The Gettysburg Campaign: Where was General Jeb Stuart?

One of the most controversial aspects of the Gettysburg Campaign was General Jeb Stuart’s absence until late in the battle. Stuart had been surprised by the Union cavalry at Brandy Station, and his ego was hurt by the criticism he received in the southern newspapers. Through early June, he had done a magnificent job screening Lee’s movement to the northwest. Stuart hankered to circumnavigate the Union army once again. Nevertheless, Lee gave Stuart orders on June 22, which have been controversial ever since. Lloyd W Klein explains.

J. E. B. (Jeb) Stuart.

The absence of Stuart's cavalry during critical stages of the Gettysburg Campaign contributed to a lack of crucial intelligence for Lee and resulted in a crucial communication gap.  Stuart's absence during the early stages of the Battle of Gettysburg left Lee without cavalry reconnaissance and intelligence, depriving him of valuable information about the Union Army's strength, positions, and intentions. This lack of intelligence significantly impacted Lee's decision-making process and contributed to the uncertainties he faced in the initial phases of the battle. It is frequently speculated that had Stuart been present to screen the front of Lee’s army, Lee wouldn’t have been surprised by the proximity of the Union army and the Battle of Gettysburg would have been much different.

The Early Stages of the Campaign

In the early phase of the campaign, Stuart brilliantly screened Union cavalry from determining the location and strength of Lee’s army and hence its direction and ultimate destination in several battles:
Battle of Brandy Station (June 9, 1863): This was the largest cavalry battle of the Civil War and took place near Brandy Station, Virginia. It occurred in the vicinity of the Rappahannock River.

Battle of Winchester (Second Battle of Winchester) (June 13–15, 1863): This battle occurred in Winchester, Virginia, which was a strategic town in the Shenandoah Valley. Confederate General Richard Ewell's forces defeated Union General Robert Milroy's garrison, securing control of the area.

Battle of Aldie (June 17, 1863): The Battle of Aldie was part of the wider cavalry engagements known as the Battle of Middleburg, which occurred as part of the Gettysburg campaign. Union and Confederate cavalry clashed in fierce fighting as they vied for control of key positions.

Battle of Middleburg (June 17–19, 1863): The Battle of Middleburg took place near the town of Middleburg, Virginia. It involved both mounted and dismounted actions between Union and Confederate cavalry forces.

With this portion of the campaign over, Lee was ready to cross the Potomac River and enter Maryland. How he would deploy his cavalry was essential to his plan.

What did Lee Order?

The narrative begins on the morning of June 22, 1863, when Stuart asked Lee for guidance as to which route he should take while following the infantry into enemy territory. If he moved down the Shenandoah Valley west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, he might alert Union cavalry to Lee’s carefully screened advance. The alternative was to move east from Rector’s Cross Roads and cross the Potomac between Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker’s Union army and Washington, D.C. which  might throw the Federals into confusion.

In fact, two written orders were given to Stuart:

On June 22, the first written order instructed Stuart to take 3 brigades and cross into “… Maryland and take position on General Ewell's right, place yourself in communication with him, guard his flank, keep him informed of the enemy's movements, and collect all the supplies you can for the use of the army."

On June 23, a second order was sent to Stuart, which gave further orders for movement depending on whether or not Hooker was moving.

On the night of June 23, a letter was sent. This letter has never been found, but it was received by Stuart’s adjutant, Major Henry B McClellan, who recalled the contents in detail after the war which gave Stuart discretion and even encouragement  to pass behind the Union army. The letter told Stuart he could move “if General Hooker’s army remains inactive” and simultaneously advised Stuart to enter Maryland west of the Blue Ridge Mountains or “pass around” the Federals east of the mountains and then “feel the right of Ewell’s troops.” Besides giving Stuart two different routes to take, Lee no longer was emphasizing the link up with Ewell and guard his flank.

Lee's instructions to Stuart were somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation. Moreover, the conflicting nature and ambiguity surrounding the route Stuart was expected to take contributed to the resulting misunderstanding.  Stuart was expected to guard the mountain passes with part of his force while the ANV was still south of the Potomac, and then to cross the river with the remainder of the army and screen the right flank of Ewell's Second Corps. Lee's specific orders to Stuart were to move northward, screen the Confederate army's right flank, and maintain contact with Lee's forces. Lee expected Stuart to gather information on the enemy's location, strength, and intentions, and to report back promptly.

Lee instructed Stuart to keep the Army of Northern Virginia informed of the movements and activities of the Union Army. Lee's orders emphasized the importance of timely and accurate information. He clearly wanted Stuart to leave enough cavalry behind to cover the mountain passes in the army's rear and cover Ewell's advance with the rest of his force. The order didn't give specifics how to do this, leaving Stuart much discretion as to how to accomplish these goals.

Stuart chose to accompany him his three best brigades, commanded by Brig. Gen. Wade Hampton, Brig. Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, and Col. John R. Chambliss (replacing the wounded Brig. Gen. W.H.F. "Rooney" Lee). The brigades Stuart left behind included Imboden's Valley brigade temporarily attached to the army and more used to partisan activity and the two "regular" brigades of Robertson and Jones. Robertson was considered the weakest cavalry commander and Jones, while good, was appropriately nicknamed "Grumble" because he was not easy to get along with. Lee did not trust these brigades or their commanders as much as Stuart and the three brigades he took with him. Stuart sent General Robertson very specific orders as to what he was supposed to do.

Stuart sent his request for guidance to Lee through I Corps commander Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, who gave his recommendation on June 23: “I think your passage of the Potomac by our rear at the present will, in a measure, disclose our plans. You had better not leave us, therefore, unless you can take the route in rear of the enemy.” Later that day, Lee responded with his second order, stating: “If you find that he [Hooker] is moving northward, and that two brigades can guard the Blue Ridge and take care of your rear, you can move with the other three into Maryland, and take position on General [Richard] Ewell’s right, place yourself in communication with him, guard his flank, keep him informed of the enemy’s movements, and collect all the supplies you can for the use of the army.”

Stuart's interpretation of these conflicting orders, combined with his own decisions, led to his prolonged absence from Lee's main army and the subsequent lack of reliable reconnaissance and communication. Lee expected Stuart to gather information on the enemy's location, strength, and intentions, and to report back promptly. However, Stuart's interpretation of the orders, combined with his desire for personal glory and the allure of circumnavigating the Union army, led him to engage in an extended raid around the Union forces rather than maintaining close contact with Lee's army as Lee had intended.

Stuart Starts Out

Stuart and his three brigades departed Salem Depot at 1 a.m. on June 25. At this moment, the Union army's movement north had begun. Thus, his route was blocked by Hancock’s II Corps, forcing him to veer farther to the east than either he or General Lee had anticipated. This prevented Stuart from linking up with Ewell, which was part of his mission.

Stuart's decision to capture a wagon train at Rockville, Maryland on June 28, 1863, was based on several factors. Stuart believed that seizing the wagon train would yield valuable supplies and provisions for the Confederate army. It could have provided them with much-needed food, ammunition, and other resources that would support their operations. Rockville is indeed extraordinarily close to the city limits even today, about 20 miles. Stuart claimed that that were it not for his fatigued horses "he would have marched down the 7th Street Road [and] took Abe & Cabinet prisoners.

