logical focal point of the British counterblow the now reinvigorated Patriot forces were in some haste to prevent this incursion from happening. Philip Schuyler, an influential New York Patroon and newly made Major General opted to lead a detachment from Fort Ticonderoga and capture Montreal. This plan would soon be dashed as Schuyler became immobilized by gout. Command then passed to General Richard Montgomery, a former British Army Officer and transplant to North America.

March

Benedict Arnold simultaneously proposed an additional invasion route. Arnold offered to lead a small column of men from Massachusetts to Maine (then still part of Massachusetts) and lead his file overland traversing multiple portages, to surprise and ultimately capture Quebec before the British could respond to the taking of Montreal. The route proposed by Arnold was untried, having been only partially scouted by military surveyors; the most noteworthy map had been drawn up by a British Military Engineer by the name of John Montressor in 1761. It proved to be hopelessly flawed however, misjudging distances and elevations to a considerable degree.

To this day Maine remains one of the most wild and remote states on the Atlantic Seaboard. Men would have to trek through dense forests, ford flooded rivers and treacherous currents, brave extreme temperatures, all while sustaining themselves on meager rations. All of this was compounded with the lateness of the season as the brutal northern winter approached abruptly. In early September Arnold assembled an ad hoc flotilla consisting of 1,100 men and proceeded to lead his vessels up the New England Coast successfully evading Royal Navy vessels in the process. The troops disembarked and began making their way up the Kennebec River but the various columns of troops quickly became separated.

The conditions were appalling. Men were constantly soaked between fording waterways and the relentless autumn rains. The Bateaux and watercraft utilized were not capable of handling the necessary logistical requirements, often floundering and breaking, losing vital provisions in the process. Arnold often traveled ahead of the main bodies of troops sending any essential supplies in which he could requisition from the inhabitants. Food became increasingly scarce. The men had to scrounge for whatever sustenance the country could offer, with some eventually succumbing to hunger while others consumed bits of leather from their shoes and clothing. With supreme endurance coupled with Arnolds exemplary leadership, this small force endured these tribulations to reach their destination in time to rendezvous with Montgomery. But their already small numbers had been significantly depleted, losing about half of their men in the process.

Attack

By now the Anglo-Canadians were aware of Montgomery’s successful capture of Montreal on the 13th November and were coming to realize their vulnerable situation as Arnolds men stormed out of the North Woods and stood defiantly across the river from the city. The British Commander and acting Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Guy Carleton proved more than capable in dealing with the tenuousness of the situation. Mobilizing all the personnel he could muster, including several sailors aboard the few ships still in the St. Lawrence, the opposing forces would be roughly equal in size, a factor which benefited the defenders as the American troops possessed only scant siege material.

With Montgomery arriving with his body on the 2nd of December, Arnold proceeded to meet and confer with the Major General as they eventually drew up a plan of attack. With both commanders leading a contingent, Arnold and Montgomery intended to launch a two pronged assault on the upper and lower towns. Making use of whatever artillery and siege equipment they had in their possession, they would swiftly overrun the garrison whom they believed possessed low morale and defended decrepit posts. The Americans would be forced to act quickly as another factor to which they had to consider was the soon to expire enlistments of the various militia troops comprising the bulk of their already small force. It was imperative that the assault occur before the end of the year, when the commanders would be obliged to send these troops home.

On the 31st of December a blinding snowstorm took hold. The timing of such a blizzard served as yet another impediment to the American besiegers. With no other choice but to attack the assault was carried out as intended. Both Arnold and Montgomery characteristically led from the front braving a storm of bullets that seemed to be as numerous as the falling snowflakes. It was then that a fatal blow afflicted the Americans as General Montgomery urged his column ahead from the vanguard; he was instantly struck down by a cannon blast killing himself and several accompanying officers instantly. As confusion struck the attackers the next officer in charge wavered under the strain of combat and ordered a hasty withdrawal isolating Arnold’s troops to press on alone. While this was happening, Arnold was struck in the leg by a musket ball causing agonizing pain. Arnold tried his best to lead his men on but the wound was too much as he reluctantly withdrew to the rear urging his men on the entire time. Famed woodsmen and rifle corps leader Daniel Morgan then took command as he aggressively spearheaded a renewed assault leading his men and fighting ferociously. As the American assault made its way toward the agreed upon rallying point with Montgomery the disorientation of the weather and the resistance of the defenders became too much. As Morgan continued to push forward through the unfamiliar city a reformed British counterattack stopped the invaders in their tracks inflicting several casualties in the process with Morgan and hundreds of others being taken prisoner.

Aftermath

The attack had failed. The Anglo-Canadians continued their dogged resistance even as the Americans withdrew, maintaining a tenacious siege once again led by Arnold. But between the severity of the Canadian winter and their well supplied adversaries the Americans would eventually have to withdraw yet again this time to Montreal before reinforcements did eventually arrive months later and placated them from Quebec for good. Arnold's march through Maine remains one of the most impressive feats of daring fortitude in American history. Some would even refer to him as America’s Hannibal, after the Carthaginian General who boldly led his Army over the Alps to attack Rome. Although the Americans failed in their objective to take the City of Quebec, their stamina and perseverance foreshadowed that this conflict would not be resolved quickly after all.

