Founding Father John Adams - Part 2: Diplomat

This three-part series takes on one of America's most important founding fathers, John Adams. John Adams’ contributions to the founding, development, and success of the United States was unrivaled by others of his generation. In this series, Avery Scott examines John Adams’ life and contributions to the United States from three perspectives. First, John Adams the patriot here. Second, John Adams the diplomat. Third, John Adams the Statesman.

Here, Avery looks more closely at John Adams as a diplomat across Europe.

A portrait of John Adams in 1785 (shown here in black and white). By Mather Brown

Introduction

John Adams served his country in the diplomatic service for much of his life. Eventually, becoming the most experienced foreign diplomat in service, he was called upon to negotiate some of the new nation's most difficult situations. Despite Adams future successes, his diplomatic career began with a torrent of failures.

Lord Howe

After the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the war took a turn for the worst with British forces commencing hostilities on New York. The troops under control of General Washington showed their inexperience and lack of discipline when attacked by professional soldiers. Many soldiers ran from their post, deserting the field and in their wake, leaving behind weapons and powder already in short supply. Fortunately, brave Marylander’s under the command of Lord Stirling guarded the retreating army, making a retreat possible - despite suffering heavy casualties.

Washington knew that his men had to reach safety quickly, as he expected a British armanda to arrive shortly to blockade his overwhelmed Army. Gen. Washington brilliantly developed a plan to retreat across the East river under cover of darkness and fog thanks to brave Massachusetts seafarers who conducted the soldiers' safe passage throughout the night. While the defeat was difficult, the escape was a small silver lining to an otherwise dark cloud. Washington saved the bulk of the Army to fight another day, but learned how weak the force was that he was defend the nation. Soon the news of the battle and escape arrived to Congress, as did paroled General John Sullivan bearing news of Admiral Lord Howe’s desire to speak with a delegation from the colonies regarding an “accommodation.” Adams stood firm that no such meeting should occur, however he was overruled by the greater majority of Congress. Ironically, despite his objections, Adams was selected as one of three members who should meet with Howe on Staten Island. The other two members selected were Benjamin Franklin and Edward Rutledge. So on September 11, 1776 the three commissioners met with Admiral Lord Howe to discuss Howe’s proposal of “re-union” of the colonies to their rightful allegiance to the crown. It was here that Adams began a diplomatic career that would change the fate of America.

France

After the meeting with Admiral Lord Howe, which proved to be a worthless endeavor, and the sting of the loss at New York fresh on their mind, Congress began deliberations to find new ways of recruiting and maintaining a professional Army. It quickly became apparent that America was in an untenable position, and needed an ally to assist in winning the war. Specifically, Congress needed an ally with access to men, supplies, and money. The delegates knew France was their best hope to be victorious. Adams was wary of this alliance, and stood firm that it must be purely militaristic in nature, and not entangle America in the future problems of France (a country that spent more time at war than at peace). Seeing France as their best option, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson commissioners to France with the goal of assisting Silas Deane in negotiating a treaty of alliance. Thomas Jefferson was replaced by Aruthur Lee when Jefferson declined the appointment due to personal reasons.

Adams soon returned home to Braintree, and then back to Baltimore for another session of Congress. It was during this session that Adams was given the most dispiriting news of the war yet. Washington’s troops were bested by Howe’s forces at Brandywine Creek. Who could then march, unabated, the short distance to Philadelphia - routing Congress. Fleeing to York, Congress convened but many members, including Adams, soon departed for home. After enjoying the comforts of home for some weeks, Adams traveled to represent a client in his capacity as a lawyer. During his absence, Abigail received Adams commission to serve with Benjamin Franklin and Arthur Lee in France. He was being called to serve in place of Silas Deane who was recalled to answer to Congress for his actions as commissioner. Abigail, upon reading the commission, was furious with Congress and their attempt to make her life “one continued scene of anxiety and apprehension.” Despite her effort, he quickly accepted the appointment as he felt it his public duty. Adams would depart for France leaving behind his entire family - except John Quincy who would journey with his father. In secrecy, to avoid spies or attack, father and son departed their home waters aboard the Boston. Captain Samuel Tucker was to be responsible for transporting the Adams’ safely to France. Tucker accomplished this mission, albeit not without some difficulty on the way. Namely, the capture of the British cruiser Martha. But after six weeks and four days aboard ship, Adams was rowed ashore, leaving the Boston behind, and beginning what would become one of the greatest diplomatic careers in the nation's history.

Immediately after Adams arrival, he began to be introduced to French society by Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, being the most popular American in France, had many friends that he advised Adams befriend as well. Adams quickly became enamored with the culture and excitedly wrote Abigail regarding the experiences thus far. However, Adams also met Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, the King’s Foreign Minister, who would become a thorn in the side of Adams’ diplomatic hopes. However, the first problem Adams encountered had nothing to do with diplomacy or the French. Rather, it was the ongoing turbulence between Franklin and Arthur Lee, which led both men to complain of the other to Adams in private. Despite personal differences, the men shared the common goal of an alliance with France. And the first step to this was to introduce the new Minister to King Louis XVI. In which Adams was struck by the importance of King Louis on the future of the Nation.Adams spent much of his time in France feeling as though he was accomplishing little, because the treaty of alliance he was sent to negotiate was already agreed upon prior to his arrival. And the Comte de Vergennes seemed disinterested at best or unwilling at worst to do anything additional to help America. Because of this, he spent the remainder of his first stay in Paris struggling with his fellow commissioners, the Comte de Vergennes, and frustration from Abigail regarding his continued absence. However, Abigail need not worry long, as Adams soon received the news that Franklin was appointed by Congress to be the sole Minister to Paris, with no direct instructions being given to Adams as to future assignments. Deeply hurt by the betrayal, Adams planned to sail home.

Home Again

Adams, despite frustration at Congress for the lack of communication, was deeply relieved to be home with the family he loved and his farm. He would not have much time to enjoy retirement as he was soon selected as a delegate to the Massachusetts state convention in order to form a state constitution. Once Adams completed his work for the state convention, and the new constitution was ratified, Adams was called back to Paris to serve as a Minister Plenipotentiary to negotiate treaties of peace with Great Britain. Adams was frustrated at the way he was treated by Congress, with Henry Laurens writing an apology to Adams stating he was “dismissed without censure or applause.” So as it were, Adams now set sail again to France, John Quincy in tow as he was before, but with the addition of his other son, Charles.

Holland

His time in Paris began with the first of many battles with Vergennes regardings his commision, and the appropriate time to reveal his intentions. This would not be the final battle between the two, as Vergennes eventually attempted to effect the recall of Adams. Even going so far as to employ Franklin in the attempt. Despite the treachery, it became a turning point in Adams’ career, as this is when he made the decision to visit Holland in an attempt to gain financial assistance. Adams trip to Holland was one of “militia diplomacy” in which he bent the rules of his new nation, and the customs long followed by all nations to affect his change. He had not been called to do so by Congress, but instead went on his own free will. Eventually, Congress officially voted for Adams to serve in this role. Which proved vital as Adams was very successful with the Dutch, with the Hague voting to recognize him as the Foreign Minister to the Netherlands on April 19, 1782, and the independence of America was also recognized. Eventually, trips to Holland would lead to a multitude of Dutch loans to America that allowed for the continuance of the war effort, and the ability to pay the balance of prior loans, and began to build American credit abroad. Additionally, on October 8, 1782, Adams negotiated, and signed, a Treaty of Commerce with the Netherlands.

Treaty with Britain

After negotiating the Dutch treaty, Adams was dispatched back to Paris for final peace negotiations. Unfortunately for Adams, he lost his appointment as sole Minister to France following the letters to congress from the Comte de Vergennes and Franklin. However, he was still on the team of diplomats responsible for such negotiations. This team included Adams, Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, and Henry Laurens (Jefferson being absent for the time, and Laurens being in the Tower of London). Adams was in little rush to attend the negotiations, and ensured that he wrapped up all open business at the Hague prior to leaving - even doing some sightseeing on the way. Upon his arrival in Paris he was dejected to learn of Congress secret instructions to the negotiators to only push for concessions approved by the French government. Even Franklin, the member most beholden to the French, found this to be an untenable position to negotiate from. Eventually agreeing with the other delegates that they would proceed contrary to Congress instruction, and strike the best deal possible with Britain without prior approval from France. The men worked well together, gaining land for the US and reaching peace terms the British found agreeable. It was only on the point of private debts that the commissioners deferred. Jay and Franklin felt that private debt agreements between Americans and British merchants should be forgiven due to the damage the British inflicted upon their former colonies. However, Adams strongly argued, eventually winning, that private debts should be paid notwithstanding injuries from war. This was, however, more of a personal victory than a practical one. Because few individuals would make much attempt to repay the debts, and both state and national congress’ would do little to enforce it.

Adams' final stand came on the rights of American fishermen to fish in the waters off Nova Scotia. Adams was a Massachusetts man, and though not a seafaring man himself, grew up watching the value of cod and other fish to his region's economy - refusing the British to take away this right.

A preliminary treaty of peace was signed with the British on November 30, 1782. With the official treaty being ratified on September 3, 1783 thus ending hostilities. Following the treaty, in August of 1784 - Abigail joined her “dear Mr. Adams” in Paris. After a blissful reunion in Paris, Adams was eventually named the Ambassador to the Court of St. James. The goal of this post being to resolve outstanding issues between America and Britain following the Treaty of Paris. With sadness, Abigail and John left Paris to assume their new post as the first minister from America to King George III.  Adams' diplomatic career would continue for many years following the signing of the Treaty of Paris and his call to London. However, in the years following his arrival to France, Adams proved that he was no longer an inexperienced diplomat, and had now become a statesman….

What do you think of John Adams as a diplomat? Let us know below.

Now read Avery’s article on the role of privateers in the American Revolution here.

The Union Blockade During the US Civil War: The Anaconda Plan

Anaconda was the strategic plan proposed by General Winfield Scott early in the US Civil War. Scott’s concept was to defeat the Confederate States of America (CSA) through economic measures rather than a land war. Its purpose was to devise an approach to prevent imports and exports, which would squeeze and strangle (like the snake) the Confederacy into submission. Scott thought that by depriving the South of foreign trade and the ability to import or manufacture weapons and military supplies, the war could be won with a minimum of battlefield casualties.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

First, if you missed it, read Lloyd’s piece on how the Confederacy funded its war effort here.

A cartoon-esque map of General Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan to defeat the Confederacy in the American Civil War.

Scott reasoned that the vulnerability of a southern nation was its absence of manufacturing, supplies, and weapons production in the region. He recognized that the seceded states depended on bringing military and consumer imports in, and trading cotton and agricultural exports out. Since the CSA trading partners were overseas and there were no land connections, its economy depended on open rivers and seas. Scott devised a plan for a naval blockade of the ports of the Confederate Atlantic shoreline, an invasion and occupation down the Mississippi River, and the consequent strangulation of the South by combined Union land and naval forces. Scott expected that a land war would be a long, arduous undertaking despite the general opinion that it would be over in weeks.

The two objectives of the blockade were: 1) to prevent war material, manufactured goods, and luxury items from reaching the South to boost their war effort and morale at home and 2) to stop the exportation of raw cotton to foreign manufacturers, which would bring cash to the Confederate economy. By blockading the southern ocean ports and the Mississippi River, its military would slowly suffocate as supplies dwindled and the country became isolated from its trading partners.

Southern Economic Realities

The ante bellum economy of the South relied on bringing manufactured goods from the Northern states and trading raw agricultural products with foreign countries. The South grew crops and raw materials, which were then sold to industrial centers and in return, manufactured goods were purchased. In addition, the South needed markets to sell its cotton and other cash crops. Before the war, the South relied on coastline ports to ship goods and products to other regions and countries.

More specifically, southern economy was dependent on exporting cotton to Great Britain and to the Northeastern states, where clothes and other items were manufactured. The revenue from cotton sales were used to purchase finished products and goods. Food was purchased from Texas and Arkansas or the Midwestern states. Southern reliance on cotton sales and the absence of manufacturing centers in the region delineated why the prewar Southern economy was dependent on maritime trade.

The only way to transport these goods to the consumer were by rail. The blockade overburdened roads and the railroad system in the South, which were not designed to transport troops north-south where the troops needed to go but rather west-east towards the ocean. This increased the cost of transporting goods, raising the prices on agricultural products and stressed the Southern economy. The main role of the railroads before the war was to bring goods to port; the opposite direction was rarely used for transporting heavy loads from the ports to the cities or countryside. This pattern would have to be modified rapidly to stay in the war.

Moreover, the South in 1861 has limited facilities to produce the weapons of war. Only one iron works existed that could produce artillery weapons and armaments, and few manufacturing centers of guns and bullets. All of these would have to be imported to engage in war once those stolen from federal armories in the South had been used.

Proclamation and Management of the Blockade

US Secretary of State William Henry Seward recommended adopting the blockade immediately following the firing on Fort Sumter. Union military commanders were not sanguine about the idea, preferring a rapid attack strategy to a slow suffocation, believing that the war would be rapidly over.

On April 19, 1861 President Abraham Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports, putting the Anaconda Plan into effect. The blockade was extended to include North Carolina and Virginia on April 27. The Union Navy had established blockades of all major southern ports, notably New Orleans and Mobile, by July 1861. Other important ports included Norfolk, Charleston, Wilmington and Savannah.

To manage the blockade, a commission called The Blockade Strategy Board was created by the United States Navy at the direction of Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus Fox. The group was comprised of: Samuel Francis Du Pont, who acted as chairman; Charles Henry Davis; John Gross Barnard; and Alexander Dallas Bache.  They first met in June 1861 to determine how best to stop maritime transport to and from New Orleans and Mobile. Their analysis of the Atlantic ports was very good from the start but that of the Gulf Coast was not. At that time, detailed oceanographic knowledge was not available for the Gulf.

Legal Implications and Foreign Response

Lincoln was immediately confronted with the question of whether the secession of the South should be regarded as rebellion or as war. The fact that the CSA had a government elected by representatives of the people made declaring it a rebellion appear politically motivated. The US continued to insist that the parties to the contest were not belligerents, and that rebellion was not a war. From the legal point of view, the action had to be regarded as armed insurrection. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles advised an undeclared blockade; his idea was to prevent foreign governments from granting the Confederacy belligerent status or recognition as an established nation.

Others suggested that the southern ports be declared closed, which was a legal act. Legally, governments have the right to close its own ports, and to impose penalties upon ships attempting to enter. Only an executive order would be necessary, and would not raise these thorny issues. However, such an order could only be enforced in US waters, which would not allow for stopping ships on the high seas. Additionally, violations would only be breaking a US revenue law, which were only to be adjudicated in a federal court in that state. And, European nations would not have to follow this order because it wasn’t an international law. Convincing foreign governments to view the blockade as legitimate was crucial.  The search and seizure of foreign vessels on the high seas, even though bound for the embargoed port, is an act of war, unless there is a declared and established blockade. But, once that happens, the nations are legally belligerents.

As Welles anticipated, Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861, Spain on June 17, and Brazil on August 1. Other foreign governments issued statements of neutrality. These governments acknowledged the right of the US to stop and search neutral ships in international waters, but were concerned that the methods being used went beyond what international law allowed.  Lincoln specifically noted in his announcements that the US would “follow the law of nations; this meant that the blockading ships would first issue a warning and would only capture the suspected ship on its next attempt to evade the blockade. Union ships decided arbitrarily which ships in Caribbean ports were preparing to run the blockade, waiting outside the territorial limits for those ships to clear port and then board and search.

After the war, Raphael Semmes insisted that the blockade carried recognition of the CSA since countries do not blockade their own ports. Semmes was captain of the blockade runner CSS Alabama, the most successful commerce raider in maritime history, taking 65 prizes. Late in the war, he was promoted to rear admiral and also acted briefly as a brigadier general in the Confederate States Army.