Additionally, Stuart may have viewed the wagon train capture as an opportunity to disrupt Union supply lines and create panic and confusion among the Union forces. By inflicting damage and depriving the enemy of vital supplies, Stuart aimed to weaken the Union's logistical capabilities and potentially hinder their ability to respond effectively. Furthermore, capturing such a large wagon train could have boosted Confederate morale and showcased Stuart's cavalry as a formidable force. It might have been seen as a way for Stuart to demonstrate his effectiveness as a commander and regain his reputation, which had suffered due to the earlier criticisms in southern newspapers.

However, it's worth noting that Stuart's decision to prioritize capturing the wagon train instead of gathering critical intelligence on the Union army's movements further delayed his reunion with General Robert E. Lee's forces. Although this train would be a logistical hindrance to Stuart's advance, he interpreted Lee's orders as placing importance on gathering supplies. This is entirely consistent with Lee’s objectives and goals of the campaign, and his own actions.

Stuart then attempted to ride around the Union army, starting in its rear, which to his surprise, turned out to become its east flank as the Union army moved north to meet the threat.

What happened to Stuart?

Part of the reason for Stuart’s tardiness was that he was caught up in the rear and flank of the Union army. From the time he crossed the Potomac to arriving at Gettysburg required nearly 8 days of non-stop marching for over 200 miles and fighting nearly every day.  Stuart engaged in 4 skirmishes and 3 actual battles trying to make his way to find Ewell. Skirmishes occurred at Thoroughfare Gap June 25 , Fairfax Courthouse June 27, Rockville June 28, and Westminster June 29; Battles at Hanover June 30, Hunterstown July 2, and Carlisle July 2.. Few accounts of Stuart’s ride explains that he wasn’t lost or just lollygagging; he was in fact in real trouble and it took great shrewdness merely to get to Gettysburg at all with his command intact. His men marched incessantly for 8 days and nights.

Hooker’s movements during this time should not have been a surprise to him, Stuart sent a dispatch to General Lee on June 27 that Hooker had crossed the Potomac River. It never reached General Lee, but a copy did reach Richmond; no one there bothered to confirm this with the Commanding General.

Moreover, at least 5000 cavalry had been left behind with Lee. General Robertson the commander of that force knew that Hooker had crossed the Potomac June 25-27 but failed to inform Generals Longstreet and Lee. Further, despite the direct order by Stuart to join Lee in force when Hooker advanced, Robertson instead guarded mountain gaps and the baggage train and never arrived at the battle.

The ANV moves North

By June 27, 1863, General Lee had accomplished his objective of wrecking the B&O RR and was moving up the Cumberland Valley.  JEB Stuart had torn up telegraph lines and rail north of DC. Gen. Richard S. Ewell’s  forces, moving ahead of the main body of Lee’s army in south-central Pennsylvania, had already disrupted railroad operations on the Gettysburg Railroad east of Gettysburg and on the Northern Central Railway near York.

On June 30, Jubal Early, who would go on to blame every other Confederate general at Gettysburg for its loss, and was one of Stuart’s most vociferous critics after the war, heard the sound of the battle at Hanover. Yet, he did nothing to discover who was fighting, despite knowing that Stuart was supposed to be finding him. Maps show that Early was within 5 miles of the battle, and that had contact been made, Stuart could have been present at Gettysburg July 1.

Conclusion

General Lee gave Stuart vague and conflicting orders which modern historians believe he could not have achieved given Hooker’s interim movements. Had he given Stuart a specific route, though, or recognized that he would require the cavalry to perform reconnaissance, he should not have allowed Stuart to stray behind the Union lines.

Within the discretion General Lee gave to Stuart, Stuart can not be blamed entirely for his choice of mission or how he tried to accomplish it. No one had any idea that the Federal position was so fluid at precisely this time. The raid itself was somewhat successful, and in accordance with Lee’s orders.  Stuart was fortunate to be able to fight his way out of a trap of his own making.

However, the loss of the cavalry as reconnaissance at this critical moment must be blamed on Stuart.  He was not located to fulfill his obligations to inform Lee of the movement of the Union army. Lee, by his own fault, was as unaware of Hooker’s position as Hooker was of his as he moved north into Pennsylvania.

Stuart followed Lee’s orders but not perhaps in its spirit. Stuart’s raid did not deprive Lee of the cavalry needed to monitor his opponent’s movements. However, he left in command an officer who was not skilled enough to do so successfully.

He must share the blame for having affected the course of the campaign and the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg in his quest for glory and redemption.

What do you think of General Jeb Stuart’s absence? Let us know below.

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

Independence in Colombia: New Granada’s Revolt of the Comuneros

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

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the 1781 revolt of the comuneros. The revolt was an uprising in New Granada, modern dat Colombia and some of Venezuela. It happened due taxation increases, but importantly was seen as a sign of what was to happen in later years.

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

Manuel Antonio Flórez, Viceroy of New Granada from 1776 to 1781.

New Granada: Colonial Afterthought

For Spain, New Granada was always a backwater. Lacking the gold of New Spain and the silver of Peru, New Granada was never a priority for colonial authorities. It was an afterthought and, when thought of, it was as a cash cow. By the late 18th century, the small amount of gold that had once been mined in the provinces of Popayán, Chocó, and Antioquia was all gone. It was a colonial posting on the ladder to other colonial postings.

The Spanish government had problems figuring out what to do about the colony. They could not even decide what constituted the colony. The Viceroyalty of New Grenada was created in 1719, dissolved in 1724, and recreated in 1739. Venezuela was bounced between New Spain and New Granada. The inland border was ill-defined, and the southern border with Peru was barely mapped.

The Bourbon Reforms attempted to bring order out of the disheveled mess that was Spanish colonial administration. This led to a series of competent viceroys arriving in the colony. Men such as Manuel Antonio Flores, Antonio Caballero y Góngora, and José de Ezpeleta, did show that they could progressively bring improvements to the colony. None stayed longer than seven years, however, preventing any long-term improvements.

Spain Humiliated

By the mid-1700s, Spain had been licking its wounds from a series of wars lost to Britain and her allies. Humiliation after humiliation was eroding the legitimacy of the empire. Every few years seemed to bring another defeat. The predator that was the First British Empire had caught the smell of death on what they saw as their prey, the Spanish Empire. During the War of Jenkins’ Ear, Admiral Vernon attempted to take New Granada from Spain. Although he failed in the attempt, it was a warning to Madrid that something had to be done in New Granada. The other lesson was that Britain needed to be put in its place.

The revolution in Britain’s American colonies presented an opportunity for revenge. This time, unlike in previous wars, the British were having problems subduing their colonies. French money, guns, and especially gunpowder had kept the rebels in the field. With the intervention of France in the American War of Independence, the British now had to suppress their colonies and defeat their ancient enemy. For the first time in decades, Britain seemed vulnerable. With Britain so distracted, perhaps Spain could finally defeat Britain and get back some of the territories that it had lost in previous wars, such as Gibraltar, Minorca, and Florida.

Allying with a rebellious colony was not acceptable to Spain. Allying with France, on the other hand, was old hat by the 1770s. Carlos III and the rest of the Spanish government were determined on going to war. This was a chance that perhaps would not occur again. However, to fight a war, you need money, something Spain did not have much of. Through centuries of gross mismanagement, Spain did not have enough money to defend its empire and fight yet another war with Britain. More money needed to be found, defenses had to be fitted quickly, and ships had to be built so that Spain would not miss its window of opportunity.