What do you think of Benedict Arnold? Let us know below.

Now, if you enjoy the site and want to help us out a little, click here.

The Bud Dajo Massacre: An American War Crime in The Philippines?

If asked to name atrocities carried out by the United States military, responses would most likely focus on Wounded Knee or the My Lai Massacre. Few would have knowledge of US military presence in the Philippines during the early 20th century, and fewer still would have heard of the Bud Dajo Massacre. Felix Debieux explains.

Americans soldiers fighting with Moros during the Moro Rebellion.

Sometimes euphemistically referred to as a “Battle”, the Bud Dajo Massacre was a counter-insurgency operation perpetrated by the US Army in 1906 against Filipino Muslims - known as the Moros - who had sought refuge at Bud Dajo, a volcanic crater on the island of Jojo. Despite the appalling death toll – as high as 1,000 Moros by some estimates – the Bud Dajo Massacre does not feature prominently in histories of the US military, US imperialism, or in popular understandings of US power projected abroad. How has such a dark episode been forgotten? And what does it tell us about the place of war crimes in our collective memory? Before that however, it is worth explaining what the US military was doing in the Philippines to begin with.

US in the Philippines

The Bud Dajo Massacre is best understood as part of the Philippine-American War. This was a conflict which erupted in 1898 when the US, which refused to recognise the Philippines’ declaration of independence from Spanish colonial rule, annexed the fledgling republic at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. For the Philippines, this represented the next phase in its struggle for independence. Having first contended with Spanish colonialism, it now had to deal with an American threat to its sovereignty. By 1901, President Emilio Aguinaldo was captured and the US declared the war officially over the following year. That, however, did not deter various Filipino factions from continuing the fight.

In areas of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, Palawan and Sabah, the US government sought to undermine resistance to its rule by signing the Kiram-Bates Treaty with the Sultanate of Sulu. Once resistance began to weaken, however, the US decided to tear up the treaty and proceeded to colonise Moro lands. In addition to the loss of territory, the Moros also endured what they saw as pressure to convert from Islam to Christianity, something they were all too familiar with from the days of Spanish rule. Ultimately, this stoked what came to be known as the Moro Rebellion, which began with the Battle of Bayang in May 1902 and ended with the Battle of Bud Bagsak in June 1913. It is against this backdrop of colonial warfare that the Bud Dajo Massacre can be situated. The question, however, is how did the conflict become so bloody?

Stoking rebellion

The massacre occurred during the tail end of General Leonard Wood’s term as Governor of the Moro Province, a period of upheaval for the region’s inhabitants. Major reforms included the abolition of slavery and the imposition of the cedula, a form of poll tax. The latter was very unpopular with the Moros, and was regarded as a form of tribute payable to their colonial masters. These reforms were layered on top of a widespread resentment of foreign Christian occupation. Tensions predictably boiled over, with heavy fighting and a refusal to pay taxes. When efforts to pacify the insurgents failed, the Moros dared to believe that the Americans lacked the strength to keep them in line.

It is in this volatile context that a rumour began to circulate among the Moros. The Americans were conspiring to exterminate them. Fearing the worst, several hundred Moros, including women and children, decided to relocate to Bud Dajo, where legend described the presence of spirits who would aid the Moros in their hour of need. Even without its supernatural defences, Bud Dajo represented a sound tactical choice for those seeking refuge. Indeed, the extinct volcano was around 2,100 feet tall, guarded by steep jungle-covered slopes, and only accessible by three narrow paths. Its well-stocked provisions didn’t harm the Moro’s chances either. One disputed aspect of the retreat is whether the Moros remained actively hostile to US forces. For Major Hugh Scott, the District Governor of Sulu Province, the answer was clear. Those who fled to the volcano “declared they had no intention of fighting, ran up there only in fright, and had some crops planted and desired to cultivate them”. Whatever the true intentions of the Moros, the subsequent conduct of the US military is difficult to comprehend.

The massacre

After the break down of negotiations between friendly chiefs and Bud Dajo’s occupants, a military campaign was launched by General Wood on 5th March 1906 with the aim of ending the standoff. As artillery shelled the volcano, a combined force of US and Philippine Constabulary troops under the command Colonel Joseph W. Duncan began hacking their way up the dense jungle slopes. While the initial attack proved ineffective, by 7th March the Moros were suffering heavy casualties. They were nevertheless able to offer limited resistance. Indeed, as Duncan’s troops pushed closer to the summit of the volcano, they were ambushed by Moros who had feigned death. This, however, was not enough to stop the US from taking control of Bud Dajo on 8th March.