US Naval Maritime Strategy

The basic blockade strategy was simple. The Navy used lightly armed former merchant vessels close to shore, faster and more heavily armed steam frigates patrolling offshore, and cruisers that searched around the globe to interdict Confederate blockade runners and commerce raiders on the high seas.

Actually putting into practice a blockade of the southern half of the United States and a huge transcontinental river, however, was not an easy task. The Atlantic ports had numerous defenses and entrances, and the Mississippi River defended in a number of locations. To succeed, the blockading navy had to patrol 12 major ports, 189 harbors and 3,500 miles of coastline.

In fact, the US Navy was unprepared for this mission at the beginning of the war. The Union had only thirty-five modern vessels, just three of which were steam powered. Accomplishing this task required a huge building program to build ships to cover Southern seaports. Eventually, the Union produced 500 ships for the sole purpose of creating an effective blockade.

The Mississippi River comprised an entirely different problem. The Navy developed a combined-arms strategy with the Army in amphibious and coastal/riverine operations. Both forces were necessary to control of riverways and ports.  River warships had to have sufficient power to run battery fire from the shore and enemy ships in an enclosed space. The river experience to that time had been all about commerce and there was no experience building boats to maneuver and carry heavy artillery in a river. These ships had to be designed and built.

Blockade Runners

Maintaining international commerce by overcoming the blockade was crucial to the CSA. Because it lacked sufficient manufacturing centers in the South, the only way to supply its military needs and keep its economy going was by international commerce. Therefore, among all of its other priorities, the CSA had to build a navy with the purpose of evading the US ships blockading its ports. Freighters were much too slow and lacked the ability to outrun or outmaneuver the Union gunboats.

By the end of 1862, the efficiency of the blockade required that only specially designed vessels could attempt to run it. The nature of their operations was risky because they are the targets that blockading fleets try to corner or fire upon. However, the potential profits and benefit were tremendous. Nonetheless, over 80% of attempts to evade the Union blockade were successful.

A blockade runner was a ship built expressly for the purpose of evading a blockade of a port or strait.  Steam engines made these ships fast and difficult to trap.  These ships were designed to be fast with a light draft, with exceptional maneuverability.. They were lightly armed and armored to save weight and space; their purpose was to “outrun the blockade” not fight the defending naval vessels. To remain undetected, usually the ships made their runs at night. Once sighted, the runners tried to outmaneuver or outrun the Union ships.

However, these necessary characteristics were the opposite of their purpose of carrying heavy weaponry and large amounts of supplies. Consequently, it became necessary to make multiple trips, further increasing the risk. For this reason, most were ultimately captured or sunk. In all, 1,504 blockade runners were captured or destroyed during the war. By the end of the war the Union Navy had captured 1,149 blockade runners, and had destroyed or run aground another 355 vessels.

Blockade runners were privately owned.  They typically operated with a letter of marque issued by the Confederacy. These vessels carried cargoes to and from neutral ports.  The four principal intermediary points were: Bermuda, Nassau, Havana, and Matamoras. There, neutral merchant ships, usually based in England or other points abroad, would exchange their cargoes. Inbound, the ships brought military supplies and other goods to the Confederacy while outbound ships exported cotton, tobacco and other goods for trade and for sale.

Great Britain played a major role in blockade running. Liverpool was especially prominent; its shipbuilding businesses were ideal for designing and building commerce raiders and blockade runners. The British developed steamships that were longer, narrower and faster than the conventional steamers guarding the American coastline, enabling them to outmaneuver and outrun blockaders. Many British businesses had investments in the South, and were suffering due to the Lancashire Cotton Famine. Furthermore, Great Britain controlled many of the ports in the Caribbean, making it an ideal partner in defeating the blockade.

Blockade runners faced an increasing risk of capture as the war continued. In 1861 and 1862, only about 10% of attempts ended in capture; but by 1863 and 1864, one in three. By war's end, imports had been choked to a trickle as the number of captures came to 50% of the sorties. Some 1,100 blockade runners were captured (and another 300 destroyed). British investors frequently reinvested their profits in the trade; when the war ended they were stuck with useless ships and rapidly depreciating cotton. Ultimately about half the investors made profits  while half sustained losses. Although a large proportion of blockade runners did evade the Union defense, the strength of the blockade is better measured as the kinds of ships, and their numbers, that never tried knowing they would be caught.

Confederate Threats to the Blockade

Recognizing that the US Navy were building powerful gunboats, the Confederacy initially countered with small, fast and sleek boats called torpedo boats. These were equipped with spar torpedoes, which were easily countered by hanging chains over the sides of the boats. Another problem was that they really couldn’t carry many supplies.

The Confederates initially operated privateers, allowing them to attack Union ships. However, these ships could only sail from Confederate ports under international law; this rendered them ineffective after 1862 as the blockade ramped up. Confederate commerce raiders were very effective countermeasures. These were gunboats built with the specific purpose of attacking the blockading ships. The CSS Alabama and the CSS Florida were highly effective and rendered maintenance of the dangerous. Despite the attacks by Confederate warships, there were few Union losses. After the Alabama attacked and sank the USS Hatteras off Galveston, it was clear that small gunboats could not blockade shallow inlets without support. Consequently, strategy changed so that large flotillas were deployed, by which large numbers of naval vessels were sent to chase these Confederate warships in open seas.

Confederate ironclads were another innovation designed to break the blockade. In March 1862, the blockade of the James River was threatened by the first ironclad, CSS Virginia, often incorrectly named the Merrimac which was its original name before it was salvaged. in the Battle of Hampton Roads, the Union ironclad Monitor battled the Virginia for hours, ending the threat. Two months later, Virginia and other ships were scuttled in response to the Union Army and Navy advances.

Effectiveness of the Blockade

At first, the blockade was ineffective: in the first six weeks after Ft Sumter, the Confederacy exported 30,000 bales of cotton from Charleston in 150 ships. In April 1861, a small Union flotilla seized 16 Confederate ships and privateers in the vicinity of Fort Monroe off the Virginia coastline over two weeks. In May, two blockading squadrons were created by Welles, an Atlantic and a Gulf squadron. In October, the Atlantic Squadron was divided in to a North and South Atlantic division, and in February 1862 the Gulf squadron was partitioned into East and West Gulf division.

As the Union fleet grew in size and sophistication, more ports came under Federal control. The port of Savannah was effectively sealed by the surrender and occupation of Fort Pulaski in April 1862. Only Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; and Mobile, Alabama remained open after this point in the war.

The largest Confederate port, New Orleans, fell early in the war. There were 5 entrances to the Mississippi River, making it a very difficult military target.  In April 1862, Forts Jackson and St. Philip were bombarded by Porter's mortar schooners. Farragut's fleet successfully ran past the forts on the morning of April 24, forcing the surrender of New Orleans.

Charleston was the major Confederate port on the Atlantic Coast until 1863. The city has a wide and deep harbor, with a sand bar about five miles from the harbor entrance.  There were  four large channels into the harbor. The port of Charleston with its excellent rail connections became the prime port due to its location just 780 miles from Bermuda and 500 miles from Nassau. Charleston was severely restricted by Admiral Dahlgren's South Atlantic Blockading Squadron in 1863 as Union ironclads moved into the main shipping channel. Although it remained open until February 1865, it never played a major role after that time.

The harbor at Wilmington North Carolina was small and had none of the natural advantages that Charleston or New Orleans possessed. For this reason, the Union did not include it in the blockade it right away. But the city had good railroads to Richmond, and because of its location it was immune to a direct assault. Its convenience to the Caribbean also made it an attractive alternative. Once this harbor became a prime destination, it required Union warships to patrol as much as 130 miles offshore to stop the trade.

Although the Atlantic coast was initially the main object of the blockade, eventually the Gulf became a very important and extremely large zone to cover. The 2000 mile coast ultimately was never fully blockaded. Only Mobile and Galveston could harbor large seagoing vessels due to the shallow waters and multiple barrier islands. Havana was the main connection to Europe from the Gulf.

Mobile was the major port in the Gulf and remained highly active until it was captured in August 1864 by Admiral David Farragut. The Battle of Mobile Bay between his fleet and the Confederate warships in the harbor closed the last major Confederate port in the Gulf of Mexico.

In December 1864, Union Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles sent a force against Fort Fisher, which protected access to the Atlantic from Wilmington, North Carolina, the last open Confederate port on the Atlantic Coast.  The fort was captured in January 1865, assuring the closure of the final Confederate port.

Impact of the Blockade on the Confederacy

The Union blockade was a powerful weapon that eventually destroyed the Southern economy, at the cost of very few lives, just as General Scott envisioned. War is largely about supporting armies with supplies throughout the various fields of conflict. The river campaigns of 1862-3 in the west crushed the South while the Atlantic blockade raised the costs. The best measure of the blockade's success was that many ships, and none of the very large ones, ever tried. Standard seagoing freighters had little chance of evading the blockade and few attempted. Restricting coastal trade put even more pressure on an outdated railroad system. Lee's army, at the end of the supply line, had to contend with a chronic shortage of supplies in the final two years.

The blockade became more effective as the war proceeded and more southern territory came under Union control. In part, the reason was that there were fewer ports to protect; but also the blockade fleets caught on to the tricks of the blockade runners. Overall, only about 10% of ships trying to evade the blockade were intercepted. However, as the Union Navy increased in size and sophistication as the war progressed, drastic reductions of shipments into Confederate ports were realized. By 1864, only one-third of attempts to run the blockade were intercepted. In the final two years of the war, only blockade runners specifically designed for this task had a reasonable chance of success.

Another  significant achievement of the blockade was restricting the exportation of cotton. Before the war, the South supplied 75 to 80 percent of the world's raw cotton.  Inability to export their cash crop markedly reduced cotton revenue, disrupting the Southern economy.

Unsurprisingly, southern merchants and black markets preferred the importation of luxury consumer goods, which could be sold to the wealthy, rather than weapons and medical supplies. The Confederate government eventually regulated the traffic, so that at least half were armaments and munitions.

Moreover, the southern economy had to react to these stresses, and did so in predictable yet devastating ways. Since the Southern food supply was located in the west and revenue generation east of the Mississippi, the weak and overburdened rail system became the limiting factor of supply. This forced the new Confederate national government, which had little revenue generating power, to spend its money on  infrastructure rather than military or social needs.

Overall, the Union blockade did not come close to stopping all supplies from reaching the Confederacy, but it disrupted the usual flow of supplies into and out of the South enough to severely restrict its ability to make war. However, the reduced flow of goods and food led to severe shortages and higher prices. Along with Confederate currency inflation, civilian discontent became a significant war problem. The blockade demonstrated that war was no longer a matter only for soldiers, and that the effects of the war were no longer confined to the battlefield. Civilians had become combatants in the sense that undermining their morale became a military goal. Thus warfare was aimed not only at destroying armies, but also disrupting the economy and depriving people of consumer goods and food.

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

Now, if you missed it, read Lloyd’s piece on how the Confederacy funded its war effort here.

Bibliography

• Carse, Richard. Blockade: The Civil War at Sea. New York: Rinehart, 1958.

• Surdam, David. Northern Naval Superiority and the Economics of the American Civil War. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001.

• Charles D. Grear. Americans at War

• https://www.thoughtco.com/anaconda-plan-definition-1773298

• https://www.encyclopedia.com/defense/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/blockade-civil-war#:~:text=The%20first%20action%20of%20naval%20warfare%20in%20the,reduce%20the%20South%20%27s%20ability%20to%20make%20war.

• https://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/blockade

• https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/blockade

• https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-union-blockade-of-the-southern-states.html

• https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/october/economic-warfare-union-blockade-civil-war

Trauma during War: Part 3 - World War 2

World War Two caused so much misery and was much more of a truly global conflict than World War One. The battles of that war took place largely across Europe, Asia, and Africa and in seas the world over. Here, Richard Bluttal concludes his three-part series on the impacts of trauma during wars by looking at World War 2.

If you missed it, read part one on the American Civil War here, and part 2 on World War 1 here.

Advert encouraging sign-ups to the Army Nurse Corps during World War 2.

Lawrence McCauley was a member of the 65th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, trained to drive trucks armed with .50-caliber machine guns, halftracks and landing craft, just in case. In England, preparing for the D-Day invasion, he  became fast friends with Otto Lutz, a tall Chicagoan. We were all very close,” he said of his unit when he was interviewed in 2020 at the age of 97 and living in Lewis Center. “You knew about their wives and children — everything you could know about your buddy, because there was nothing else to talk about.”

He and Otto were next to each other on a landing craft as it approached Omaha Beach. The front door dropped open and a bullet hit Otto in the forehead. McCauley remembers looking back and seeing his friend’s face sink beneath the water. “There was no stopping,” he said. “Our orders were `Don’t stop,’ because you’re better off as a moving target. That’s hard.”

The purpose of military medicine during World War II was the same as in previous wars: to conserve the strength and efficiency of the fighting forces so as to keep as many men at as many guns for as many days as possible. What transpired between 1939 and 1945 was a cataclysmic event made worse by the nature of the weapons the combatants used. The use of machine guns, submarines, airplanes, and tanks was widespread in World War I; but in World War II these weapons reached unimagined perfection as killing machines. In every theater of war, small arms, land-and sea-based artillery, torpedoes, and armor-piercing and antipersonnel bombs took a terrible toll in human life. In America's first major encounter at Pearl Harbor, the survivors of the Japanese attack could describe what modern warfare really meant. Strafing aircraft, exploding ordnance, and burning ships caused penetrating injuries, simple and compound fractures, traumatic amputations, blast injuries, and horrific burns, to name just a few. Total U.S. battle deaths in World War II numbered 292,131 with 671,801 reported wounded or missing.

Conserving fighting strength and enabling armies and navies to defeat the enemy also meant recognizing that disease, more than enemy action, often threatened this goal. For example, during the early Pacific campaign to subdue the Solomon Islands, malaria caused more casualties than Japanese bullets. Following the initial landings on Guadalcanal, the number of patients hospitalized with malaria exceeded all other diseases. Some units suffered 100 percent casualty rates, with personnel sometimes being hospitalized more than once. Only when malaria and other tropical diseases were controlled could the Pacific war be won.

The military's top priority organized its medical services to care for battlefield casualties, make them well, and return them to duty. The systems developed by the army and navy worked similarly. In all theaters of war, but particularly in the Pacific, both army and navy medicine faced their greatest challenge dealing with the aftermath of intense, bloody warfare fought far from fixed hospitals. This put enormous pressure on medical personnel closest to the front and forced new approaches to primary care and evacuation.

World War II service members lived through an inflection point in the history of medicine and warfare. In all previous US wars, non-battle deaths—related to conditions like smallpox, typhoid, dysentery, yellow fever, tuberculosis, and influenza—outnumbered battle-related fatalities. During the Spanish-American War, more than 2,000 of the approximately 2,400 deaths were due to causes other than battle. During World War I, 53,000 died due to battle versus 63,000 who died due to other causes. World War II marked the first time the ratio was reversed. Of 16.1 million who served, 405,399 died—291,557 of them in battle, and 113,842 due to other causes. A variety of factors contributed to the shift. Crucially, during World War II, the government mobilized expansive public, professional, and private resources to enhance health-related research and development, as well as services offered by the Army Surgeon General’s Office, which oversaw care for soldiers. Also, rather than creating mobilization and treatment plans from scratch, the military health apparatus built on knowledge and administrative infrastructure developed during and after prior conflicts.

Organization of battlefield medical care

The military's top priority organized its medical services to care for battlefield casualties, make them well, and return them to duty. The systems developed by the army and navy worked similarly. In all theaters of war, but particularly in the Pacific, both army and navy medicine faced their greatest challenge dealing with the aftermath of intense, bloody warfare fought far from fixed hospitals. This put enormous pressure on medical personnel closest to the front and forced new approaches to primary care and evacuation.