The Engine of War is Money

It was decided to increase taxes on the colonies. With little sense of proportion, these taxes were levied and fell very heavily on New Granada. Taxes on everyday commodities were (and still are) popular since the tax base is so broad; therefore, they increased taxes on tobacco. Brandy was taxed to get money from the wealthy and aguardiente was taxed to squeeze the poor. Import taxes were increased. Poll taxes were levied to make sure everyone paid their fair share. Laws against tax evasion were tightened and the authorities cracked down on smuggling, further increasing prices for those who could not afford it.

Smuggling was endemic in Spain’s colonies as the government had few funds to pay for the fleets and the army of customs officials needed to stop the smugglers. Now, Spain was building a fleet for war and this fleet could also be used to reduce smuggling as well as for coastal defense. More royal monopolies were created to bring revenue directly to the crown, but also, again, raising prices due to a lack of competition. That competition, the colonial-born middle classes and those who strive to better their lot through hard work and natural brilliance, were now shut out from yet another avenue to rise in society. Even the natives were not exempt. They had always been exempted from sales taxes. Now, the crown would tax all transactions.

The people were tired of mismanagement and now they had to pay for a war they neither wanted a part of nor cared about. A perfect storm was being created. A large empire was being distracted by a foreign war while at the same time driving discontent among the very people that were expected to support that war.

In early 1781, small acts of defiance throughout the colony began to coalesce into a larger movement. One of the biggest losers in the new taxes, the colony’s taverns, became hives of dissent as people grumbled about paying higher prices for the alcohol and tobacco that were, in many cases, the only outlets in their hard and dreary lives. Out of these taverns, people began organizing and choosing leaders. These organized bodies began to be known as communes.

Resistance Begins

North of Bogotá, Manuela Beltrán, a store owner from Villa del Socorro was growing more and more frustrated. An extreme anomaly in New Granada, Manuela was a woman who owned her own business. She was also able to read and write, which was exceptionally uncommon for the area as illiteracy was near-universal in the region. As one of the few people who could read, she took upon herself the duty of reading out newly published decrees to the people of her town.

On March 16, 1781, she read a decree on the new taxes that were decreed by the colonial government. As she read, the crowd began grumbling and showing its displeasure. Being angered herself, she tore down the proclamation to the cheers of the crowd. This act in itself was an act of treason, and the die was now cast. Manuela had started a rebellion.

The rising in Villa del Socorro led to armed uprisings in the surrounding areas. The people began striking throughout the area north of Bogotá. Their demands were familiar to colonial rebellions, the repeal of unwanted taxes, and colonial access to appointments in the administration. Surprisingly, they also called for the protection of traditional rights and privileges for the natives. This was a movement that had tapped into discontent among all social classes in the region. This led to a large force of disparate people coming together who had, hitherto, been divided along racial and class lines.

The rebels, now under the leadership of Juan Francisco Berbeo, began a march on Bogotá. The colonial authorities assumed that this was just a mass of angry peasants and sent a small force out to disperse the rebels. They did not know that the rebels now numbered in the 10,000-20,000 range. The colonial force was easily pushed aside.

Success!

Here was an existential threat. An army of this size could easily take Bogotá and potentially cause the whole colony to rise. Despite calling for help from other areas of the empire, the colonial authorities in Bogotá could not guarantee help would come. The American Revolution had transformed into a world war with battles being fought from North America to Africa to India.

If Bogotá fell, and with it New Granada, there was no guarantee that Spain would be able to retake the colony. The rebels could even potentially receive aid from the British in a bit of turnabout. Extreme measures had to be taken. Unexpectedly, brutal repression was not the chosen route. When the rebel army arrived just outside Bogotá, the colonial authorities decided to negotiate.

The rebels could scarcely believe their luck. The colonial authorities not only agreed with their grievances almost immediately, they also agreed to repeal all of the laws that caused such problems in the first place. The onerous taxes would be repealed. All these promises were not just made, the colonial authorities also agreed to put it all in writing! The dreams of the rebels had come true. Bad government would be removed from the colony, and everyone would live happily ever after. They had won. They had not even had to storm Bogotá, which would have probably been bloody for everyone concerned. This war for their rights was over. Everyone could go home.

The Inevitable Backlash

The rebel force now began to disperse. There was no reason to remain as a unified force since they had achieved everything they set out to do. Thinking they had won and letting their guard down, they moved toward home. Then the reinforcements the colonial authorities had called for (but not really expected) at the beginning of the rebellion arrived. The authorities that had made the agreement with the rebels had declared that, as an agreement made under duress is no agreement at all, it was all void.

The reinforcements were let loose on the now-dispersed rebels. City after city was occupied and known rebels were rooted out and executed. Through a reign of terror, people began selling out their neighbors to save themselves. A culture of denunciation further embittered the populace. All of the hated taxes were enforced as harshly as they could be as much out of a sense of vengeance as for maximizing revenue. Some of the rebels attempted to reconstitute themselves under the leadership of a man named José Antonio Galán. These would fight on for a while but would be captured and executed in the end.

A Sign of Things to Come

The Revolt of the Comuneros was a sad affair that left little but burning memories of hatred and grievance behind it. There were many parallels in it to the later rising under Hidalgo in New Spain. A charismatic leader leading a cross-class movement full of idealistic vigor marching on the capital. Like Hidalgo later, this group also hesitated when it was time to strike. Like their cousins to the north, the New Granadans probably could have taken their capital. They showed their naiveté by buying into everything the colonial authorities told them. It all seemed too good to be true—because it was. Like Hidalgo, the backlash was terrible and resulted in terrible death and destruction.

Unlike Hidalgo, the time was not right. Although the rebellion of the British North American colonies could have served as an example of something more, the elements of later rebellions were not there yet. The Spanish government was still intact, and in fact, would be part of the victorious alliance with France and the Dutch Republic during the American War of Independence. Spain still had the ability to project power and enforce its rule in the colonies. Though a rickety structure, the Spanish Empire would stand…for now.

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

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

President Andrew Jackson’s Native American Policies

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States, in office from 1829 to 1837. Many important events happened during his presidency, and here Richard Bluttal looks at Jackson’s policies towards Native Americans.

An 1820s portrait of Andrew Jackson, By Thomas Sully.

Early years of Westward Expansion

To understand the basic elements of the Indian Removal Act 1830, we need to first understand the status of the United States at this critical juncture in time. In the early 19th century, American settlers were moving toward the frontier at an alarming rate. As the coastal regions were beginning to crowd, southern and western lands were in high demand. This prompted pioneers to begin settling deeper into Native American territory.

White Americans, particularly those who lived on the western frontier, often feared and resented the Native Americans they encountered: To them, Native Americans seemed to be an unfamiliar, alien people who occupied land that white settlers wanted and believed they deserved.

Some officials in the early years of the American republic, such as President George Washington, believed that the best way to solve this “Indian problem” was to simply “civilize” the Native Americans. The goal of this civilization campaign was to make Native Americans as much like white Americans as possible by encouraging them convert to Christianity, learn to speak and read English and adopt European-style economic practices such as the individual ownership of land and other property (including, in some instances in the South, enslaved persons).

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. Before that, he was a successful general in the War of 1812 and made many contributions to the country as a lawyer, judge, statesman, and war hero. Despite his illustrious career, Jackson remains one of the most controversial figures in American history over one issue alone—the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This monumental law would affect history like no other. It was developed for the purpose of moving Native American tribes from east of the Mississippi River to lands in the west.