With the outer rim secured, US forces spent the night heaving mountain guns up to the edge of Bud Dajo. At first light the blood bath began. The guns, positioned carefully to allow a sweeping arc of bullets to be rained down on Moro defences, opened fire. What exactly happened next is difficult to determine. One account suggests that the defenders retaliated, using a mixture of kalis, barung and homemade grenades improvised from black powder and seashells. Another claims that all Moros fortified in the crater perished. Without dwelling on the inconsistencies, all accounts concur that few, if any, Moros survived. The corpses piled five deep, with many of the bodies wounded multiple times. Where twenty-one Americans lost their lives, Moro casualties ran as high as 1,000. This figure includes women and children.

The public reaction

Bud Dajo was by any measure the bloodiest engagement of the Moro Rebellion. The carnage was not lost on General Wood, who took the executive decision to censor all telegrams describing the casualties. Back home, US authorities commended Wood for what they considered a significant victory on the battlefield. His friend, President Theodore Roosevelt, sent him a congratulatory telegram. He also received approval for his results from William Howard Taft, the Secretary of War. When the truth finally made its way into the news however, the US Army found itself embroiled in a public relations disaster.

On 11th March 1906, the New York Times ran with the headline:

“WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILLED IN MORO BATTLE; Mingled with Warriors and Fell in Hail of Shot. FOUR DAYS OF FIGHTING Nine Hundred Persons Killed or Wounded—President Wires Congratulations to the Troops”.

Mark Twain also condemned the massacre. "In what way was it a battle? It has no resemblance to a battle ... We cleaned up our four days' work and made it complete by butchering these helpless people”. Such coverage fuelled public cynicism about the role of the US in both the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War. The protracted conflict with the Moros was not common knowledge, and many were appalled to learn of the killings.

Faced with public outrage, Taft demanded that Wood account for the "wanton slaughter" of women and children. Wood tried to explain away the deaths, claiming that the women of Bud Dajo had dressed as men and joined the fighting, and that the men had used the children as human shields. This clumsy account conflicted with a different explanation given by the Governor-General of the Philippines, Henry Clay Ide, who said that the women and children were simply collateral damage caught up in the artillery barrages. Naturally, the contradictory accounts only inflamed anger and led to accusations of a cover up. Angrier still were the Moros, who were outraged not just at the treatment of their people but also the desecration of a sacred site. Anti-American sentiment only gave rise to further Moro resistance, which took the form of another Bud Dajo Campaign in 1911 and the Battle of Bud Bagsak in June 1913.

Legacy

How is it that our collective memory leaves such little room for war crimes? We could venture that growing nationalist sentiment, apparent today the world over, leaves us too proud to reckon with the darkest aspects of our past. Perhaps a shared sense of shame or guilt also plays a part? We could also point to attempts by the perpetrators of war crimes to control the story. History, after all, is written by the victors. Understanding this is key – not only because conflict rages today across the Ukraine, but also because we have a duty to seek justice for those who have been wronged. Where My Lai and Wounded Knee have become emblematic of US atrocities committed during the Indian Wars and Vietnam War, Bud Dajo has been largely forgotten. This is remarkable, since the death toll arguably makes Bud Dajo the biggest massacre in US military history. Indeed, ninety-nine percent of Moros were killed, a greater percentage than other incidents remembered for their cruelty.

One belligerent of the conflict which has not forgotten the massacre is the Philippines. In fact, the Bud Daju Massacre has been a feature of its more recent relations with the US. Back in 2016, President Duterte used the incident to criticise President Obama, resulting in the cancellation of a formal meeting. Even though Duterte apologised the next day, he referred to the incident again while calling for the exit of US soldiers from Mindanao. In a more extreme example, Duterte held aloft photographs of the brutalized corpses during a speech at the 2016 Metrobank Foundation. It is also worth highlighting the efforts of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), a Muslim separatist movement based in the southern Philippines. In 2015, the MNLF published an open letter to President Obama demanding to know why the US was supporting Filipino colonialism against the Moro Muslim people, the Filipino "war of genocide", and atrocities against the Moros. The letter reminds the world that the Moros have long resisted atrocities perpetrated by Filipino, Japanese, American, and Spanish invaders. While the massacre may not be widely acknowledged in the US, it is clear that for at least some Filipinos the pursuit of justice remains unresolved.

What do you think of America and the Bud Dajo Massacre? Let us know below.

Now read Felix’s article on Henry Ford’s calamitous utopia in Brazil: Fordlandia Here.

References

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/events/the-bud-dajo-massacre-and-the-savage-way-of-war

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/moro-insurgents-1906/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bud_Dajo

http://mnlfnet.com/Articles/Editorial_03Mar2015_Memorandum%20to%20Pres%20Barrack%20Obama.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20171110224826/http://philippinesnewsonline.com/index.php/show/news/43/Politics/september-05-2016/President-Duterte-reminds-us-of-1906-Bud-Dajo-massacre-by-the-US-troops

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/12/16/duterte-us-forces-in-mindanao-must-go