Army medics or navy corpsmen were the first critical link in the evacuation chain. From the time a soldier suffered a wound on a battlefield in France or a marine was hit on an invasion beach at Iwo Jima, the medic or corpsman braved enemy fire to render aid. He applied a battle dressing, administered morphine and perhaps plasma or serum albumin, and tagged the casualty. Indeed, one of the lingering images of the World War II battlefield is the corpsman or medic crouched beside a wounded patient, his upstretched hand gripping a glass bottle. From the bottle flowed a liquid that brought many a marine or soldier back from the threshold of death. In the early days of the conflict that fluid was plasma. Throughout the war, scientists sought and finally developed a better blood substitute, serum albumin. Finally, in 1945, whole blood, rich in oxygen-carrying red cells, became available in medical facilities close to the battlefield.

If he was lucky, the medic or corpsman might commandeer a litter team to move the casualty out of harm's way and on to a battalion aid station or a collecting and clearing company for further treatment. This care would mean stabilizing the patient with plasma, serum albumin, or whole blood. In some cases, the casualty was then evacuated. Other casualties were taken to a divisional hospital, where doctors performed further stabilization including surgery, if needed. In the Pacific, where sailors, soldiers, and marines were doing the fighting, both navy and army hospital ships, employed mainly as ambulances, provided first aid and some surgical care for the casualties' needs while ferrying them to base hospitals in the Pacific or back to the United States for definitive care. As the war continued, air evacuation helped carry the load. Trained army and navy nurses, medics, and corpsmen staffed the evacuation aircraft.

Combat Related Injuries

The experience of a battle casualty in the Second World War was not radically different to that of the First World War. The most common injuries were caused by shells and bullets, and a casualty was evacuated through a similarly organized chain of medical posts, dressing stations and hospitals. Common combat injuries include second- and third-degree burns, broken bones, shrapnel wounds, brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, nerve damage, paralysis, loss of sight and hearing, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and limb loss.

Non-Combat Related Death and Injuries

Not all wounds are physical. In a previous era, the psychologically wounded suffered from "nostalgia" during the Civil War, and "shell-shock" in World War I. In World War II this condition was termed combat exhaustion or combat fatigue. Although the World War I experience of treating men at the front had been successful, military psychiatrists and psychologists at the beginning of World War II had to relearn those lessons. Nevertheless, the care givers soon recognized that given a respite from combat, a safe place to rest, regular food, and a clean environment, 85 to 90 percent of patients could again become efficient warriors. The more psychologically damaged received therapy in military hospitals.

In the Southwest Pacific, where death rates due to disease were highest, soldiers faced scourges like malaria, as well as tsutsugamushi fever, poliomyelitis, and diseases of the digestive system. In the northern theater—Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland—threats included cold injuries like frostbite and trench foot. Neuropsychiatric disorders and venereal disease were widespread, regardless of where one served, including among those in the United States.

Army doctor Paul F. Russell recalled after the war an earlier statement from General Douglas MacArthur, who had reported that he “was not at all worried about defeating the Japanese, but he was greatly concerned about the failure up to that time to defeat the Anopheles mosquito,” the vector for malaria. By war’s end, more than 490,000 soldiers had been diagnosed with malaria, equating to a loss of approximately nine million “man-days.”

Between 1941 and 1944, more than 10 percent—roughly two million of 15 million examined men—were excluded from service; 37 percent of those dismissals were made based on neuropsychiatric findings. Still, diagnoses of mental “disorders” within the military catapulted well beyond expectations. A total of one million soldiers were admitted for neuropsychiatric illness, constituting approximately 6 percent of all wartime admissions. Within two years of American entry into the war, it was clear that so-called combat stress or “exhaustion” would pose a major threat to soldiers and the army they served—as it had during prior generations. Experiences and realizations of the World War II period had important implications for the future of military medicine.

Army officials began devoting more resources to neuropsychiatric treatment because of an imperative to increase return-to-duty rates, but long-term impacts of care on individual service members were questionable. In early 1943, military psychiatrists noted that men in the Tunisian campaign diagnosed as “psychiatric casualties” were generally lost to their units after being transferred to distant base hospitals. To increase retention, they instituted principles of “forward psychiatry” that had been adopted by World War I-era armies—and henceforth largely disregarded by World War II planners in the United States: treat patients quickly, in close proximity to battle, and with the expectation that they would recover. After army psychiatrist Frederick Hanson reported in the spring of 1943 that 70 percent of approximately 500 psychiatric battle casualties were returned to duty thanks to this approach, it was gradually adopted in other theaters. Still, military psychiatrists acknowledged the method was hardly a panacea. Systematic follow-up studies were lacking, but one contemporary account noted that many who underwent treatment were unable to return to combat, and some who did “relapsed after the first shot was fired.’”

Medical Advancements and Improvements

Battlefield medicine improved throughout the course of the war. At the beginning, only plasma was available as a substitute for the loss of blood. By 1945, serum albumin had been developed, which is whole blood that is rich in the red blood cells that carry oxygen and is considerably more effective than plasma alone. This was the first major war in which air evacuation of the wounded became available.

During the war, surgery techniques such as removing dead tissue resulted in fewer amputations than at any time. To treat bacterial infections, penicillin or streptomycin were administered for the first time in large-scale combat.

Service members with combat fatigue, which later became known as post-traumatic stress disorder, were given a safe place to stay away from battle zones with plenty of food and rest. This resulted in about 90% of patients recovering enough to return to the fight.

War also brought about the mass production of antibiotics, especially sulfanilamide and penicillin. World War II helped both of them find widespread respect, production, and use.

In 1928, when Scottish bacteriologist Alexander Fleming noticed a weird mold had taken over his Petri dishes and eliminated the bacteria on them, his findings didn’t get much notice. But Fleming continued his research and kept talking up what he called “mold juice” (he didn’t come up with “penicillin” until later), eventually winning a Nobel Prize and attracting the attention of drug maker Pfizer. The company soon began mass-producing the drugs for distribution to medics during WWII, and ultimately, to doctors and hospitals across the country.

In 1932, German biochemist Gerhard Johannes Paul Domagk discovered that the compound sulfanilamide could vanquish deadly strains of bacteria, like the streptococcus in his lab mice and in his first human test subject, his gravely ill young daughter. The wide distribution of so-called “sulfa drugs” began when World War II soldiers carried powdered sulfanilamide in their first-aid kits. By the end of the war, doctors were routinely using these antibiotics to treat streptococcus, meningitis, and other infections.

In the tropical islands of the Pacific, malaria was a serious threat. Service members received atabrine — a group of medications used to protect against malaria — before going into affected areas.

Service members were also inoculated with vaccinations for smallpox, typhoid, tetanus, cholera, typhus, yellow fever and bubonic plague, depending where they were sent.

Other improvements during World War II included improved crash helmets, Because of improvements like these and others, the survival rate for the wounded and ill climbed to 50% during World War II from only 4% during World War I, according to Dr. Daniel P. Murphy, who published a paper on "Battlefield Injuries and Medicine."

As medical advancements progress so does the capability of our medical teams to treat our service men and women when injured in the field.

What do you think of trauma during World War II? Let us know below.

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

Trauma during War: Part 2 - World War 1

World War I was the war that caused the most deaths up until that time. The trenches of that war caused great horror and misery for many. Here, Richard Bluttal continues his three-part series on the impacts of trauma during wars by looking at World War One.

If you missed it, read part one on the American Civil War here.

A depiction of French surgeon Théodore Tuffier.

The pocket diary of Rifleman William Eve of 1/16th (County of London) Battalion (Queen’s Westminster Rifles):

”Poured with rain all day and night. Water rose steadily till knee deep when we had the order to retire to our trenches. Dropped blanket and fur coat in the water. Slipped down as getting up on parapet, got soaked up to my waist. Went sand-bag filling and then sewer guard for 2 hours. Had no dug out to sleep in, so had to chop and change about. Roache shot while getting water and [Rifleman PH] Tibbs shot while going to his aid (in the mouth). Laid in open all day, was brought in in the evening”, unconscious but still alive. Passed away soon after.

The war caused 350,000 total American casualties, of which over 117,000 were deaths. The best estimates today are 53,000 combat deaths, and 64,000 deaths from disease. (Official figures in 1919 were 107,000 total, with 50,000 combat deaths, and 57,000 deaths from disease.)  About half of the latter were from the great influenza epidemic, 1918-1920.  Considering that 4,450,000 men were mobilized, and half those were sent to Europe, the figure is far less than the casualty rates suffered by all of the other combatants.

World War 1 represented the coming of age of American military medicine.  The techniques and organizational principles of the Great War were greatly different from any earlier wars and were far more advanced.  Medical and surgical techniques, in contrast with previous wars, represented the best available in civilian medicine at the time.  Indeed, many of the leaders of American medicine were found on the battlefields of Europe in 1917 and 1918.  The efforts to meet the challenge were often hurried.  The results lacked polish and were far from perfect.  But the country can rightly be proud of the medical efforts made during the Great War.

The primary medical challenges for the U.S. upon entering the war were, “creating a fit force of four million people, keeping them healthy and dealing with the wounded,” says the museum's curator of medicine (Smithsonian's National Museum of American History and science) Diane Wendt. “Whether it was moving them through a system of care to return them to the battlefield or take them out of service, we have a nation that was coming to grips with that.”

The First World War created thousands of casualties. New weapons such as the machine gun caused unprecedented damage to soldiers’ bodies. This presented new challenges to doctors on both sides in the conflict, as they sought to save their patients’ lives and limit the harm to their bodies. New types of treatment, organization and medical technologies were developed to reduce the number of deaths.

In addition to wounds, many soldiers became ill. Weakened immune systems and the presence of contagious disease meant that many men were in hospital for sickness, not wounds. Between October 1914 and May 1915 at the No 1 Canadian General Hospital, there were 458 cases of influenza and 992 of gonorrhea amongst officers and men.

Wounding also became a way for men to avoid the danger and horror of the trenches. Doctors were instructed to be vigilant in cases of ‘malingering’, where soldiers pretended to be ill or wounded themselves so that they did not have to fight. It was a common belief of the medical profession that wounds on the left hand were suspicious. 

Wounding was not always physical. Thousands of men suffered emotional trauma from their war experience. ‘Shellshock’, as it came to be known, was viewed with suspicion by the War Office and by many doctors, who believed that it was another form of weakness or malingering. Sufferers were treated at a range of institutions.

Organization of Battlefield Medical Care

In response to the realities of the Western Front in Europe, the Medical Department established a treatment and evacuation system that could function in both static and mobile environments. Based on their history of success in the American Civil War, and on the best practices of the French and British systems, the Department created specific units designed to provide a sequence of continuous care from the front line to the rear area in what they labelled the Theater of Operations.

Casualties had to be taken from the field of battle to the places where doctors and nurses could treat them. They were collected by stretcher-bearers and moved by a combination of people, horse and cart, and later on by motorized ambulance ‘down the line’. Men would be moved until they reached a location where treatment for their specific injury would take place.

Where soldiers ended up depended largely on the severity of their wounds. Owing to the number of wounded, hospitals were set up in any available buildings, such as abandoned chateaux in France. Often Casualty Clearing Stations (CCS) were set up in tents. Surgery was often performed at the CCS; arms and legs were amputated, and wounds were operated on. As the battlefield became static and trench warfare set in, the CCS became more permanent, with better facilities for surgery and accommodation for female nurses, which was situated far away from the male patients.

Combat Related Injuries

For World War I, ideas of the front lines entered the popular imagination through works as disparate as All Quiet on the Western Front and Blackadder. The strain and the boredom of trench warfare are part of our collective memory; the drama of war comes from two sources: mustard gas and machine guns. The use of chemical weapons and the mechanization of shooting brought horror to men’s lives at the front. Yet they were not the greatest source of casualties. By far, artillery was the biggest killer in World War I, and provided the greatest source of war wounded.

World War I was an artillery war. In his book Trench: A History of Trench Warfare on the Western Front (2010), Stephen Bull concluded that in the western front, artillery was the biggest killer, responsible for “two-thirds of all deaths and injuries.” Of this total, a third resulted in death, two-thirds in injuries. Artillery wounded the whole body, if not entirely obliterated, the body was often dismembered, losing arms, legs, ears, noses, and even faces. Even when there was not superficial damage, concussive injuries and “shell shock” put many men out of action. Of course, shooting—in combat as well as from snipers—was another great source of wounding. Gas attacks were a third. Phosgene, chlorine, mustard gas, and tear gas debilitated more than killed, though many ended up suffering long-term disability. Overall, the war claimed about 10M military dead, and about 20M–21M military wounded, with 5% of those wounds’ life-debilitating, that is, about a million persons.

August 1914 would dramatically alter the paradigm of casualty care. Gigantic cannons, high explosives, and the machine gun soon invalidated all pre-war suppositions and strategy. More than eighty percent of wounds were due to shell fragments, which caused multiple shredding injuries. "There were battles which were almost nothing but artillery duels," a chagrined Edmond Delorme observed. Mud and manured fields took care of the rest. Devitalized tissue was quickly occupied by Clostridia pathogens, and gas gangrene became a deadly consequence. Delays in wound debridement, prompted by standard military practice, caused astounding lethality. Some claimed more than fifty percent of deaths were due to negligent care. And the numbers of casualties were staggering. More than 200,000 were wounded in the first months alone: far too many for the outdated system of triage and evacuation envisioned just years before. American observer Doctor Edmund Gros visited the battlefield in 1914:

If a soldier is wounded in the open, he falls on the firing line and tries to drag himself to some place of safety. Sometimes the fire of the enemy is so severe that he cannot move a step. Sometimes, he seeks refuge behind a haystack or in some hollow or behind some knoll…. Under the cover of darkness, those who can do so walk with or without help to the Poste de Secours. . . . Stretcher-bearers are sent out to collect the severely wounded . . . peasants' carts and wagons [are used] . . . the wounded are placed on straw spread on the bottom of these carts without springs, and thus they are conveyed during five or six hours before they reach the sanitary train or temporary field hospital. What torture many of them must endure, especially those with multiple fractures!

Non-Combat Related Death and Illness

In the course of the First World War, many more soldiers died of disease than by the efforts of the enemy. Lice caused itching and transmitted infections such as typhus and trench fever. In summer it was impossible to keep food fresh and everyone got food poisoning. In winter men suffered from frostbite and exposure and from trench foot. There were no antibiotics so death from gangrenous wounds and syphilis were common. Others suicided as a result of psychological stress.

Battlefield Wounded and Surgery

In the early years of the war, compound lower limb fractures caused by gunshots in trench warfare sparked debate over the traditional splinting practices that delayed surgery, leading to high mortality rates, particularly for open femoral fractures.

Femoral fractures stranded soldiers on the battlefield, and stretcher-bearers reached them only with difficulty, leaving many lying wounded for days or enduring rough transport, all of which left soldiers particularly vulnerable to gas gangrene and secondary hemorrhage. Australian surgeons in France reported injury-to-treatment times ranging from 36 hours to a week and averaging three to four days. Fracture immobilization during transport was poor, and in the early war years surgeons reported about 80% mortality for soldiers with femoral fractures transported from the field.

By 1915 medics and stretcher-bearers were routinely trained to apply immobilizing splints, and by 1917 specialized femur wards had been established; during this period mortality from all fractures fell to about 12% and below 20% for open femoral fractures.

Théodore Tuffier, a leading French surgeon, testified in 1915 to the Academy of Medicine that 70 percent of amputations were due to infection, not to the initial injury. “Professor Tuffier stated that antiseptics had not proven satisfactory, that cases of gas gangrene were most difficult to handle,” Crile wrote. “All penetrating wounds of the abdomen, he said, die of shock and infection. … He himself tried in fifteen instances to perform immediate operations in cases of penetrating abdominal wounds, and he lost every case. In fact, they have abandoned any attempt to operate penetrating wounds of the abdomen. All wounds large and small are infected. The usual antiseptics, bichloride, carbolic, iodine, etc., fail.”