Lately, Historians have been asking, why did Andrew Jackson have an extreme hatred for Native Americans, or it was all fictional. In 1813, Andrew Jackson sent home to Tennessee a Native American child who was found on the battlefield with his dead mother. This boy, Lyncoya, (1811-1828), may have originally been intended as merely a companion for Andrew Jr., but Jackson soon took a strong interest in him. Lyncoya was educated along with Andrew Jr., and Jackson had aspirations of sending him to West Point, as well. 

What Tennessee in its frontier days did not offer was an easy life. The people who came to Tennessee did not travel with a wealth of possessions. They possessed little and knew how to manage with what they had. To eat, they had to grow their food or hunt it. They had come to conquer the land, but Tennessee did not readily surrender to their efforts as they chopped down the trees and cleared the land for agriculture. The houses were rudimentary, with the family sharing common living space. But they had come not only for prosperity but freedom, and they were willing to work hard to raise children who would grow up in liberty.

The General

Jackson made himself available when military service called. He was brave and known early on as a bit wild so Tennessee was perfect for him. In 1802 was appointed major-general of Tennessee’s militia military service and stationed where troops were needed along the frontier

1813 he headed south, where he was victorious in battle, defeating the Native Americans at Tallushatchee and Talladega. Jackson was discovering that he had a flair for leadership and a knack for soldiering. With a force of 5,000, Jackson’s volunteers defeated the Creek warriors at Horseshoe Bend, bringing the Creek War to an end in March 1814. The United States needed a hero in the war of 1812, and Andrew Jackson was going to fit the bill very nicely.

Jackson heard that the British were planning to invade the South, he went to Mobile, Alabama to strengthen the city’s fortifications. He then, although he was not authorized to do so, invaded Florida, which belonged to Spain. His motive was to get to nullify the dangers of the tribes who were allied with Great Britain and hostile to the Americans. Jackson and his troops headed for Spanish Florida. Jackson captured Pensacola in November 1814 and then set off on the trail of the British, who were on their way to New Orleans. The Americans, consisting of a military force of regular U.S. troops, Tennessee militia volunteers, with militia from Kentucky, Louisiana and the Mississippi Territory, free blacks, Native Americans, Creoles and even a band of pirates, were outnumbered.The British invasion began on December 14. On December 23, Jackson’s forces halted the advance of the British troops, initiating two weeks of battle as the British sought a way through Jackson’s defenses to reach New Orleans. On January 8, a full- scale attack by the British was launched. Jackson’s forces were outnumbered two- to- one at the battle. They were not a cohesive fighting unit. Despite these drawbacks, on January 8, 1815, Jackson’s 5,000 soldiers defeated the mighty forces of the British at the Battle of New Orleans, forcing the expert soldiers of the British Empire to withdraw from Louisiana. New Orleans was saved, the peace treaty between the United States and Great Britain had already been signed in Belgium, but slow communication prevented Jackson from knowing that his battle victory was unnecessary. The Treaty of Ghent had brought the war to an end several weeks before Jackson’s conclusive victory, although it would not be ratified by Congress until February 16, 1815. It was not, however, unappreciated. His military prowess also did much to boost the confidence of a very young country which had no longstanding military heritage to boast of, as did its European counterparts. The world saw, through Jackson’s boldness, that his reputation was well known to the tribes, and the Creeks, Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws signed treaties which left them with significantly reduced land while the United States was able to increase its territory. What would benefit the Americans the most would be the undoing of the tribes, who would eventually be forced to leave their ancestral homes.

In 1817, Jackson returned to military leadership during the First Seminole War. In 1805 thru 1816 there was increasing friction between white settlers, Florida Native Americans and the Creek Confederation. The Seminoles began hiding runaway slaves who had escaped from southern plantations into Spanish Florida. In March of 1818 General Andrew Jackson crossed into Florida attacking the Spanish fort at St. Marks with 3, 500 men and then marched east to the Suwanne River and attacked the village of Chief Boleck. Many Native Americans escaped into the swamps. Jackson was unable to find or capture the Seminoles thus ending the First Seminole Indian War.

His success in military ventures brought more land to the growing nation, but by securing so much land, a new crop, which would thrive in the southern soil, would eventually bring both prosperity and tragedy to the region: cotton became the dominant agricultural produce in the South. It would, ultimately, expand the number of enslaved peoples, creating an irreparable division between North and South that would only be solved by war.

Jackson’s Presidency

The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress on this day in 1830 and signed by President Andrew Jackson two days later. The act called for the removal of Native Americans residing within state borders in the East to a newly created Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma and parts of Nebraska. The goal was to free up state lands for white settlers, particularly in the Southeast, where a growing population clamored for access to agriculturally rich land on which to grow cotton.

While some members of each affected tribe—which included the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles—left voluntarily, most refused to leave and fought back, through physical and legal means.

Jackson was much more tolerant toward the issue of state’s rights when the state of Georgia claimed millions of acres of land that, according to federal law, belonged to the Cherokee tribe. The Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had no authority over the tribal lands, but Jackson refused to enforce the ruling. The Cherokees began to try to assimilate. Moravian missionaries taught the Native Americans how Europeans lived, farmed, and worshiped. The Cherokee, along with the Creeks, Chickasaws, Seminoles, and Choctaw, became known as the Five Civilized Tribes for their efforts. The Cherokees adopted a constitutional government and developed a written language, further adopting the ways of the white man. But for Americans, and particular for Georgians, this was futile. All they knew or cared to know was that Native Americans were savages. More to the point, these savages owned land that Americans coveted. One of the foundations of Jackson’s presidency was the  goal of removing all Native Americans in the Southeast, a goal which was part of the motivation for the 1830 Indian Removal Act. The Cherokees did not meekly submit. Using the political knowledge they’d gained by studying the white man’s ways, they sent their chief, John Ross, a mixed- blood Cherokee who spoke English and learned the law, to Washington D.C. to plead their cause. But when the Congress failed to be receptive, they took their case to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with Ross’ arguments, and the Court ruled that the federal government, not the states, held authority over the Cherokee nation. Jackson paid no attention and supported Georgia in its activities against the Cherokee.

Cherokees had three years to move west. Jackson wanted the Native American lands, but he had other goals which he pursued passionately as well. In the winter of 1831, under threat of invasion by the U.S. Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be expelled from its land altogether. They made the journey to Indian Territory on foot (some “bound in chains and marched double file,” one historian writes), and without any food, supplies or other help from the government.

Thousands of people died along the way. It was, one Choctaw leader told an Alabama newspaper, a “trail of tears and death.”

The Native American removal process continued. In 1836, the federal government drove the Creeks from their land for the last time: 3,500 of the 15,000 Creeks who set out for Oklahoma did not survive the trip.

Jackson Returns to Tennessee

Just as Jackson seemed to exemplify the vigor and energy of the new country, he was also an innovator to the office of the presidency. He was the first president to ride a train and the second to be photographed. The White House that he left, with indoor toilets and running water that had been added during his tenure, was a more modern building than it had been when he moved in. He had done much to transform the office he had occupied, both politically and aesthetically.

Jackson’s Legacy

Jackson believed in the common man, not the elite. His presidency supported democracy as he believed it was meant to be practiced, not as the province of the rich and powerful, but as the birthright of ordinary people. It was the people Jackson held, who had the power to shape the nation. Historians may doubt the morality of his effect, but no one can contest the concrete results of his presidency. He paid off the national debt, expanded the boundaries of the nation, issued a new currency, and made America’s ties with foreign nations stronger. He was also, in an abstract way, one of the architects of the American myth. If a man proved himself willing to work hard, he could not only succeed in this new country, but he could rise to a position of power. In the nations of the Old World, where inherited land and titles dictated the path to empowerment, there was no fresh blood infusing upward mobility. Americans believed, because they had witnessed the process in men like Jackson, that a man could be born with nothing, but could profit himself by applying himself to the endless task of building his country.

Jackson was not, however, a visionary: slavery continued to be an economic factor, rather than a moral quagmire, for Jackson’s era. Native Americans lost more and more territory and sovereignty as the young country expanded at the expense of the natives who had been there first. The movements that would soon blossom in support of the abolition of slavery and the rights of women were on the horizon, but under Jackson, society was dominated by white men who wielded the power. Jackson saw nothing wrong in awarding government offices to his supporters and replaced many of these officials with his own people, beginning what would become known as the spoils system. He was, in this instance, true to his Southern beliefs, as he supported the rights of the states over the federal and judicial authorities. He used his veto power without a qualm, vetoing more bills than had all of the previous presidents combined. He opposed legislation which threatened slavery, supported the availability of cheap public lands, and refused to recognize the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the rights of the Native American tribes.

For better or for worse, the Age of Jackson imbued the young nation with the raw ingredients it would need to reach its potential. The country believed in its power to do whatever it wanted to do; very different from the established, traditional model of nations long settled into their routines.

What do you think of Andrew Jackson’s Native American policies? Let us know below.

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

Founding Father John Adams - Part 3: Statesman

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, I will examine John Adams’ life and contributions to the United States from three perspectives. First, John Adams the patriot here. Second, John Adams the diplomat here. Third, John Adams the Statesman.

Here, Avery looks more closely at John Adams as a statesman and president.

A portrait of John Adams, c. 1792/93.

Introduction

At the time of John Adams appointment to Britain, he had served in the diplomatic service for nearly eight years, and on June 1, 1785, that service would culminate into the great crescendo of his diplomatic career. Because on this day, Adams had his first audience with King George III, the King that multitudes bled and died to obtain freedom from. In this meeting, Adams tells King George of his honor to serve in his position, and his hope of restoring an amicable relationship between two nations that “though separated by an ocean and under different governments, have the same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood.” King George responded in kind, assuring Adams that he was only doing his duty in prosecuting the war in America, but accepted the end of the conflict and the results of that conflict. Additionally, assuring Adams that he was thankful it was him who received the appointment. And it was with this that the meeting ended, and Adams penultimate diplomatic moment came to an end. However, it was only the beginning of the legacy he would leave as a statesman.

London

Despite missing the friends, home, and community that they had grown to love in Paris, Adams' family quickly adapted to life in London.  Abigail and Nabby attended the Queens drawing room, showing that Mr. Adams was not the only diplomat in the family. Additionally, the family moved into a home at Grosvenor Square and began their life in London in earnest. The family regularly attended church, and John Adams was able to reunite with friends that fled the revolution in America for their home nation.

The task at hand was a difficult one, and Adams was frequently attacked in the press (likely by loyalists in London) for being ill-suited for his station as minister. The task given to Minister Adams was nearly impossible due to the position of strength of Britain and the immense struggles that America was facing. Adams had to find a way to open trade with Britain, but first he had to make the British willing to meet at the negotiating table. The British did not need trade with the United States, but they knew that America desperately needed trade with Britain and its other territories. Because of this, Britain slowed down negotiations or simply did not meet with Adams at all. In doing so, Britain maintained firm control as the leading trader in the world. Additionally, the British were reluctant to abandon military forts in North America, a direct violation of the Treaty of Paris. Adams would attempt to resolve this problem as well; however, it would not truly be resolved until many years later in the Jay Treaty.

An additional hindrance to trade was the Barbary states of North Africa, or the Barbary Pirates, comprising Algiers, Tunis, Morocco, and Tripoli. Pirates from these North African states raided American shipping in the Mediterranean, greatly damaging American trade abroad, and forcing insurance rates to skyrocket. Cash payments were required to the various states, called tribute, and had formerly been paid by Britain when the colonists were under the crown's protection. But now, with their newfound independence, America was required to pay up - or fight. This was made clear in July of 1785 when two American ships were seized by the Barbary state of Algiers. The sailors aboard these ships were enslaved and kept in terrible conditions. Congress allocated funds to be made available for the negotiation of tribute to the nation, however it was a paltry sum compared to the likely price of tribute - as Adams was soon to find out.

Adams, in a tobacco smoke and coffee fueled meeting, discussed the prospect of tribute with the Envoy of the Sultan of Tripoli, His Excellency Abdrahaman. In this meeting, Abdrahaman informed Adams that America and Tripoli were at war, and this war would only be ended by a peace treaty - and money. Adams quickly dashed off a letter to Thomas Jefferson in Paris imploring him to come to London and assist with Barbary negotiations. Jefferson arrived in March of 1786, and the two soon met with Abdrahaman, being informed that peace would cost roughly 30,000 guineas as well as 3,000 pounds sterling for himself. A sum that was only a small portion of what peace would cost for all of the Barbary states. In later conversations, Adams and Jefferson debated the appropriate course of action regarding tribute. Jefferson in favor of immediate war, and not a penny spent for tribute. Conversely, Adams felt strongly that a Navy was necessary to ensure America was not extorted but felt that for time it was best to pay the tribute.

The Constitution

Adams, seeing the changes occurring in American government and a constitutional convention occurring soon, set off to write a document that would explain and defend what he felt was the best course of action for America to adopt regarding a constitution. The document was titled A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, and was ready for print in January of 1787. The document focused heavily on the government being broken into three branches each with checks and balances over the others. The work was praised by Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, with both stating that it should be used as a framework for the constitutional convention. Amazingly, even James Madison, one rarely to compliment Adams, stated that the work had merit. Adams soon received a copy of the constitution he had dreamt of and was disappointed in the lack of a “declaration of rights,” but was overall pleased with the document. Jefferson was less sanguine about the constitution, specifically the role of the President and the power he would wield.

Bound for Boston

Adams and Abigail knew it was time to wrap up their years of service abroad, as they had accomplished all that they felt they could in London. Adams requested he be recalled to America but was informed he needed to travel to Holland one more time. He would negotiate another loan, in addition to formally relinquishing his title.

On June 17, 1788, Adams and his family sighted the Massachusetts shore for the first time in years, and were shortly ashore greeted by cheering friends, family, and admirers all excited to welcome home the diplomat from London. Much of the first weeks were taken up with reunions, meetings, lodging arrangements, and unpacking. But all the while, there was talk of Adams for a multitude of government positions from governor, judge, and vice president. However, the most likely position was that of vice president. Adams stated, albeit not publicly, that he would accept the vice presidency and nothing less. The election of 1789 was different from the US elections that we know today, in which the popular vote determines the electors for a specific state and candidate. Electors were employed for the purpose of casting a vote for a candidate, just as they are today, but these electors were chosen by the state legislatures - each casting two votes. The individual with the most votes became president and the second most was named vice president. This system worked well in the first two elections; however, it would eventually be changed as a result of the election of 1800.