Every war has its distinctive injury. For World War I, it was facial injuries, which affected 10–15% of casualties, or over a half-million men. The nature of combat--with faces often exposed above the trench line--contributed to this high incidence. Most countries founded specialist hospitals with surgeons like Johannes Esser in the Netherlands and Hippolyte Morestin in France who dedicated their practices to developing new techniques to repair facial trauma.

World War I presented surgeons with myriad new challenges. They responded to these difficulties not only with courage and sedulity but also with an open mind and active investigation. Military medicine practiced in 1918 differed substantially from that in 1914. This shift did not occur by happenstance. It represented collaboration between some of the brightest minds in academia and professional military doctors, combining their expertise to solve problems, take care of patients, and preserve fighting strength. It required multiple inter-allied conferences both to identify common medical problems and also to determine optimal solutions. Reams of books and pamphlets buttressed the in-person instruction consultants provided to educate young physicians on best practices. Most significantly, this change demanded a willingness to admit a given intervention was not working, creatively try something new, assess its efficacy using data from thousands of soldiers, disseminate the knowledge, and ensure widespread application of the novel practice. No step was easy, and combining execute them while fighting the Great War required a remarkable degree of perseverance, intellectual honesty, and operational flexibility.

Medical advances and improvements leading up to World War 2

 With most of the fighting set in the trenches of Europe and with the unexpected length of the war, soldiers were often malnourished, exposed to all weather conditions, sleep-deprived, and often knee-deep in the mud along with the bodies of men and animals. In the wake of the mass slaughter, it became clear that the “only way to cope with the sheer numbers of casualties was to have an efficient administrative system that identified and prioritized injuries as they arrived.” This was the birth of the Triage System. Medicine, in World War I, made major advances in several directions. The war is better known as the first mass killing of the 20th century—with an estimated 10 million military deaths alone—but for the injured, doctors learned enough to vastly improve a soldier’s chances of survival. They went from amputation as the only solution, to being able to transport soldiers to hospital, to disinfect their wounds and to operate on them to repair the damage wrought by artillery. Ambulances, antiseptics, and anesthesia, three elements of medicine taken entirely for granted today, emerged from the depths of suffering in the First World War.

Two Welshmen were responsible for one of the most important advances - the Thomas splint - which is still used in war zones today. It was invented in the late 19th century by pioneering surgeon Hugh Owen Thomas, often described as the father of British orthopedics, born in Anglesey to a family of "bone setters”.

In France, vehicles were commandeered to become mobile X-ray units. New antiseptics were developed to clean wounds, and soldiers became more disciplined about hygiene. Also, because the sheer scale of the destruction meant armies had to become better organized in looking after the wounded, surgeons were drafted in closer to the frontline and hospital trains used to evacuate casualties.

When the war broke out, the making of prosthetic limbs was a small industry in Britain. Production had to increase dramatically. One of the ways this was achieved was by employing men who had amputations to make prosthetic limbs – most commonly at Erskine and Roehampton, where they learnt the trade alongside established tradespeople. This had the added advantage of providing occupation for discharged soldiers who, because of their disabilities, would probably have had difficulty finding work.

While it was not an innovation of war, the process of blood transfusion was greatly refined during World War I and contributed to medical progress. Previously, all blood stored near the front lines was at risk of clotting. Anticoagulant methods were implemented, such as adding citrate or using paraffin inside the storage vessel. This resulted in blood being successfully stored for an average of 26 days, simplifying transportation. The storage and maintenance of blood meant that by 1918 blood transfusions were being used in front-line casualty clearing stations (CCS). Clearing stations were medical facilities that were positioned just out of enemy fire.

One of the most profound medical advancements resulting from World War I was the exploration of mental illness and trauma. Originally, any individual showing symptoms of neurosis was immediately sent to an asylum and consequently forgotten. As World War I made its debut, it brought forward a new type of warfare that no one was prepared for in its technological, military, and biological advances.

Another successful innovation came in the form of the base hospitals and clearing stations. These allowed doctors and medics to categorize men as serious or mild, and results came to light that many stress-related disorders were a result of

exhaustion or deep trauma. “Making these distinctions was a breakthrough…the new system meant that mild cases could be rested then returned to their posts without being sent home.”

What do you think of trauma during World War I? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s piece on the history of slavery in New York here.The pocket diary of Rifleman William Eve of 1/16th (County of London) Battalion (Queen’s Westminster Rifles):

”Poured with rain all day and night. Water rose steadily till knee deep when we had the order to retire to our trenches. Dropped blanket and fur coat in the water. Slipped down as getting up on parapet, got soaked up to my waist. Went sand-bag filling and then sewer guard for 2 hours. Had no dug out to sleep in, so had to chop and change about. Roache shot while getting water and [Rifleman PH] Tibbs shot while going to his aid (in the mouth). Laid in open all day, was brought in in the evening”, unconscious but still alive. Passed away soon after.

The war caused 350,000 total American casualties, of which over 117,000 were deaths. The best estimates today are 53,000 combat deaths, and 64,000 deaths from disease. (Official figures in 1919 were 107,000 total, with 50,000 combat deaths, and 57,000 deaths from disease.)  About half of the latter were from the great influenza epidemic, 1918-1920.  Considering that 4,450,000 men were mobilized, and half those were sent to Europe, the figure is far less than the casualty rates suffered by all of the other combatants.

World War 1 represented the coming of age of American military medicine.  The techniques and organizational principles of the Great War were greatly different from any earlier wars and were far more advanced.  Medical and surgical techniques, in contrast with previous wars, represented the best available in civilian medicine at the time.  Indeed, many of the leaders of American medicine were found on the battlefields of Europe in 1917 and 1918.  The efforts to meet the challenge were often hurried.  The results lacked polish and were far from perfect.  But the country can rightly be proud of the medical efforts made during the Great War.

The primary medical challenges for the U.S. upon entering the war were, “creating a fit force of four million people, keeping them healthy and dealing with the wounded,” says the museum's curator of medicine (Smithsonian's National Museum of American History and science) Diane Wendt. “Whether it was moving them through a system of care to return them to the battlefield or take them out of service, we have a nation that was coming to grips with that.”

The First World War created thousands of casualties. New weapons such as the machine gun caused unprecedented damage to soldiers’ bodies. This presented new challenges to doctors on both sides in the conflict, as they sought to save their patients’ lives and limit the harm to their bodies. New types of treatment, organization and medical technologies were developed to reduce the number of deaths.

In addition to wounds, many soldiers became ill. Weakened immune systems and the presence of contagious disease meant that many men were in hospital for sickness, not wounds. Between October 1914 and May 1915 at the No 1 Canadian General Hospital, there were 458 cases of influenza and 992 of gonorrhea amongst officers and men.

Wounding also became a way for men to avoid the danger and horror of the trenches. Doctors were instructed to be vigilant in cases of ‘malingering’, where soldiers pretended to be ill or wounded themselves so that they did not have to fight. It was a common belief of the medical profession that wounds on the left hand were suspicious. 

Wounding was not always physical. Thousands of men suffered emotional trauma from their war experience. ‘Shellshock’, as it came to be known, was viewed with suspicion by the War Office and by many doctors, who believed that it was another form of weakness or malingering. Sufferers were treated at a range of institutions.

Organization of Battlefield Medical Care

In response to the realities of the Western Front in Europe, the Medical Department established a treatment and evacuation system that could function in both static and mobile environments. Based on their history of success in the American Civil War, and on the best practices of the French and British systems, the Department created specific units designed to provide a sequence of continuous care from the front line to the rear area in what they labelled the Theater of Operations.

Casualties had to be taken from the field of battle to the places where doctors and nurses could treat them. They were collected by stretcher-bearers and moved by a combination of people, horse and cart, and later on by motorized ambulance ‘down the line’. Men would be moved until they reached a location where treatment for their specific injury would take place.

Where soldiers ended up depended largely on the severity of their wounds. Owing to the number of wounded, hospitals were set up in any available buildings, such as abandoned chateaux in France. Often Casualty Clearing Stations (CCS) were set up in tents. Surgery was often performed at the CCS; arms and legs were amputated, and wounds were operated on. As the battlefield became static and trench warfare set in, the CCS became more permanent, with better facilities for surgery and accommodation for female nurses, which was situated far away from the male patients.

Combat Related Injuries

For World War I, ideas of the front lines entered the popular imagination through works as disparate as All Quiet on the Western Front and Blackadder. The strain and the boredom of trench warfare are part of our collective memory; the drama of war comes from two sources: mustard gas and machine guns. The use of chemical weapons and the mechanization of shooting brought horror to men’s lives at the front. Yet they were not the greatest source of casualties. By far, artillery was the biggest killer in World War I, and provided the greatest source of war wounded.

World War I was an artillery war. In his book Trench: A History of Trench Warfare on the Western Front (2010), Stephen Bull concluded that in the western front, artillery was the biggest killer, responsible for “two-thirds of all deaths and injuries.” Of this total, a third resulted in death, two-thirds in injuries. Artillery wounded the whole body, if not entirely obliterated, the body was often dismembered, losing arms, legs, ears, noses, and even faces. Even when there was not superficial damage, concussive injuries and “shell shock” put many men out of action. Of course, shooting—in combat as well as from snipers—was another great source of wounding. Gas attacks were a third. Phosgene, chlorine, mustard gas, and tear gas debilitated more than killed, though many ended up suffering long-term disability. Overall, the war claimed about 10M military dead, and about 20M–21M military wounded, with 5% of those wounds’ life-debilitating, that is, about a million persons.

August 1914 would dramatically alter the paradigm of casualty care. Gigantic cannons, high explosives, and the machine gun soon invalidated all pre-war suppositions and strategy. More than eighty percent of wounds were due to shell fragments, which caused multiple shredding injuries. "There were battles which were almost nothing but artillery duels," a chagrined Edmond Delorme observed. Mud and manured fields took care of the rest. Devitalized tissue was quickly occupied by Clostridia pathogens, and gas gangrene became a deadly consequence. Delays in wound debridement, prompted by standard military practice, caused astounding lethality. Some claimed more than fifty percent of deaths were due to negligent care. And the numbers of casualties were staggering. More than 200,000 were wounded in the first months alone: far too many for the outdated system of triage and evacuation envisioned just years before. American observer Doctor Edmund Gros visited the battlefield in 1914:

If a soldier is wounded in the open, he falls on the firing line and tries to drag himself to some place of safety. Sometimes the fire of the enemy is so severe that he cannot move a step. Sometimes, he seeks refuge behind a haystack or in some hollow or behind some knoll…. Under the cover of darkness, those who can do so walk with or without help to the Poste de Secours. . . . Stretcher-bearers are sent out to collect the severely wounded . . . peasants' carts and wagons [are used] . . . the wounded are placed on straw spread on the bottom of these carts without springs, and thus they are conveyed during five or six hours before they reach the sanitary train or temporary field hospital. What torture many of them must endure, especially those with multiple fractures!

Non-Combat Related Death and Illness

In the course of the First World War, many more soldiers died of disease than by the efforts of the enemy. Lice caused itching and transmitted infections such as typhus and trench fever. In summer it was impossible to keep food fresh and everyone got food poisoning. In winter men suffered from frostbite and exposure and from trench foot. There were no antibiotics so death from gangrenous wounds and syphilis were common. Others suicided as a result of psychological stress.

Battlefield Wounded and Surgery

In the early years of the war, compound lower limb fractures caused by gunshots in trench warfare sparked debate over the traditional splinting practices that delayed surgery, leading to high mortality rates, particularly for open femoral fractures.

Femoral fractures stranded soldiers on the battlefield, and stretcher-bearers reached them only with difficulty, leaving many lying wounded for days or enduring rough transport, all of which left soldiers particularly vulnerable to gas gangrene and secondary hemorrhage. Australian surgeons in France reported injury-to-treatment times ranging from 36 hours to a week and averaging three to four days. Fracture immobilization during transport was poor, and in the early war years surgeons reported about 80% mortality for soldiers with femoral fractures transported from the field.

By 1915 medics and stretcher-bearers were routinely trained to apply immobilizing splints, and by 1917 specialized femur wards had been established; during this period mortality from all fractures fell to about 12% and below 20% for open femoral fractures.

Théodore Tuffier, a leading French surgeon, testified in 1915 to the Academy of Medicine that 70 percent of amputations were due to infection, not to the initial injury. “Professor Tuffier stated that antiseptics had not proven satisfactory, that cases of gas gangrene were most difficult to handle,” Crile wrote. “All penetrating wounds of the abdomen, he said, die of shock and infection. … He himself tried in fifteen instances to perform immediate operations in cases of penetrating abdominal wounds, and he lost every case. In fact, they have abandoned any attempt to operate penetrating wounds of the abdomen. All wounds large and small are infected. The usual antiseptics, bichloride, carbolic, iodine, etc., fail.”

Every war has its distinctive injury. For World War I, it was facial injuries, which affected 10–15% of casualties, or over a half-million men. The nature of combat--with faces often exposed above the trench line--contributed to this high incidence. Most countries founded specialist hospitals with surgeons like Johannes Esser in the Netherlands and Hippolyte Morestin in France who dedicated their practices to developing new techniques to repair facial trauma.

World War I presented surgeons with myriad new challenges. They responded to these difficulties not only with courage and sedulity but also with an open mind and active investigation. Military medicine practiced in 1918 differed substantially from that in 1914. This shift did not occur by happenstance. It represented collaboration between some of the brightest minds in academia and professional military doctors, combining their expertise to solve problems, take care of patients, and preserve fighting strength. It required multiple inter-allied conferences both to identify common medical problems and also to determine optimal solutions. Reams of books and pamphlets buttressed the in-person instruction consultants provided to educate young physicians on best practices. Most significantly, this change demanded a willingness to admit a given intervention was not working, creatively try something new, assess its efficacy using data from thousands of soldiers, disseminate the knowledge, and ensure widespread application of the novel practice. No step was easy, and combining execute them while fighting the Great War required a remarkable degree of perseverance, intellectual honesty, and operational flexibility.

Medical advances and improvements leading up to World War 2

 With most of the fighting set in the trenches of Europe and with the unexpected length of the war, soldiers were often malnourished, exposed to all weather conditions, sleep-deprived, and often knee-deep in the mud along with the bodies of men and animals. In the wake of the mass slaughter, it became clear that the “only way to cope with the sheer numbers of casualties was to have an efficient administrative system that identified and prioritized injuries as they arrived.” This was the birth of the Triage System. Medicine, in World War I, made major advances in several directions. The war is better known as the first mass killing of the 20th century—with an estimated 10 million military deaths alone—but for the injured, doctors learned enough to vastly improve a soldier’s chances of survival. They went from amputation as the only solution, to being able to transport soldiers to hospital, to disinfect their wounds and to operate on them to repair the damage wrought by artillery. Ambulances, antiseptics, and anesthesia, three elements of medicine taken entirely for granted today, emerged from the depths of suffering in the First World War.

Two Welshmen were responsible for one of the most important advances - the Thomas splint - which is still used in war zones today. It was invented in the late 19th century by pioneering surgeon Hugh Owen Thomas, often described as the father of British orthopedics, born in Anglesey to a family of "bone setters”.

In France, vehicles were commandeered to become mobile X-ray units. New antiseptics were developed to clean wounds, and soldiers became more disciplined about hygiene. Also, because the sheer scale of the destruction meant armies had to become better organized in looking after the wounded, surgeons were drafted in closer to the frontline and hospital trains used to evacuate casualties.

When the war broke out, the making of prosthetic limbs was a small industry in Britain. Production had to increase dramatically. One of the ways this was achieved was by employing men who had amputations to make prosthetic limbs – most commonly at Erskine and Roehampton, where they learnt the trade alongside established tradespeople. This had the added advantage of providing occupation for discharged soldiers who, because of their disabilities, would probably have had difficulty finding work.