Vice President

The final count of the 1789 election was a unanimous choice (69 electors) for George Washington as president. And, 34 electors voted for Adams, who was deeply hurt by receiving less than half the vote - although still enough votes for him to easily win the title of vice president. Despite his initial frustration at the overall outcome, Adams was proud to be the first vice president of the United States. Much as he had for each of his prior positions in government, Adams was nervous about his ability to ably perform his duties. These nerves led him, on April 21 when sitting before the Senate for the first time to remark, that he would do his best to allow open debate on the senate floor, and only interject when he felt it necessary, treat all members with requisite cordiality, and attempt to uphold the honor of his office.

Shortly after Adams assumed his role of vice president, he accompanied Washington to the dais of Federal Hall in New York to receive his oath of office as the first president of the United States on April 30, 1789. And with this, the first constitutional government of the United States commenced in full.

During Adams time in the senate, he oversaw many difficult discussions, and led debate on a variety of issues with both domestic and international significance. Some of these issues, such as the title that should be held was Washington, were of small concern and were made into larger issues than was truly necessary (largely by Adams - who felt that titles were important to encourage the best candidates to accept public office). He also directed the Senate on such issues such as the assumption bill, created by Alexander Hamilton, which would allow the federal government to assume the debts of the 13 states. Also, Adams oversaw debate on the new location of a capital, with the government temporarily moving to Philadelphia before its permanent location on the Potomac River in Virginia. Adams was also vice president during the early years of the French Revolution, and the storming of the bastille prison in reaction to the difficult political, economic, and social condition of the French citizenry.

Second Term

In 1792, Washington and Adams were elected to another term in office. Washington was again unanimously elected (132 votes), with Adams receiving 77 electoral votes.  A much higher margin than in the previous election. Little did the two know that the next four years would be more dubious and treacherous than the prior four years. Largely, this was due to the French Revolution, and the uproar that it caused in France, America, and in Washington's cabinet. Jefferson was a supporter of the French, and the remainder of the cabinet (specifically Hamilton) were supporters of the British. Cabinet relationships would be further strained due to the arrival of Edmund Charles Genêt as the French Minister to the United States. Genêt, arriving in South Carolina, spent an excessive amount of time attempting to drum up support for American involvement on the side of France during the war. The cabinet, including the supposed Francophile Jefferson, became furious with this attempt to end American neutrality, sending word to France requesting his recall. Eventually, Washington granted Genêt asylum as he was facing death for his actions in America.The controversy over banking, the French, assumption, and other issues isolated Jefferson, as he was the only non-federalist member of the cabinet. He attempted to resign many times, with Washington finally relenting and accepting his resignation. Jefferson left office December 31, 1793. Despite his differences with the cabinet, Jefferson had been very successful in his position as Secretary of State, and his resignation ended the continuity heretofore seen in the government.

Adams often felt that his position was useless, and he had no real work of any consequence. This led to periods of melancholy that were evident in his correspondence and in his public appearance. However, his mood nearly almost always improved at the mention of his family. Specifically, Adams was always eager to hear about the progress of his eldest son, John Quincy Adams. The two had become very close during their time together overseas, spending more time together than with any other members of their family. And, in May of 1794, Adams' pride was evident at the appointment of John Quincy Adams to be U.S Minister to the Netherlands. With this, John Quincy began a diplomatic career that was only rivaled by his fathers.

Adams was very pleased at having his son in the foreign service, however other diplomatic relationships were not as favorable. The Jay treaty was signed in London, in which John Jay was attempting to resolve long standing issues that Adams had attempted to resolve during his time there.  However, Jay achieved very little that Americans desired, left many issues unresolved, and only gained a few small “crumbs” associated with trade and the vacating of troops from American Forts. Americans were furious with the treaty, bemoaning the lack of protection for sailors, lack of open and free trade, and concessions made on behalf of the American delegates. However, the treaty, Adams felt, was the best that could be obtained at the time. The country was in an uproar regarding the treaty, with many hoping Congress would not ratify it. Tempers were so high that Jay was burned in effigy across the country. Despite objections, Congress eventually ratified the treaty, despite its flaws as they too felt it was the best that could be achieved.

In the summer of 1796, Adams retired to his home to enjoy tranquility and peace before the end of his term as vice president. He and Abigail knew it was possible, if not likely, that he would become president, sending them into another few years of hard labor for the country they so dearly loved. Adams ended his sojourn at his home in December of 1796 and returned to Philadelphia. When he arrived, the news was all about the election. Reports changed daily with the winner being reported as Jefferson one day and Adams another. Adams was reluctant to believe he would be president, but it soon became apparent that he would be the next president of the United States.

President

On March 4, 1797, John Adams became President John Adams, which represented the final act to a lifelong commitment to the nation. Adams inauguration was a sad one for many, because it was the end of George Washingtons’ leadership of the nation. Washington had been the de facto leader since the early years of the revolution, but the government was now in the hands of Adams and Jefferson. And trouble started after a short, calm period in which bipartisanship appeared to be possible. The French Revolution was in full swing, and the Directory (the five-member governing council of France) took the Jay treaty to be a commercial and military alliance between the two nations. Which would be in direct violation to the Treaties signed by America during their own revolution. Adams needed to send a commission to France in order to work out the issues that were plaguing the nations. He spoke to Jefferson about sending James Madison, but Jefferson informed him that it was unlikely Madison would accept. Eventually, Jefferson spoke to Madison on the issue - receiving the expected “no”. When he relayed this to Adams, Jefferson was informed Adams had a change of heart, and he was not to send Madison anyway. Jefferson took this to mean he was taking orders from the high Federalists and would not be independent or willing to allow democrat-republicans to serve in high level positions. At this moment, Jefferson and Adams ended all correspondence, and no longer worked alongside each other as they had done for so much of their careers.

Despite this damaged relationship, Adams still had a responsibility to resolve issues with the French as peacefully as possible. Adams' best efforts were all foiled when the French refused to meet with the newly appointed Minister to France, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. The directory was furious with the Jay Treaty, and began issuing letters of marque to French privateers allowing them to raid American shipping and capture vessels. This naval tension escalated and eventually became a quasi-war.

Due to Frances’ response, Adams sent Elbridge Gerry and John Marshall to accompany Pinckney in Paris in an effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Quasi-war, and to restore trade among the two nations. However, the ministers would not be welcomed by the ministry without first paying three intermediaries – Jean Conrad Hottinguer ( X), Pierre Bellamy (Y), and Lucien Hauteval (Z), a large sum of money, money to the French Ministry, and a loan to the French government. The ministers refused to do so, and thus were not allowed discussions regarding peace. When word reached Adams, he was seething over the treatment of American ministers. He immediately requested that Congress make funds available for American defense in the event that war broke out. Congress gave Adams everything he asked for, allowing for defenses to be constructed, arming of merchant ships, and the building of a Navy.

During this time, Adams was very popular, and was riding high on a wave of patriotism not seen since the revolution. However, war fever caused him to support the alien and sedition acts, which violated the first amendment rights of Americans in limiting speech about the government and government officials. However, many prominent members of society, including George Washington, felt that it was beneficial that libelous publications and individuals be treated harshly. Pushback on the act was strong and led to a decrease in Adams overall approval. Fortunately for Adams, reactions were calmed by the fear of war and thus allowed him some grace that he would have been unlikely to receive at other times in history.