While it was not an innovation of war, the process of blood transfusion was greatly refined during World War I and contributed to medical progress. Previously, all blood stored near the front lines was at risk of clotting. Anticoagulant methods were implemented, such as adding citrate or using paraffin inside the storage vessel. This resulted in blood being successfully stored for an average of 26 days, simplifying transportation. The storage and maintenance of blood meant that by 1918 blood transfusions were being used in front-line casualty clearing stations (CCS). Clearing stations were medical facilities that were positioned just out of enemy fire.

One of the most profound medical advancements resulting from World War I was the exploration of mental illness and trauma. Originally, any individual showing symptoms of neurosis was immediately sent to an asylum and consequently forgotten. As World War I made its debut, it brought forward a new type of warfare that no one was prepared for in its technological, military, and biological advances.

Another successful innovation came in the form of the base hospitals and clearing stations. These allowed doctors and medics to categorize men as serious or mild, and results came to light that many stress-related disorders were a result of

exhaustion or deep trauma. “Making these distinctions was a breakthrough…the new system meant that mild cases could be rested then returned to their posts without being sent home.”

What do you think of trauma during World War I? Let us know below.

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

How did the Confederacy Fund its War Effort in the U.S. Civil War?

Following secession and the onset of the American Civil War, the southern Confederate states needed the funds and infrastructure to wage war. This article addresses the “sinews of war” from the Confederacy’s perspective: where did the money needed for weapons and supplies during the Civil War come from? How its needs were determined,  procured, transported and distributed is a complex story. Lloyd W Klein explains.

Above: George Alfred Trenholm, an influential supporter of the Confederacy and the Confederate States Secretary of the Treasury from 1864-65.

With secession, the Confederate States of America (CSA) recognized that war was a likely possible consequence.  After First Manassas, it was clear that a long struggle was ahead, which posed a series of problems for the CSA as to how it would obtain weapons. A rebellion cannot be sustained without armaments, and money is required to purchase them if your country has no manufacturing capacity, and doesn’t have foundries for their production.  Initially, federal forts were seized and weapons taken, but ultimately, a network of war goods supply would need to constructed.

Where did the Confederacy get financial support to purchase weapons and carry out a war with a limited treasury? Moreover, if there was no existing capacity to produce weapons, and must be imported from overseas, how did European armaments make it to the CSA despite a blockade? When the war began, the CSA had no manufacturing capability to produce artillery tubes. Tredegar was the only major iron foundry south of the Mason-Dixon line. There were no large scale rifle manufacturers. The armaments and weapons the Confederacy used were mostly made in Europe at the start of the war, and brought over despite the blockade.

The Blockade

General Winfield Scott predicted that a civil war would be a long affair when everyone else thought it would be over in weeks. He was a top-notch military strategist who was a hero of the Mexican War. He saw long in advance that the weakness of a Southern nation was its absence of manufacturing, supplies, and weapons production. Therefore, he developed what came to be known as the Anaconda Plan, named after the snake that squeezes its victims and suffocates them to death. The idea was that by blockading the southern ocean ports and the Mississippi River, the CSA military would slowly die as its supplies dwindled and the country isolated from its trading partners elsewhere.

Other Union commanders were not sanguine about the idea, preferring a rapid attack strategy to a slow suffocation. Although Anaconda was not implemented fully, President Lincoln proclaimed a blockade in April 1861. This required the monitoring of 3,500 miles of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, including 12 major ports, notably New Orleans and Mobile.

The Union blockade was a powerful weapon that eventually destroyed the Southern economy, at the cost of very few lives, just as General Scott planned it. The river campaigns in the west crushed the CSA and the blockade raised the costs of overseas trade. The measure of the blockade's success was not the ships that slipped through but the thousands that never tried.

At first, the blockade was only partially effective; perhaps only about 10% of freighters attempting to evade the blockade were intercepted. However, the Union Navy gradually became better at the task; by 1864, about one-third of ships attempting to run the blockade were intercepted, and the only ships with a reasonable chance of evading the blockade were blockade runners, which were specifically designed for speed and maneuverability.

Beating the Blockade

Finding a way to deliver supplies and arms despite the blockade was a necessity. The only way its military could be supplied and the economy kept afloat was by international commerce. Therefore, the CSA had to build a fleet of ships to evade the blockade of its ports.

Blockade runners were steam ships built for speed in order to make its way through the Union blockade that extended some 3,500 miles along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines and the lower Mississippi River. To get through the blockade, the runners ran at night and if detected, they would attempt to outmaneuver or outrun the ships on blockade patrol. These vessels carried cargoes to and from neutral ports often located in Nassau and Cuba where neutral merchant ships in turn carried these cargoes, usually coming from or destined to England or other points abroad. Inbound ships usually brought badly needed supplies and mail to the Confederacy while outbound ships often exported cotton, tobacco and other goods for trade and for sale.

How did the CSA obtain the money to purchase these ships?

Charles Kuhn Prioleau was the most highly placed and influential supporter of the Confederacy in Britain. He was the sole British partner and representative of Fraser, Trenholm, & Co., the unofficial bankers to the Confederacy in Europe, which helped supply the South with arms throughout the war. He was a South Carolina cotton merchant who was the senior partner of the firm, based in Liverpool, acting as the European banker for the CSA. As such, this firm purchased military armaments, transported them to the US through the blockade, and extended the CSA credit when it couldn’t meet its obligations.

Prioleau was a partner in Fraser, Trenholm. He had moved to Liverpool in the early 1850s to establish a steamship line from England to Charleston. With his connections to Fraser, Trenholm, he became very well respected in Europe. When the war broke out, the CSA deposited large amounts of funds with his firm. Prioleau became the sole CSA agent in England, purchasing armaments and shipping them on blockade runners financed by Fraser, Trenholm.  Prioleau made a huge fortune on these transactions.

Who Made the Arrangements?

James Dunwoody Bulloch was the Confederacy's primary foreign agent in Great Britain. In 1861, almost immediately after the attack on Fort Sumter, he traveled to Liverpool to establish a base of operations. Britain was officially neutral in the conflict between North and South, but private and public sentiment of most of the English people – although not the monarchy -- favored the Confederacy. British firms were eager to purchase cotton smuggled past the Union blockade.  The proceeds provided the South with its only real source of hard currency.

His primary mission was to sell Confederate cotton, then use this currency to purchase arms and ammunition, uniforms, and other supplies for the war effort. Bulloch arranged for the purchase of Confederate cotton by British merchants, paid in cash, then purchased (mostly by credit) and transported armaments and other war supplies to the South.

Bulloch was employed by the shipping firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Company to buy and sell Confederate cotton, using this currency to purchase arms and ammunition. Fraser Trenholm & Co. became, in effect, the Confederacy's international bankers.  He operated blockade runners and commerce raiders. Bulloch arranged for the construction and secret purchase of commerce raiders as well as many of the blockade runners that acted as the Confederacy's commercial lifeline. In essence, Bulloch was the most significant international Confederate operative. His half-sister Martha was the mother of President Theodore Roosevelt and paternal grandmother of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

Bulloch worked with John Laird Sons & Co. in Birkenhead, across the Mersey River estuary from Liverpool, to build warships for the South. John Laird was the main ship builder in Liverpool. His business built the CSS Alabama and most of the other blockade runners. He was mayor of Birkenhead, across the river from Liverpool.

Warships could not legally be built in Britain for the Confederates as a consequence of its neutrality.  Bulloch circumvented this problem by ensuring that the ships, while clearly designed for battle, were not actually fitted with armaments in Britain. Through this strategy, the ships could be presented as civilian vessels when they left British jurisdiction, but they would then travel to Terceira, a Portuguese island located in the Azores, where they were re-fitted and armed. This blatant subterfuge successfully confused the legal definition of what could be defined a warship in Great Britain.

In 1862, Bulloch arranged for the CSS Florida and the CSS Alabama to cross the Atlantic and join the Confederate Navy. Other British-built ships soon followed. Bulloch's smokescreen, the British Government’s reluctance to become involved, and the complicity of Liverpool's port officials, who were Confederate sympathizers, allowed the CSS Alabama to successfully sail through. Confederates used the CSS Alabama to attack Union merchant and naval ships for two years, before the ship sank in 1864.

Who Did They Work With?

Although the British government remained neutral, the local government and port in Liverpool strongly favored the Confederacy. Businesses in the city tended to be favorable to the Confederate cause and had a long tie with slave trading. Liverpool had been the primary slave trading port and its ships and merchants were strongly associated with the slave trade. These businesses and owners formed what was called The Southern Club. Some were families with historical involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Nearly all had homes located in a single area called Abercromby Square. PM Gladstone also had a home there. There was a business and political conspiracy in Liverpool favoring the CSA, and it’s existence is clear. Prioleau lived at 19 Abercromby Square. The individuals who lived in Abercromby Square designed and built the ships. This included: improved propelling navigable vessels and the construction of metal, wood, and iron ships. sold arms to the Confederacy and built many of the blockade running ships.

The Man Behind the Curtain

George Alfred Trenholm was the principal partner of Fraser, Trenholm, manipulating all of the levers that allowed the building of blockade runners and the purchase of arms.  He was without a doubt the role model Margaret Mitchell used for Rhett Butler.  He was tall, handsome, fearless, crafty, highly intelligent, and very rich. This shipping and banking magnate from Charleston, South Carolina masterminded and made a fortune during the war.

Trenholm’s grandfather was a major slave owner in Haiti before the slave revolution.  Trenholm inherited large holdings of land and slaves. At age 16 he joined a cotton brokerage based in Charleston called John Fraser and Co. In 1853, he rose to partner and became its managing partner when Fraser died. He was one of the wealthiest men in the US, owning ships, hotels, docks, plantations, and cotton.  When secession happened, he moved his firm’s HQ from NYC to the West Indies and built an ironclad and 12 ships for the Confederacy. He owned 60 commercial ships running the blockade and he became even wealthier.  He worked directly with the Confederate government to supply their military needs, including arranging for funding for the building of blockade runners in England.

Fraser, Trenholm & Company was originally a commercial firm based in Charleston, S.C., with offices in New York City, that shipped cotton to Great Britain, among other ventures. When secession was declared, Trenholm saw a substantial business opportunity and moved his firm’s headquarters from to the West Indies.  During the war, the firm served as the overseas banker of the Confederate States of America, financing the supply of weaponry and essential goods in exchange for cotton, tobacco, and turpentine. His firm initially financed an ironclad and 12 ships for the Confederacy. Fraser, Trenholm and Company diversified to become an international bank representing the CSA, eventually owning 60 commercial ships running the blockade and he became even wealthier.

How did Fraser, Trenholm profit? Behind every one of these clandestine transactions for arms, supplies, and blockade running, military or commercial—stood Fraser, Trenholm, & Co. and its overseas director and Abercromby Square resident, Charles Prioleau.  Remember that Prioleau was in Liverpool and he was the one who contracted for building ships using designs for blockade running made by British firms, all of which were members of the Southern Club. A profit was made at every step by the business and its principals. So, on  the outward bound trips, cotton and other products were transported and sold for profit, and on the inbound trips, armaments, and all on ships built and owned by Fraser, Trenholm. The firm collected service fees on every transaction, received credit and cash internationally, and pocketed the proceeds.

Trenholm also served as Secretary of the Treasury of the Confederacy during the last year of the Civil War, an obvious choice since was building the fleet of ships on credit for the South. In essence, this private firm WAS the Confederate Navy, WAS the military supply line, and WAS the main fleet of blockade runners. The CSS Alabama was the most successful of these. Fraser, Trenholm remained highly respected until the end of the war when it went “bankrupt”.

The Supply Network

Prioleau worked directly with the Confederate government to supply their military needs. On board the ships were the weapons and armaments that the CSA needed for the war effort. But how did the agents in Europe know what was needed at any moment on the battlefield on this side of the pond? The answer was Brig Gen Josiah Gorgas, the Chief of Ordnance.  His experience made him the perfect man to serve as the linkage between industry and the military.

Born in Pennsylvania, he graduated from West Point and immediately served in the ordnance department. During the Mexican War, his job was to ensure that the army was supplied appropriately  from arsenals in the US. He routinely sought positions in the South because of his opposition to Republicans and abolitionism. By the time of the Civil War, he had served in almost every arsenal in the country. President Davis immediately hired him and he moved to Richmond. He was responsible for ensuring that artillery tubes and rifles were delivered through the blockade. He established armories to store the materials so when needed, they could be transported easily to the front lines. His job was to create an armaments supply system literally from nothing and without much money.

He interacted directly with Prioleau to assure stockpiling of supplies and timely transport of the needed goods on blockade runners. Fraser, Trenholm arranged for the purchase and transportation of weapons on Gorgas’s order. Gorgas estimated in 1863 that Fraser Trenholm had made $9 million running the blockade. And they imported $4.5 million in cotton to England. The Confederate Army never lacked weapons. It was said that the only two things that worked well in the Confederacy was General Lee’s Army and General Gorgas’s supply lines. By 1863 Gorgas had several factories producing rifles. There was also a small foundry in Selma, AL.

After the War

As the southern economy tanked, Prioleau used his reputation to extend substantial credit to keep the war machine going. When the CSA collapsed and its credit called, Prioleau moved to Belgium.

Trenholm as CSA Treasury Secretary was in charge of the Confederate gold when Richmond fell. So, the part of the movie at the end of the war where the dashing Rhett Butler is in jail and accused of making off with the gold of the Confederacy? Not so far-fetched. Except there was no Scarlett involved; he was married with children and remained so forever (her name was Anna, FYI.) It would not be surprising if whatever Confederate Gold there was found its way into his pockets. Trenholm was captured and arrested escaping from Richmond, and his firm went bankrupt.

Trenholm never faced legal actions to make him responsible for treason, despite the fact that in essence, he bankrolled the Confederate war machine. Unquestionably, he hid his money overseas, in the Caribbean and London, and that his agent Charles Prioleau funneled the money here and there during and probably after the war.

How did Trenholm get out of taking responsibility for these obviously treasonous acts? Trenholm, just like Rhett Butler, was imprisoned for treason. Just like Rhett, he was believed to have possession of the Confederate gold.  Just like Rhett, he used his charm and influence (and surely his money), which extended into the United States Army and the White House, to get out of prison and secure a pardon. The pardon was especially clever since he never officially asked for it, nor did he ever admit that he had done anything wrong to deserve one.

After his release, Trenholm fought the Federal government in lengthy lawsuits. The government claimed Trenholm and his partners had illegally converted today’s equivalent of billions of dollars in Confederate assets. He disingenuously claimed he was bankrupt, saying he had lost everything in the war. And just like Rhett, he was cleared and completely exonerated.  But he reorganized, made another fortune after the war in phosphate mining and railroads, and became a philanthropist funneling money to black education. And then lived a lavish life until his death in 1876. Trenholm died a very wealthy man at age 69. Tomorrow is another day.

Prioleau moved back to London and died in 1887. He is buried in London. He was never held to account for his activities or war time debts.

Who Ultimately Paid for the Confederate War Machine?

In the international admiralty law, a foreign power cannot build a navy for an unrecognized combatant. After the Confederate surrender, the U.S. government filed suit against Great Britain for its conduct during the Civil War. The claim was heard at the Tribunal of Arbitration in Geneva in 1871. The US claimed direct and collateral damage against Britain. The US sued for the covert assistance given to the Confederate cause in the form of construction of commerce raiders and cruisers built or equipped in British ports for the Confederacy. Since the CSS Alabama was the ship that caused the US the most damages, the name given to the case was the "Alabama Claims".

The most serious charge was that the English allowed the Confederate cruisers "Alabama", "Shenandoah", and "Florida" to be armed in British ports. These ships created significant “damage” to the American merchant marine. Early attempts to resolve this dispute were unsuccessful. At one point, US Senator Charles Sumner stated that England was responsible for half of the cost of the war, and that the US would consider Canada as payment made on such a claim. This shocked the British and they realized that they had better come to some agreement.