Another preparation for war was Adams' appointment of George Washington to commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Adams felt that Washington was the best suited American to fill this role, but his plans were soon hijacked by Alexander Hamilton when George Washington appointed him second in command. Adams was skeptical of Hamilton and felt that he was a “designing man.” Because of this, Adams did not want to see Hamilton in such a prominent place but was faced with little choice as Washington would not continue in the position without this arrangement. Adams' frustration at this was cooled by the news from Elbridge Gerry informing Adams that peace with France was possible, and the directory is willing to accept ministers from the US.

Despite the potential calm, Adams had Washington continue military buildup, in the event of war breaking out in earnest. In a final effort of peace, Adams appointed William Vans Murray to be minister plenipotentiary to France along with Oliver Ellsworth and William Davie as peace commissioners on October 16, 1799. The commissioners sailed for Paris on November 15, 1799.

In May of 1800 one of Adams' most difficult administrative issues came to a head in an explosive verbal tirade directed at Secretary of War James McHenry. Adams had felt that his cabinet (specifically McHenry and Pickering) frequently worked for the interest of Alexander Hamilton and the high federalists more than for himself or the nation. After this fiery meeting, Adams requests his resignation, as well as that of his secretary of state, Timothy Pickering. Adams felt that both were attempting to disrupt peace negotiations with France and hoped for all-out war - something he despised. With the termination of Pickering, Adams wisely selected John Marshall to serve as his new secretary of state.

Election of 1800

The election of 1800 was nothing like the prior three elections and showed errors in the American electoral system that were merely masked by the steadying presence of George Washington. With Washington's absence, party differences came to a head, leading to a cutthroat election. Hamilton, still angry about Adams' termination of Pickering and McHenry, worked tirelessly to end his career. Even releasing a pamphlet questioning his intelligence, character, and ability to serve. Hamilton's interference likely had a role in the final result of the election. The election results were tight with Jefferson and Aaron Burr receiving 73 votes, and Adams receiving 65.

This meant that Adams' career was effectively over. However, he received news in late 1800 that peace with Paris was achieved. This allowed Adams to exit office with a firm conscience that he had done his duty as president. Finally, in a last act as president, Adams made the controversial appointment of midnight judges and appointed John Marshall to the position of Chief Justice - replacing the resigning Oliver Ellsworth. Some of these appointments would not be maintained, but Adams' appointment of Marshall became one of the most important decisions of his career as it helped to shape the identity of the highest court in the nation.

John Adams departed Washington on March 4, 1801, never to return again as he left Thomas Jefferson to take the reins of government. Eventually after both men retired from politics, they began to correspond again, rekindling the friendship that grew in Philadelphia and Paris. Providentially, on July 4, 1826, John Adams died just hours after his friend Jefferson. The two men hoped to live to see one final Independence Day, to which they were both successful. On this day, America lost not one, but two of the greatest statesmen that have ever served the American public.

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

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

General George Meade After the Battle of Gettysburg

Major General George G. Meade, a Union general during the American Civil War, has a reputation that has been historically criticized and misunderstood. Despite his important contributions at the Battle of Gettysburg and his cautious approach to warfare, he faced criticism for not aggressively pursuing and defeating Lee's army. Lloyd W Klein explains.

Major General George Gordon Meade.

During the war, Meade’s poor relationships with the press of his time and his secondary role under Grant further damaged his post-war reputation. However, modern appraisals recognize his competence and tactical acumen, including his appreciation for advancements in weapons technology. Meade's campaigns after Gettysburg, such as the Fall 1863 campaigns and the Overland Campaign, showcased his abilities as a general. While Grant's strategy ultimately led to victory, Meade played a crucial role in positioning his army to implement Grant's vision and should be credited for his contributions to the Union's success. It doesn’t help that the Overland Campaign was directed by Grant and that his victory at Gettysburg is typically considered a one-off.  The misunderstanding of the Williamsport circumstance will probably never be repaired.

Meade took command of the Union Army just a few days before the Gettysburg battle. General Meade commanded the Union Army of the Potomac at the Battle of Gettysburg, and is regarded as a competent and capable general. Meade's leadership both preparing for and during the Battle of Gettysburg is often praised. He successfully organized his forces and made critical decisions that ultimately led to a Union victory in that significant battle. His strategic positioning and defensive preparations played a crucial role in repelling numerous Confederate attacks.

He faced Lee in two other campaigns in Fall 1863. They did not succeed.  For this, given that Grant won the war the year after, he is universally, but unfairly, criticized as another Union general hack. Yet few Civil War aficionados have studied these campaigns in much detail.

Meade was a competent general and a modest man. He was thorough, methodical and cautious; his engineering background had made him someone who planned his maneuvers carefully.

However, Meade's tenure as the overall commander of the Army of the Potomac was not without criticism. Some argue that he missed opportunities for more aggressive action and failed to decisively pursue and defeat General Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army after the Gettysburg victory. Additionally, his cautious approach in subsequent campaigns, such as the Mine Run Campaign, drew criticism from his superiors.

Overall, while Meade's leadership at Gettysburg demonstrated his ability as a competent general, opinions on his overall performance during the Civil War vary among historians and military experts. A great deal of the bias we today have against Meade has its origins in the Congressional Investigations after Gettysburg. We today have the impression that Grant was brought east to supervise Meade and we therefore think that Grant held him in contempt

His post bellum reputation was damaged by his poor relationships with the press of his time, and his secondary role under Grant in 1864. We today have the impression that Grant was brought east to supervise Meade and we therefore think that Grant held him in contempt. The damaging consequences of the controversy arising from Gettysburg with General Sickles has also been damaging. Modern appraisals recognize Meade’s important contributions at Gettysburg.  His tactics in the field were one of the few that showed an appreciation for the improvements in weapons technology in the war:  he entrenched when feasible and did not launch frontal assaults on fortified positions.

Gettysburg Aftermath: Williamsport

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, the retreating Confederate troops and ambulance train occupied Williamsport. The retreat required an active rear guard defense and was mainly carried out in the rain. ,Meade was widely criticized for failing to pursue aggressively and defeat Lee's army after Gettysburg. Although Lincoln and Stanton insisted on his following Lee, Meade may have been justified in not attempting a rapid pursuit.

At the three-day battle at Gettysburg, Meade's forces had suffered heavy casualties, and he needed time to regroup, reorganize, and resupply his army. The Army of the Potomac  (AoP) had sustained over 20,000 casualties including the loss of many of its best officers, including three corps commanders.  Attacking immediately after Gettysburg would have put additional strain on his troops and risked further losses.

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, the retreating Confederate troops and ambulance train occupied Williamsport. Expecting to cross over the pontoon bridge they had constructed to get to Maryland, Lee had not been informed that a cavalry raid on July 4 had destroyed the bridge. Moreover,  there had been many days of rain after the battle, causing the Potomac River to rise. The Confederate Army was therefore trapped by the impassible Potomac. Under the direction of Brig Gen John Imboden, during the Confederate retreat, the wagon trains with thousands of wounded soldiers were escorted back to Virginia., Lee had not reached the town until a couple of days after an important cavalry attack that Imboden defended against. Imboden successfully managed to retreat and gather his forces, despite harassment from Union cavalry, to create defensive works against Union assault. Imboden was assigned to leading the ambulances, subsistence trains and cattle plundered during the campaign back to Virginia, with the active army in the rear as protection. When Lee arrived in Williamsport, he found the bridge out, the fords impassable, and no way to get over the river.

Meade chose not  to attack Lee in his trenches, believing the position could not be successfully breached. Attacking a well-entrenched enemy in this defensive position across a wide open field would have been a highly risky endeavor, potentially resulting in heavy casualties for Meade's forces.