In the Treaty of Washington, on May 8, 1871, it was agreed that the "Alabama Claims" should be referred to 5 arbitrators: one to be named by the US, one by England and one each by the King of Italy, the emperor of Brazil and the president of Switzerland. A commission was formed and met in Geneva on December 15, 1871.

The decision was given on September 14, 1872. England was held liable for the Alabama (unanimous), Florida (4-1), Shenandoah in part (3-2) and the tenders of both the Alabama and Florida (unanimous). The total amount of damage to be re-paid was $15,500,000, the US being left to settle with private claimants. This was a high reward at that time. In fact, by 1882 only 3/5 had been paid, requiring yet more adjudication. The British also lost their investment of $1,100,000 in Confederate Bonds.

Conclusion

How the Confederacy financed and constructed its blockade running and developed its war supply production network is rarely discussed.  Fraser, Trenholm and Company, working through its agents Charles Prioleau and James Dunwoody Bulloch, created an entire banking and military supply network, including a navy. A single privately held merchant company, a cotton export business, which diversified to become an international bank representing the CSA and then built and operated ships to run the blockade was the central mechanism. Trenholm had direct connections to the CSA Government and military. His business contracted and built the ships, took the orders for arms, arranged and took the risk to transport the cargo in both directions, acted as CSA banking agent in Britain, and represented the CSA government, all for profit. Huge profits were made at every step, in which the business received actual cash but paid in CSA credit. The business represented the CSA in European circles, and had ties to British businesses and its prime minister, Gladstone. None of this money was ever recovered, and the principals were never brought to justice, although many years later the British did have to pay damages.

What do you think of how the Confederacy funded itself during the American Civil War? Let us know below.

References

Abercromby Square and The Southern Club.

https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/liverpools-abercromby-square/abercromby-southern-club

James D. Bulloch: Secret Agent and Mastermind of the Confederate Navy By Walter E. Wilson, Gary L. McKay.

George Alfred Trenholm and The Company That Went to War 1861-1865 By Ethel Trenholm Seabrook Nepveux

Trauma during War: Part 1 - The American Civil War

The US Civil War was the first modern war in which the productive capacities of the industrial state were completely integrated into the war effort. This has significant impacts on the ability to kill and injure the enemy. Here, Richard Bluttal starts a three-part series on the impacts of trauma during wars by looking at the American Civil War.

Clara Barton, a nurse and founder of the American Red Cross, in the 1860s.

In early May 1864, Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant (1822-85) launched his Overland campaign, in which his Army of the Potomac clashed with Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia in a series of battles in Virginia. Lt. J. E. Mallet of the Union army distinctly remembers the sensations experienced upon being hit.” I imagined that a cannonball had struck me on the left hipbone, that it took a downward course, tearing the intestines in its course, and lodged against the marrow of the right thigh bone. I fancied I saw sparks of fire, and curtains of cobwebs wet with dew, sparkling in the sun. I heard a monstrous roar of distant cataracts. I felt my teeth chatter, a rush of blood to my eyes, ears, nose and to the ends of my fingers and toes. I tried to get up, fell, and "became completely insensible” He described his wait on the battlefield (at least a day) and the journey to the hospital transport ship quite matter-of-factly. Men in his regiment on the ards. The heavy soft, unjacketed lead bullet flattened out on impact, which produced severe wounds and carrying pieces of clothing into the wound.

The number of combat engagements during the American Civil War was the largest in history to that time, and exponential increases in the killing power of weapons produced rates of casualties beyond the imagination of military medical planners. In a four-year period, 2,196 combat engagements were fought, in which 620,000 men perished—360,000 in the Union Army and 260,000 in the Confederate Army. Some 67,000 Union soldiers were killed outright, 43,000 died of wounds, and 130,000 were disfigured for life, often with missing limbs; 94,000 Confederate soldiers died of wounds. Twice as many soldiers died of disease during the war than in combat. During the 1860s, doctors had yet to develop bacteriology and were generally ignorant of the causes of disease. Generally, Civil War doctors underwent two years of medical school, though some pursued more education. Medicine in the United States was woefully behind Europe. Harvard Medical School did not even own a single stethoscope or microscope until after the war. Most Civil War surgeons had never treated a gunshot wound and many had never performed surgery. Medical boards admitted many "quacks," with little to no qualification. Yet, for the most part, the Civil War doctor (as understaffed, underqualified, and under-supplied as he was) did the best he could, muddling through the so-called "medical Middle Ages." Some 10,000 surgeons served in the Union army and about 4,000 served in the Confederate. Medicine made significant gains during the war. However, it was the tragedy of the era that medical knowledge of the 1860s had not yet encompassed the use of sterile dressings, antiseptic surgery, and the recognition of the importance of sanitation and hygiene. As a result, thousands died from diseases such as typhoid or dysentery.

Why did so many have to die? The deadliest thing that faced the Civil War soldier was disease. For every soldier who died in battle, two died of disease. In particular, intestinal complaints such as dysentery and diarrhea claimed many lives. In fact, diarrhea and dysentery alone claimed more men than did battle wounds. The Civil War soldier also faced outbreaks of measles, smallpox, malaria, pneumonia, or camp itch. Soldiers were exposed to malaria when camping in damp areas which were conductive to breeding mosquitos, while camp itch was caused by insects or a skin disease. In brief, the high incidence of disease was caused by inadequate physical examination of recruits, ignorance, the rural origin of soldiers, neglect of camp hygiene, insects and vermin, exposure; lack of clothing and shoes; poor food and water.

The Germ Theory, which states that microscopic bacteria and viruses caused disease, was not yet understood (Sohn). These pathogenic microorganisms thrived in filthy environments, and the conditions soldiers lived in were horrendous. Because of water shortages in camps, items were rarely cleaned. This includes all medical tools. If scalpels or forceps were dropped on the ground, they were "only washed in tap water," according to one Civil War surgeon (Ledoux). Between operations, tools were not sterilized. Doctors rarely washed their hands, and even less often were their garments cleaned. No one yet knew why these post-surgery infections took place, nor how to prevent them.

Organization of Battlefield Medical Care

On July 16, 1861, Clara Barton watched more than 30,000 “noble, gallant, [and] handsome” Federal soldiers, “armed to the teeth,” march out of Washington to confront a Confederate army near Manassas Junction, this was the first engagement, Battle of Bull Run, against confederate forces. Many around the country, soldiers and citizens alike, naively expected a short conflict with no need to prepare for large numbers of wounded. In the days before the First Battle of Bull Run, as the US Army neared contact with the enemy, the army’s medical department made no preparation to set up hospital sites until after the battle began. No permanent military hospital sites had been established in the city. Instead, sick soldiers were languishing in abandoned warehouses, churches, schools, and other public buildings. That meant Washington’s “hospitals” were already overflowing when the army left for battle. There was simply no space for more patients in these makeshift facilities. A significant number of Union wounded were left on the battlefield because the medical department didn’t have authority over most of the ambulances. The medical disaster at Bull Run in July 1861 convinced Clara Barton, ordinary citizens, and even the Union medical department to take the medical needs of the US Army in the aftermath of a battle more seriously,

How medical care was delivered on and off the battlefield changed during the war. Early on, stretcher bearers were members of the regimental band, and many fled when the battle started. There was no military ambulance corps in the Union Army until August of 1862. Until that time, civilians drove the ambulances. Initially the ambulance corps was under the Quartermaster corps, which meant that ambulances were often commandeered to deliver supplies and ammunition to the front.

If a soldier was injured during battle, volunteers took the howling victim behind the front lines using a stretcher made from canvas and wooden poles. From there, a horse-and-buggy-type wagon would cart them to the nearest field hospital. The "stretcher-bearers" would assess the condition of the patient, dividing them into three main categories: mortally wounded, slightly wounded, and surgical cases. They would then assist the patient to the best of their ability in the back of the jostling horse-drawn vehicle. This process was called "Letterman's Ambulance," devised by the director of the Army of the Potomac, Jonathan Letterman. His system evacuated the injured more efficiently and paved the way for our modern ambulance system.

Combat Related Injuries

In order to be reported, a soldier had to be either transported to or make it back to a field hospital, and this may have resulted in an underreporting of deaths from cannon fire.  Most injuries resulted from the Minié ball invented by the French officer Claude-Etienne Minié in 1849. The Minié ball is a 0.58-caliber bullet that is slow moving and is made from soft lead. It flattens on impact and creates a wound that grows larger as the bullet moves deeper into tissues. It shatters bone above and below impact and usually does not exit. Because of its relatively slow muzzle velocity, it brought bits of clothing, skin, and bacteria into the wound. The majority of gunshot wounds occurred in the upper and lower extremities, but the fatality rate from these wounds was low. Only 18% of wounds were to the abdomen, but these were more often fatal from intestinal perforation in the preantibiotic era.

Non-Combat Related Death and Illness

A variety of factors contributed to a high rate of noncombat-related illness, including overcrowded and filthy camps. Latrines were often not used or were drained into drinking water supplies or not covered daily. Food quality was poor from several standpoints. It was poorly stored, poorly cooked, and lacked enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy. The Army of the Potomac eventually added a number of rules: camps had be pitched on new ground and drained by ditches 18 inches deep, tents had to be struck twice a week to sun their floors, cooking had to be done only by company cooks, all refuse had to be burned or buried daily, soldiers had to bathe twice a week and change clothing at least once a week, and latrines had to be 8 feet deep and covered by 6 inches of dirt daily.

There were few useful medications at the time, and about two thirds of all drugs were botanicals. In 1860 Oliver Wendell Holmes stated at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society, “I firmly believe that if the whole material medica, as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind,—and all the worse for the fishes”. Medications that were helpful included quinine for malaria, morphine, chloroform, and ether, as well as paregoric. Many others were harmful. Fowler's solution was used to treat fevers and contained arsenic. Calomel (mercurous chloride) was used for diarrhea. Mercury is excreted in high concentration in saliva. This led to excessive salivation, loss of teeth, and gangrene of the mouth and cheeks in some patients.

Battlefield Wounded and Surgery

Battlefield surgery was also at best archaic. Doctors often took over houses, churches, schools, even barns for hospitals. The field hospital was located near the front lines -- sometimes only a mile behind the lines -- and was marked with a yellow flag with a green "H". Anesthesia's first recorded use was in 1846 and was commonly in use during the Civil War. In fact, there are 800,000 recorded cases of its use. Chloroform was the most common anesthetic, used in 75% of operations. In a sample of 8,900 uses of anesthesia, only 43 deaths were attributed to the anesthetic, a remarkable mortality rate of 0.4%. Anesthesia was usually administered by the open-drop technique. The anesthetic was applied to a cloth held over the patient's mouth and nose and was withdrawn after the patient was unconscious. Surgeons worked all night, with piles of limbs reaching four or five feet. Lack of water and time meant they did not wash off their hands or instruments. Bloody fingers often were used as probes. Bloody knives were used as scalpels. Doctors operated in pus-stained coats. Everything about Civil War surgery was septic. The antiseptic era and Lister's pioneering works in medicine were in the future. Blood poisoning, sepsis or Pyemia (Pyemia meaning literally pus in the blood) was common and often very deadly. Surgical fevers and gangrene were constant threats. One witness described surgery as such: "Tables about breast high had been erected upon which the screaming victims were having legs and arms cut off. The surgeons and their assistants, stripped to the waist and bespattered with blood, stood around, some holding the poor fellows while others, armed with long, bloody knives and saws, cut and sawed away with frightful rapidity, throwing the mangled limbs on a pile nearby as soon as removed." If a soldier survived the table, he faced awful surgical fever. However, about 75% of amputees did survive.

Amputation was the most successful method used to halt the spread of deadly infections, like gangrene, caused by battle wounds during the Civil War. Contrary to popular belief, the process was not as barbaric as it seemed. The process was efficient and effective. After a soldier was injured on the battlefield, he was immediately bandaged by medical volunteers. He was shuttled to either the nearest field hospital or medical tent at a camp using the new ambulance system. On the way, the wounded soldier was given whiskey to ease his shock. Once the patient, still in great distress, was set on an "operating table," a chloroform- soaked cloth was held onto the patient's nose and mouth. Tourniquets were tightly secured above the amputation area to prevent the patient from bleeding out. A long, though often dull, blade was used to sever tissue and ligaments, then a serrated saw was used to cut through the bone. One man who witnessed an amputation said this: "Tables about breast high had been erected upon which the screaming victims were having legs and arms cut off. The `surgeons and their assistants, stripped to the waist and bespattered with blood, stood around, some holding the poorfellows while others, armed with long,  bloody knives and saws, cut and sawed away with frightful rapidity, throwing the mangled limbs on a pile nearby as soon as removed.” An experienced field surgeon could perform an amputation in under ten minutes.

Medical advances and improvements leading up to World War 1

The contributions to medical care that developed during the Civil War have not been fully appreciated, probably because the quality of care administered was compared against modern standards rather than the standards of the time. The specific accomplishments that constituted major advances were as follows. 1. Accumulation of adequate records and detailed reports for the first time permitted a complete military medical history. This led to the publication of the Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, which was identified in Europe as the first major academic accomplishment by US medicine. 2. Development of a system of managing mass casualties, including aid stations, field hospitals, and general hospitals, set the pattern for management of the wounded in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. 3. The pavilion-style general hospitals, which were well ventilated and clean, were copied in the design of large civilian hospitals over the next 75 years. 4. The importance of immediate, definitive treatment of wounds and fractures was demonstrated, and it was shown that major operative procedures, such as amputation, were optimally carried out in the first 24 hours after wounding. 5. The importance of sanitation and hygiene in preventing infection, disease, and death among the troops in the field was demonstrated. 6. Female nurses were introduced to hospital care and Catholic orders entered the hospital business. 7. The experience and training of thousands of physicians were upgraded, and they were introduced to new ideas and standards of care. These included familiarity with prevention and treatment of infectious disease, with anesthetic agents, and with surgical principles that rapidly advanced the overall quality of American medical practice. 8. The Sanitary Commission was formed, a civilian-organized soldier's relief society that set the pattern for the development of the American Red Cross.

In August of 1862, a physician named Jonathan Letterman set up the first ambulance system in the Union’s Army of the Potomac. With the support of Hammond, he instituted a three-step system for evacuating soldiers from the battlefield and established the Ambulance Corps. Their first stop was a field dressing station, where tourniquets were applied, and wounds were dressed. Then they moved to a field hospital, where doctors performed emergency medical procedures. Finally, ambulances would transport patients to a large hospital far from the battlefield for long-term treatment. The U.S. military uses the same basic system today.

What do you think of trauma during the US Civil War? Let us know below.

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

The Role of Extreme Weather in the French Revolution

Weather has played a key role in shaping the progress of the world and its societies. Here, Kayla Vickery looks at how weather conditions shaped the 1789 French Revolution. She considers the Little Ice Age, the Lake volcano eruption, the poor weather of 1788, and the Great Hailstorm of Paris.

The Storming of the Bastille by Jean-Baptiste Lallemand, 1790.

Introduction

Historians have long debated the causes of the French Revolution. There have been falsehoods about King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake,” anyone?), finger-pointing at various players, and many theories. But ultimately, they all want to know the same thing: how did the Bourbon dynasty fall? While many events over the eighteenth century created a domino effect against the monarchy, did you know that extreme weather contributed greatly to France’s economic struggles?  Over a few decades, several different weather events left the country in trouble and would eventually inspire the lower classes to rise up and overthrow the monarchy. From the Laki Volcano eruption to the drought/winter of 1788, these natural occurrences all had real consequences. While there were several ideological changes, the events of 1789 would not have been as severe were it not for the weather and the havoc it played on the 18th-century French economy. 

Little Ice Age

First was the Little Ice Age, a period of the Earth's cooling. Way less cool than the animated film Ice Age starring one of my favorite characters Sid the Sloth; it is generally accepted that it started during the Middle Ages and ended sometime in the mid-nineteenth century. Researchers have also observed three periods of freezing weather, one of which occurred in 1770, a mere twenty years before the beginning of the French Revolution. Temperatures dropped globally at this time by as much as 4 degrees, and Europe was significantly affected. Like my moods, the weather was unpredictable and often swung from one extreme to another. This began to affect the crop yield and livelihood of the people of France. The peasants of 18th century France depended highly on good crop output to, ya know, eat. In the late 1700s, the classes had a significant income disparity. As the crops began to fail, the price of food began to rise, leaving workers with extraordinarily little extra income. The Little Ice Age and its negative impact on crops began to cause hunger throughout the country. At this same time, there was a huge population boom across France. Growing from 22.5 million inhabitants in 1715 to 28.5 million in 1789 meant there was a growth of about 25 percent! History has shown that when people are cold, the need for warmth leads to a cuddle which leads to how babies are made. As the number of people grew, so did the demand for goods. A need that was often unable to be met because of the Little Ice Age. As the government became more entrenched in debt, it continued to raise the taxes paid by the lowers classes. Nobles and the clergy were excluded from paying taxes (eat the rich!), so the government's debt came to rest on the shoulders of the most abused from above. The social order of France made it so that even the tiniest shortcomings would be detrimental to the lives of much of the population. 

Laki Volcano Eruption

In 1775, after a poor grain harvest from northern France, people began to let their unhappiness show the only way they know how… with good ol' fashioned riots! The people's anger was directed at the wealthy landowners, and even managed to reach Versailles. This peasant uprising became known as the Flour War, a straightforward title because there was no time for cleverness when starting a Revolution! This uprising would be squashed in a few weeks, but the damage had been done. The peasants of France had seen the power behind a widespread protest and knew what kneaded (I know what I did) to be done.

The Little Ice Age and its powerful effect on the crops and, inherently, the people growing them would just be one of many weather occurrences that would ignite the people of France to revolt. From 1783 to 1784, the Laki Volcano continuously erupted in Iceland, sending ash across Europe. The ash would block the sun, darkening the skies, lowering the temperature, and thoroughly convincing people they were living in actual Hell. With ships unable to move because of the fog from the ash, and weather patterns disrupted, the food crisis became even more severe. To understand the impact of poor harvests, one must realize how little the Third Estate had in the 1700s. Even though they made up 98 percent of the population, they were people with limited economic means and struggled to reach survival levels. They were also forced to pay exorbitant taxes to the King and maintain their feudal obligations to their landlord. They also held no judicial power meaning they could do nothing about the unfair circumstances forced onto them by the King. With such a decrease in their livelihoods, peasants cut back on spending, which hurt the economy even more. I like to point to this moment when trying to prove that my shopping addiction is, in fact, good for the economy!

The Great Hailstorm of Paris

In the already broken economy struggling to recover after years of war and failing markets, the weather of 1788 would push the people of France over the edge. The spring of 1788 was a disaster for the planting season in France. After an abnormally dry spring that dramatically affected the crops of the already starving people, there was a summer of extreme temperatures and random downpours. The mass majority of the population was severely malnourished and was now pushed into yet another famine after a period of economic slump and hunger.

One such event, The Great Hailstorm of Paris, was a ferocious storm that ripped through the countryside, wreaking havoc on July 13, 1788. The destitution the storm caused would go on to infuriate the starving citizens of France, and the devastation of the crops would have dire consequences for the economy of France. Bread prices would continue to soar, and the citizens would find their incomes significantly lowered. As if they hadn't been through enough, the conditions of the lower classes after the Great Hailstorm of Paris would only worsen with the extreme winter ahead. The winter of 1788/1789 would be one of the coldest on record. During this harsh winter, Emmanuel Sieyes's published his political pamphlet What Is The Third Estate? An essay that would attack the privilege of the nobility and give words to the struggle of the lower classes. Think Hamilton but with less rapping. With the pamphlet What Is the Third Estate, the common people of France finally had a physical manifestation of their resentments against the other two estates. By April of 1789, the people of France were rioting regularly over the rising price of bread. The economy's downfall and the crops' failure for several years would push them over the edge and into Revolution. The mood in Paris before the fall of the Bastille was one of anger and desperation. There are many firsthand accounts of the rowdiness of the crowds in Paris who were rioting and demanding answers for the skyrocketing bread costs. Eventually, the hungry and abused crowds would march on the Bastille and overtake the prison, and the French government learned the very valuable lesson of never coming between the French population and a baguette. 

Conclusion

After decades of unheard-of weather patterns working against their livelihoods and without help from their King, the resentment of the poor in France would eventually rise and change the course of history. The Little Ice Age, the Laki Volcano, and the severe drought and winter of 1788 would lead to the uprising of the peasants, the fall of the Bastille, the abolishment of the feudalism system, and eventually, the heads of the French monarchy. 

 What role do you think that weather played in the French Revolution? Let us know below.

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

References

Dispatches from Paris (April-July 1789)" in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)

Jessene, Jean-Pierre. The Social and Economic Crisis in France at the End of the Ancien Régime, 1st ed., 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Lancaster, John. “How the Little Ice Age Changed History.” The New Yorker, March 2019,https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/how-the-little-ice-age-changed-history.

Loyseau, Charles "A Treatise on Orders," in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)

McWillimas, Brendan, ‘The Fall of the Bastille', The Irish Times, Jul 13, 1998, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/the-fall-of-the-bastille-1.172547

 Neumann, J and Dettwiller, J. “Great Historical Events that were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 9, the Year Leading to the Revolution of 1789 in France (II).” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

Popkin, Jeremy D, A New World Begins: The History of the French Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 2019)

Sieyes, Emmanuel-Joseph, "What is the Third Estate?" in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)

Waldinger, Maria, Drought and the French Revolution: The effects of adverse weather conditions on peasant revolts in 1789, (2013)

The American Revolution and The Role of Privateers

Privateers are private naval people or vessels that are used by authorities to do tasks such as attack and plunder enemy ships. For many centuries, privateers played key roles in times of war. Here, Avery Scott looks at the important role that privateers played during the American Revolution.

Captain Luke Ryan. From Hibernian Magazine in May 1782.

From the beginning of time, rivers, lakes, and the sea all formed highways that allowed men, supplies, goods, and money to flow from one location to another. In times of war, these superhighways became significantly more important, as those that controlled the sea, controlled the supply lines. Because of this, countries have always battled for control of the sealanes linking their country to others. However, the maintenance of a full navy is expensive, difficult, and, at times, impossible. The difficulty of maintaining a navy led to the rise of privateering commissions, or letters of marque. Letters of marque have played key roles in many periods in history, specifically from the 1500s to the golden age of piracy (1650-1730). Men like Sir. Francis Drake, Henry Morgan, and William Kidd all obtained letters of marque that allowed them the right to pillage and plunder enemy vessels during times of war, and to act as a proxy to the nations navy. Prior to the golden age of piracy, privateers were commonplace, at times replacing the country's navy. However, diplomatic relationships changed around the golden age of piracy, and less commissions were awarded. This led the formerly government sanctioned privateers to begin acting as pirates. Despite the number of privateer commissions decreasing, it did not rid the world of their operations entirely. They would continue to appear during times of war when a particular government found their dastardly services advantageous. And, fortunately for privateers, the American revolution would lead to the commission of hundreds of privateers and untold wealth for those brave enough to risk their lives against the powerful Royal Navy. These privateers, in many cases, are the untold heroes of the American revolution. While they did not have the direct impact of men like George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin’s Franklin, The Marquis de LaFayette, and Baron Von Steuben, they were a menace to the Crown.

The Black Prince

One such example of this is the story of Luke Ryan, and his ship the Black Prince. Ryan began his career as an Irish smuggler turned privateer for the British. However, Ryan was unable to shake his former habits, and returned to Ireland without completing his mission as a privateer, instead he returned with large amounts of contraband. His vessel, the Friendship, was quickly impounded by customs officials, and the crew was thrown into jail. Ryan, having already vacated the ship, was not among these. Ryan decided that he must break his crew out of prison, and quickly sail out of Irish waters. Early in the morning, the crew escaped out of the prison, stole several smaller boats which they rowed to their commandeered ship the Friendship. They proceeded to cut the anchor cables and confined the guards aboard. After escaping from the Black Dog prison, he renamed his ship the Black Prince, and headed for France to obtain a privateers commission from Benjamin Franklin.

Ryan faced a major challenge in obtaining this commission - he was Irish. Not only was Ryan Irish, but nearly his entire crew as well. Franklin could only grant commissions to vessels that had, at minimum, an American captain. However, it was not long before Ryan found Stephen Marchant, an American in France in search of a vessel to command. Ryan felt that Marchant could be easily manipulated into doing whatever Ryan and the other Irish sailors desired - essentially, giving Ryan total control of the ship, and Marchant nothing more than the appearance of a command. Only Ryan and his crew would be privy to the plan, which ultimately resulted in Franklin granting Marchant the commission. It was not long before the Black Prince became a successful privateer that struck fear in the hearts of British merchant vessels and seafaring towns alike. Soon after Marchant was informed of Ryan's plan, and was relieved of the modicum of command he currently maintained. Franklin also found out about the situation, but due to the overall success of the cruises he was unconcerned, even sending Ryan a gift to show his gratitude. In addition to his gift, Franklin was so impressed that he commissioned another vessel - the Black Princess. After another successful cruise, Franklin granted another commission, this one named the Fearnot. Again, these cruises were very successful. There were setbacks in the cruises, but these were minimal compared to the number of successes that each cruise produced. However, Ryans’ commissions were eventually recalled when it became apparent that privateers were hurting Franco-American relations due to a number of factors, not the least being Franklin's leniency in granting them. Overall, Ryan’s cruises amounted to 114 captured vessels and huge monetary damages from insurance rates, trade interruptions, and an overall distraction to the Royal Navy.

The Lee

Stories such as that of Luke Ryan happened frequently during the revolution, whether those privateers came from France or from American shores. Millions of dollars (billions in today’s money) of damages occurred as well as damage to the Royal Navy's morale, supplies, and productivity. Another benefit privateers offered the continental forces was their ability to obtain supplies needed by continental forces. Early in the revolution, in November 1775, the Lee, was patrolling near the coast of Massachusetts, when it came across a large vessel and decided to board. Captain John Manley sent several of his best sailors on board with concealed weapons, taking the British ship Nancy completely by surprise. The Nancy’s Captain Robert Hunter was excited to see the men, assuming they were there to assist the Nancy, as the ship had battled tough seas and was in need of repair. Hunter soon realized that Manley’s men were not there to help, but it was too late. Manley’s men drew their weapons, and Nancy's crew had to surrender. The Lee’s crew discovered a huge military cargo that was one of the most valuable of the war. The cargo included 2,000 muskets, 7,000 cannonballs, and 30 tons of shot, in addition to many other war time essentials. Washington was thrilled at the capture, calling it an “instance of divine favor.”

Conclusion

These two stories show how privateers played a pivotal role in winning the revolution. They helped to obtain goods needed for fighting the war and molested Royal Navy ships and merchantmen coming to resupply British troops. They expanded the size of the Navy, while reducing the financial burden of supplying a full time Navy. They caused huge financial woes for British citizens, merchantmen, and the government. Finally, they helped to create a war weary public that pushed for an end to the Revolutionary War. While often unacknowledged, ignored, or simply forgotten about, privateers were true heroes of the Revolutionary War, and victory would likely have not been possible without their brave contributions.

What do you think of the role or privateering in the American revolution? Let us know below.

Now read Avery’s article on Captain Henry Morgan and the escape from Maracaibo here.

References

Empire of Blue Water by Stephan Talty

Rebels at Sea by Eric Jay Dolin

The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard

Superstitions at Sea Throughout History

Throughout history, many people have crossed the seas searching for new lands, a new life, cargo and leisure resulting in millions of journeys undertaken by boat. Life at sea was treacherous and many sailors faced uncertainty as to what their voyage would entail. The many myths and legends of sea monsters, curses and superstitions attempt to offer an explanation for natural events or understand things people couldn’t explain, such as sea creatures. Popular culture has romanticised the idea of sea myths and superstitions that belittle the beliefs that many men and women governed their lives and actions throughout history. Many films and television shows explore plots where crews are cursed for immoral actions at sea, such as Pirates of the Caribbean and The Curse of the black pearl.  Superstitions surrounding sea travel dictated when to sail – not on Fridays – and who could and couldn’t be aboard the ship, such as priests. Some of these beliefs have religious connotations, such as not starting a voyage on a Friday. The idea of good and bad luck is dictated by our actions or decisions like a lucky pair of socks or a ritual before taking an exam. While the ritual itself is not the decider of the future, it makes people feel like they have control in a situation that has many variables.

Here, Amy Chandler explores the types of superstitions that were believed by sailors and why they became popular throughout history.

A depiction of the Mary Celeste in the 1860s (then known as Amazon).

Origins of superstitious beliefs

Superstitious beliefs or behaviours “arise through the incorrect assignment of cause and effect”. (1) In order to explain an event or action that is strange, an individual assigns what they think is a logical reason based on their current knowledge. (1) During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there was a rise in belief in witchcraft and the idea of what a witch was and how they behaved. It is not difficult to understand how this susceptibility to the idea of witchcraft, voodoo and individuals possessing ideas, knowledge and power is beyond humanly possible in small communities. Many sailing families pass down stories and superstitions from generation to generation. These types of beliefs set the scene for other ideas of mermaids, krakens and sea monsters to thrive in the imagination. These stories and beliefs thrive on fear.

The fear of the unknown was common amongst sailors, with vast areas of the world undiscovered and undocumented, so meaning that little was understood. Superstitions when sailors were aboard and before they set sail helped many crewmembers have control in an uncontrollable situation. It is naval tradition to bless the boat and its crew before sailing; for example, in Britain it is customary to bless a ship by breaking a bottle of wine or champagne. (2) Life was difficult with long periods away from land, poor hygiene and sanitary conditions, disease was rife, and diet was inadequate.

Furthermore, boats throughout history have changed dramatically from straight sterns to curved ones. (3) Oak was the most common wood for battleships in the eighteenth century because of its strong structure, while ships are now made of steel and reinforced to ensure a safer voyage, especially with the increase of cruise ships with many floors, guests, facilities and weight. The change in sailing boats and increased knowledge in scientific and technological advancement reduces the risk at sea.  The idea of sea superstitions and myths are still prevalent in popular culture and society.

Influence of literature on myths

Literature like Homer’s The Odyssey mentions Greek mythology like Scylla and Charybdis, Circe and other monsters that commonly lure men to their deaths within myths and popular culture. While these figures featured in Odysseus’ journey are fictional, they suggested an explanation as to why ill-fated events happened through an individual's actions. Similarly, in Samuel Coleridge’s poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the crew shoots down the albatross and dooms their voyage.

A famous example of a ship that was abandoned with no trace of the passengers is the Mary Celeste, discovered on December 5, 1872 abandoned near Azores, Portugal. The boat went through a name change, major structural changes and owners before this voyage. Originally called the Amazon, the boat underwent many damages and mishaps, was sold in 1868 to Richard W Haines who renamed the ship. Once sold again after major refurbishments, the ship set sail on November 7, 1872 from New York City to Genoa, Italy with 1,700 barrels of alcohol. The ship’s log recorded two weeks of bad weather and when the ship was spotted by British ships near Portugal, they realised the boat was abandoned with no crew or captain, but the longboat was missing. (4) On closer inspection, the boat had taken on water, but was still sailable. The crew and captain were never found and what happened is only speculation. This incident is an example of an ‘ill-fated’ voyage where the ships experienced bad weather and the name of the boat was changed. While it is logical to assume the crew left the boat to avoid sinking and used the longboat to escape, it still encouraged superstitious thought. Authors like Arthur Conan Doyle was inspired by the story and anonymously published J. Habakuk Jephson’s Statement in The Cornhill Magazine in January 1884. (5) The story became popular and the press thought this was a real account from a survivor of the Mary Celeste.

In some incidents, the sensation of curses and myths becoming a reality is one that is fuelled by the popular press and thrived on creating reports that caused a stir. During the famous Titanic’s voyage in 1912 the ship was also said to be transporting an ancient Egyptian artefact, the ornate coffin belonging to Princess of Amen-Ra. It was not until after the discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922, that the sensational story of an Egyptian curse was widely commented on. This idea of a curse was then applied in retrospect to Ancient Egyptian artefacts, such as the one aboard of the Titanic.

Popular superstitions at sea

Many weird and wonderful sailing superstitions exist, to bring good luck included having tattoos of lucky animals such as pigs or roosters, stepping on the boat with the right-foot, cats were good omens and having salt in their pockets are just a few. Similarly, it was bad luck to have bananas on board, red-headed women or women in general, whistling at sea, losing a hat overboard and saying goodbye before a voyage. These are just several of the many superstitions sailors believed throughout history.

In the Nottingham Evening Post, February 7, 1931, reported a crew of British trading ship sailing near New Zealand began throwing cargo overboard because they “believed it was bringing them bad luck”. (6) This report is one of few recorded events of maritime superstition that impacted the day-to-day workings of a ship. The reports continues that sailors would usually indulge in their superstitions in private “without advertising it to the outerworld” suggesting that people who aren’t sailors are not exposed to the myths and legends do not understand why sailors behaved in certain manners.

Similarly, a report in the Fleetwood Chronicle in 1911 suggested that many people were aware of sailing superstitions, such as “the ill-luck which is said to belong to the ship whose name has been changed” and was a “belief [that] prevails among seafaring men that the vessel whose name ends in ‘A’ rests, also, under an evil spell”. (7) This report continues to give evidence of incidents where a ship with a name ending in an ‘A’, sinks or has a disaster. This offers a clear reason, albeit incorrect, to why a ship has a disaster, such as HMS Victoria that sunk in the Mediterranean in 1893, killing 358 crewmembers. While this incident has a logical and reasonable explanation of colliding with another ship, it fuels that idea that some names, places or objects are ‘cursed’ or ‘ill-fated’.

Another report in the Westerham Herald in 1917, recounts that while aboard a ship travelling from Massina to Malta a passenger noticed the ship’s Captain, an experienced sailor “standing at the bow, muttering and pointing with his finger”. (8) The captain was supposedly breaking the force of waves by making a ‘cross’ shape with his fingers and speaking a prayer. The account suggests when asked the captain replied that every ninth wave was dangerous and fatal to the ship’s safety, and the passenger said it was “strange to say, every ninth wave was much greater than any of the others, and threatened the ship with immediate destruction”. (8) Interestingly, when the ninth wave approached the ship with a captain who was signing a ‘cross’, the wave began to break and the danger was avoided.  The report continues that “Arab sailors believe[d] that the high seas off the coast of Abyssinia [were] enchanted” and whenever they sailed through these waters would “recite verses which they suppose have a tendency to subdue them”. (8) This report emphasises that superstitions and actions that cause good or bad luck differs around the world and cultural beliefs. Despite this passenger not having a logical reason why the waves were breaking, seeing the captain perform a ritual that coincides with the danger subsiding provides evidence to those who witness it that these superstitions and rituals work. These experiences are told to others and reported that reinforces these actions and continues to support the idea of good and bad luck.

Science and superstition

Scientifically, there is a logical reason for why sailors claim to see floating, ghost ships. Objects that appear to float above the horizon or appear distorted are due to the Fata Morgana, a type of mirage. This mirage was named after the Arthurian legend of Morgan Le Fey that were believed to occur on the Strait of Messina where fairy castles floated in the air and false lands were created by witchcraft to lure sailors to their death. (9)

Scientifically mirages and superior mirages are created by atmospheric refraction where light bends through varying density of temperature or air creating distorted images, where an object in the distance is longer, higher, and ghostly. Whereas a Fata Morgana is a superior mirage that is more complex. The mirage is created below the original object and distorts an object to a point of being unrecognisable. These mirages are not limited to the sea, but are seen on land, polar or desert terrain and use any distant objects, like boats, coasts or islands to create an image. These images also change rapidly and stack on top of each other creating an imposing image of elongated and compressed versions of the original object. Therefore, this change in temperature, light refraction and distortion creates the appearance of ghostly and distorted image that has no resemblance to the original objects. (9) These boats appear to sit in the waves, on top of the water or parallel with the original object in a ghostly image. Sailors did not understand science in the same way we do now and seeing such a phenomenon would prove to many men that the stories and legends were true.

Conclusion

Sailor superstitions are engrained in how the public view the profession historically and many tourist seaside towns play on the idea of pirates in smugglers cove, strange stories of ghost ships and noises that draw visitors into the local history of the area. Real events and fiction become blurred and embellished over time, especially as there are no sailors from history alive to contradict what they may have seen or heard. It is difficult to understand what is fact or fiction when reading historical accounts. Scientifically we can attempt to explain why these stories developed and demystify the myths and legends through studying mirages and weather conditions that alter the senses. However, there is a large majority of the sea that has not been discovered and there is a high possibility that strange creatures that have mutated over time do exist through evolution. One of the many allures and fears of the sea is the unknown and what could be lurking beneath the sea’s surface. This unknown is what fiction and film thrive on and use to create imaginative situations and worlds that have some resemblance to real events caused by nature, such as deep caverns and whirl pools.

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

Now read Amy’s article on the history of medicine at sea here.

References

(1) K.R. Foster. H. Kokko, ‘The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like behaviour’. Proc Biol Sci. vol. 7 (2009) 2009, p.31.

(2) Royal Museums Greenwich, ‘Ship launching ceremonies’, 2023, Royal Museums Greenwich <https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/ship-launching-ceremonies> [accessed 24 April 2023].

(3) Royal Museums Greenwich, ‘Ship building: 800 – 1800’ , 2023, Royal Museums Greenwich <  https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/shipbuilding-800-1800 > [accessed 24 April 2023].

(4) A. Tikkanen. ‘Mary Celeste’. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023, <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mary-Celeste > [accessed 20 April 2023].

(5) The Arthur Conan Doyle Encyclopaedia, ‘J. Habakuk Jephson's Statement’, The Arthur Conan Doyle, 2023, < https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php/J._Habakuk_Jephson%27s_Statement >[accessed 19 April 2023].

(6)British Newspaper Archive, ‘Superstition of the sea’, Nottingham Evening Post, (7 Feb 1931).

(7) British Newspaper Archive, ‘Good and Bad luck on the ocean waves’, Fleetwood Chronicle, (11 July 1911)

(8) British Newspaper Archive, ‘Superstitions of the sea’,Westerham Herald,(3 Nov 1917)

(9) SKY brary, ‘Fata Morgana’, SKY Brary, 2023 < https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/fata-morgana >[accessed 15 April 2023].

The Japanese Meiji Restoration: Building a Modern Empire

Imperialism leads to war, bloodshed, and generations suffering from its consequences. It is rare to see imperialism yield positive outcomes. While imperialism was not that favorable in China, the cabinet of Emperor Meiji brought about drastic changes in Japan that laid the foundations of the advanced nation we know today. The advanced military technologies adopted by Japan were a significant factor in its victory in the First Sino-Japanese War. Was modernization the only smart step toward the building of a strong country? What did the Tongzhi Restoration lack in comparison to the Meiji Restoration? Disha Mule explains.

If you missed them, you can read Disha’s article on the First Sino-Japanese War here, and how the war may have led to the collapse of the Qing dynasty here, and Korea in the 19th century here.

An. image of Emperor Meiji in 1873. Photograph by Uchida Kuichi.

The Tokugawa Shogunate

As far back as the twelfth century, Japan was ruled by shoguns or military generals. The emperor did not exercise much power. The shogun did not need the emperor’s permission to run the administration. The country was divided into numerous domains, each ruled by a daimyo. The stability of this system was disturbed during the fifteenth century when Japan found itself in a constant state of war, that continued for about a hundred years. It was in 1603, with the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate, that the chaos ended. After its victory at Sekigahara, one of the major problems for the new shogunate was impressing its superiority upon the entire country.

The founder of the shogunate, Tokugawa Ieyasu, had a clever way of keeping the daimyos in check. This system was called sankin kotai. The daimyo had to be present in the shogun’s castle in Edo (now Tokyo) from time to time. In his absence, he had to leave his family there. The main purpose behind keeping these hostages was to ensure there was no possibility of any rebellion against the shogun. This system was made more strict during the time of the third shogun, Tokugawa Iemitsu(1).

However, the shogun’s rule was not entirely unquestioned. The daimyos at Choshu and Satsuma were among the strongest of his opponents. He ensured that these tozama (outsiders) daimyos remained far away from the capital of Edo(2).

And so, the Tokugawa rule continued for over two centuries. This period is also called the Edo period and saw many developments in the economic and educational fields.

The Western World Comes Knocking

As many European powers had started establishing colonies worldwide, the constant threat of invasion from the West loomed over kingdoms in Asia. It was inevitable that the kingdoms in the east, that had remained secluded for centuries, had to open up. The isolation policy of Japan (sakoku) prevented the entry of foreigners and prohibited Japanese people from leaving the country. The only Western country that had contact with Japan during this period of seclusion was Holland. This changed with the signing of the Treaty of Kanagawa.

Japan was coerced into signing the Treaty of Kanagawa when Commodore Matthew Perry of the US Navy brought his fleets to Japanese shores. China’s defeat in the First Opium War was an important turning point in Japan’s perception of the West. The Japanese were convinced that the ‘barbarians’ would stop at nothing until they had everything going their way(3). The unequal treaties were calculated plans made by the Western powers to exploit the resources of the other country involved. The Treaty of Nanjing opened up five Chinese ports; the Treaty of Kanagawa was meant to serve a similar purpose. By agreeing to the treaty, the Japanese cleverly appeased the Westerners and at the same time, got a chance to explore Western advancements.

Unlike the Chinese, the Japanese were already educated about the happenings around the world(4). The Dutch traded with Japan through the port of Nagasaki. They were demanded to submit reports to the shogun, detailing everything that they learned about the world from the ships arriving at Nagasaki(5). The Tokugawa regime had also set up a similar outpost at Pusan, in order to maintain diplomatic relations with Korea(6).

It is also noteworthy that during the 1860s, the Qing dynasty in China was trying to bring back its popularity through the Tongzhi Restoration. The chief driving force behind the movement was the emperor’s mother, Empress Dowager Cixi. But it was not an easy task.

China was home to a diverse population. It consisted of the Hans, the Mongols, the Manchus, etc. These communities often had many clashes, making governing them difficult. The improper execution of Confucianism was labeled as the root cause of all the difficulties of the state(7).

The Self-Strengthening Movement in China helped in uplifting the situation to some extent. In 1868, the Burlingame Mission was sent to countries like the US, Britain, France, etc. In the same year, China and the US signed the Burlingame-Seward Treaty which reduced the hostility between the states and made traveling less complicated. Despite its intentions of reforming China, the Burlingame Mission could not make much of an impact due to the reluctance of certain pro-Confucian officials(8).

On the contrary, Japan was a more homogenous society. The sense of solidarity was strong amongst the Japanese youth who spoke the same language and belonged to the same culture. This unity proved to be advantageous for the shogunate as these scholars would later become the leaders of their domains and help in smooth administration(9). Japan had also started sending missions to other countries, even before the famous Iwakura Mission during the Meiji period. Traveling became much easier for Japanese citizens, thanks to the Tariff Convention of 1866 which removed the ban on overseas travel(10). A Chinese writer called Wei Yuan had written a book containing details about Western countries. Ironically, it was more popular among the Japanese than the Chinese(11).

Emperor Meiji

The Choshu and Satsuma domains were not particularly on friendly terms, but they shared a strong dislike for the shogunate. The age-old saying ‘The enemy of an enemy is a friend’ seems apt to describe the formation of the Satcho alliance in 1866.

The shogunate went to war with Choshu in 1866, where it had to accept defeat. The next months were marked with numerous rebellions - as many as 106 peasant protests(12). The daimyo at Tosa, another anti-Tokugawa domain, proposed to make the administration bicameral. The shogun seemed to come to terms with the idea, provided the Tokugawas would be the rightful owners of their land(13). However, the Choshu and Satsuma domains were not pleased with the fact that the shogun’s family would still, within the new system, manage to hold a considerable amount of power with the lands they possessed. They marched to Kyoto and convinced the crown prince Mutsuhito, who had just ascended the throne, to take the power in his hands. This was the start of a massive civil war between the armies of the Tokugawa shogunate and the imperial loyalists, otherwise known as the Boshin War.

The last shogun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, resigned on November 9, 1867. This formally marked the end of the shogunate. The power was handed over to the emperor. Mutsuhito was now known as Emperor Meiji.

In 1868, in the coronation ceremony of the new emperor, it was proclaimed that decisions would be taken after consulting the public and ‘knowledge would be sought from all around the world’(14). Many Western military traditions like firing a twenty-one-gun salute soon became an eminent part of Japanese military traditions. The emperor himself wore Western clothing but did not entirely give up his Japanese roots(15). It was the Emperor's cabinet that was responsible for the rapid changes in the society (the emperor was just a boy of 15 when he was crowned). But the emperor was sincerely curious about the developments in the nation. He valued education - both traditional and Western(16). He also encouraged the production of Japanese goods. Sakuma Shozan’s ideology of blending Eastern ethics with Western science is said to have influenced Meiji greatly(17). While major changes kept happening, a mission was sent abroad in 1871 to learn about the West with a closer lens. The Iwakura Mission was a milestone in the process of establishing a distinct identity of the imperial state and nullifying the effects of the unequal treaties.

It is quite interesting that both China and Japan faced similar kinds of crises. Japan systematically tackled them by making the necessary changes that the circumstances called for. The rise of imperialism in Japan overlapped with the decline of the Qing dynasty in China. The Qings, undoubtedly, made a blunder by ignoring the telltale signs of their incompetence, resulting in a rather humiliating defeat in the war with Japan in 1894.

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

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

Bibliography

Gordon, Andrew. A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Jansen, Marius B. The Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000.

Keene, Donald. Emperor of Japan: Meiji and his World, 1852-1912. Columbia University Press, 2002.

Vogel, Ezra F. China and Japan: Facing History. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019.

Wilson, Noell H. “Western Whalers in 1860s’ Hakodate: How the Nantucket of the North Pacific Connected Restoration Era Japan to Global Flows.” Chapter. In The Meiji Restoration: Japan as a Global Nation, edited by Robert Hellyer and Harald Fuess, 40–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

References

1 Marius B. Jansen, The Making of Modern Japan, ‘The Tokugawa State’, 56-57.

2 Ezra F. Vogel, China and Japan: Facing History, ‘Trade without Transformative Learning, 838–1862’, 52.

3 Andrew Gordon, A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present, ‘The Overthrow of the Tokugawa’, 48-49.

4 Vogel, China and Japan, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839–1882’, 67-68.

5 Ibid.

6 Gordon, A Modern History of Japan, ‘The Tokugawa Polity’, 18.

7 Vogel, China and Japan, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839-1882’, 69.

8 Ibid, 71.

9 Ibid, 66.

10 Noell H. Wilson, The Meiji Restoration: Japan as a Global Nation, ‘Western Whalers in 1860s’ Hakodate: How the Nantucket of the North Pacific Connected Restoration Era Japan to Global Flows.” 48-49.

11 Vogel, China and Japan, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839–1882’, 67-68.

12 Gordon, A Modern History of Japan, ‘The Overthrow of the Tokugawa’, 57-58.

13 Ibid.

14 Vogel, China and Japan: Facing History, ‘Responding to Western Challenges and Reopening Relations, 1839–1882’, 73.

15 Keene, Emperor of Japan, 'Chapter 23', 214-215.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid, ‘Chapter 21’, 193.