Thirdly, Meade faced logistical challenges and supply issues. His army relied on a long and stretched supply line, and engaging in a major offensive action immediately after Gettysburg would have put additional strain on the already taxed supply system. Meade needed time to replenish his ammunition, food, and other essential supplies before considering another large-scale attack.

Expecting to cross over the pontoon bridge they had constructed to get to Maryland, Lee had not been informed that a cavalry raid on July 4 had destroyed the bridge. Moreover,  there had been many days of rain after the battle, causing the Potomac River to rise. The Confederate Army was therefore trapped by the impassible Potomac. Imboden was assigned to leading the ambulances, subsistence trains and cattle plundered during the campaign back to Virginia, with the active army in the rear as protection. When he arrived in Williamsport, he found the bridge out, the fords impassable, and no way to get over the river.

Expecting an attack, Brigadier General John D. Imboden set up defensive positions along the crest of a ridge about one-half mile from Williamsport on July 6. Arriving at Williamsport, Imboden found the pontoon bridge destroyed, and Federal cavalry attacked the wagon train of wounded. On July 6, 1863, the Potomac River flooding at Williamsport, Maryland, trapped Imboden's wagon train. He put together a defensive force that included an artillery battery and as many of the wounded who could operate muskets.

Late in the afternoon of July 6, 1863, Union cavalry under the command of Brigadier General John Buford arrived east of Williamsport, flanking the town. Brigadier General Judson Kilpatrick took a different route that took him down the main road.  At sundown Union Brigadier General George A. Custer and his Michigan "Wolverines" arrived to fight but were quickly withdrawn.

By July 7, Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden stopped Brig. Gen. John Buford's Union cavalry from occupying Williamsport and destroying Confederate trains. On July 6, Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick's cavalry division drove two Confederate cavalry brigades through Hagerstown before being forced to retire by the arrival of the rest of Stuart's command.

On the morning of July 14, Kilpatrick's and Buford's cavalry divisions approached from the north and east respectively. Before allowing Buford to gain a position on the flank and rear, Kilpatrick attacked the rearguard division of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth, taking more than 500 prisoners. Confederate Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew was mortally wounded in the fight.

On July 16, Brig. Gen. David McM. Gregg's cavalry approached Shepherdstown where the brigades of Brig. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and John R. Chambliss, supported by Col. Milton J. Ferguson's brigade, held the Potomac River fords against the Union infantry. Fitzhugh Lee and Chambliss attacked Gregg, who held out against several attacks and sorties, fighting sporadically until nightfall, when he withdrew. Meade chose not  to attack Lee in his trenches, believing the position could not be successfully breached.

Congressional Investigation of Gettysburg

In a 1961 article, The Strange Reputation of General Meade, Edwin Coddington wrote that Sickles’ attacks on Meade “greatly contributed to an unfavorable opinion of him as a commanding general, which has persisted to this day.” Coddington concluded that, “Sickles’ persistence in continuing his feud long after Meade’s death in 1872 had deep and lasting effects on publicists and historians of the battle,” and that “Sickles achieved a large measure of success” in his campaign to sully Meade’s name.

When Meade denied a request by Sickles to return to command, Sickles sought revenge. In February 1864, he went before the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, a highly influential committee dominated by Radical Republicans, and gave distorted testimony that Meade had handled the army ineptly at Gettysburg—that the Union army had won a great victory despite Meade. Notably, Sickles alleged that on the battle’s second day Meade had been a coward, eager to retreat rather than fight.

The two most important witnesses against him were:

a) Major General Abner Doubleday supported Sickles’ egregious claims by testifying that Meade had played favorites in command assignments. Doubleday in particular was bitter that Meade had ignored army seniority and not promoted him to command of the 1st Corps after its commander, Maj. Gen. John Reynolds, was killed early on July 1—instead choosing Maj. Gen. John Newton as Reynolds’ replacement.

b) Hooker’s Chief of Staff, Daniel Butterworth, who Meade kept on during the battle of Gettysburg (remember, he had just 3 days to prepare!). Butterfield, a close friend of Sickles’ and Hooker’s, falsely testified about the claimed July 2 order to retreat. Sickles elevated his attack on Meade when he (or a close associate) penned an anonymous article by “Historicus” in the March 12, 1864, edition of The New York Herald, the nation’s largest newspaper. Historicus condemned Meade’s handling of Gettysburg while praising the brave and brilliant Sickles. The article claimed Meade had ordered his chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Butterfield, to prepare an order of retreat on July 2, the battle’s second day. The Historicus piece set off a firestorm, and stories of Meade’s alleged inadequacies appeared in papers nationwide.

The Joint Committee’s Radical Republicans wanted “Fighting Joe” Hooker back in command of the Army of the Potomac. The committee’s leaders, Chairman Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio and Senator Zachariah Chandler of Michigan, demanded Lincoln dismiss Meade even before he had an opportunity to testify. President Lincoln declined to order a Court of Inquiry. The president wanted Meade fighting Confederates, not a political conflict against a fellow general.

The Fall 1863 Campaigns

After the Battle of Gettysburg, General Robert E. Lee retreated back across the Potomac River to Virginia and concentrated behind the Rapidan River.  Early in September 1863, Lee dispatched two divisions of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's Corps to reinforce the Confederate Army of Tennessee for the Battle of Chickamauga. Meade knew that Lee had been weakened by the departure of Longstreet and wanted to take advantage. Meade advanced his army to the Rappahannock River in August, and on September 13 he moved the AoP forward to confront Lee along the Rapidan. Lee was occupying Culpeper, Virginia, following the Battle of Culpeper Court House. Meade planned to use his numerical superiority in a broad turning movement, similar to the one planned by Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker in the Battle of Chancellorsville that spring.

A traditional interpretation of this campaign is that Lee, despite having lost Longstreet’s Corps to the west, nevertheless beat Meade in the Bristoe Campaign. The reality is that on September 24 the Union split its forces as well, sending the XI and XII Corps to the Chattanooga campaign in Tennessee. It is interesting that this critical fact is rarely mentioned. Instead, the importance of Bristoe is nearly always depreciated. Its failure is often portrayed as the reason Grant was brought east, because its shows Meade to be too conservative to win.

In fact, four battles took place: Auburn, Bristoe Station, Buckland Mills, and Rappahannock Station. Every one of these is south of Manassas. Two are not far from Chancellorsville and the location of the Wilderness.

Lee knew of the departing Union corps, and early in October he began an offensive sweep around Cedar Mountain with his remaining two corps, attempting to turn Meade's right flank. Meade, despite having superior numbers, did not wish to give battle in a position that did not offer him the advantage and ordered a withdrawal along the line of the Orange and Alexandria Railroad.

Lee had been planning to go into winter quarters at Culpepper. Instead, he set up south of the Rapidan. In fact, the AoP occupied  Brandy Station and Culpepper that winter. Meade had escaped allowing a major battle in a disadvantageous location and Lee had lost ground. It was certainly inconclusive – because Meade saw the danger.

Lincoln and Stanton weren’t mollified by the lack of progress in the Bristoe Campaign and pressured Meade to do more. Meade responded by planning a march to strike the ANV south of the Rapidan. He had intelligence suggesting that Lee had made a miscalculation in his positioning. But an incredibly incompetent Union general and an outrageously courageous movement by a Confederate general saved the ANV after a brief but deadly conflict few appreciate. Traditional history suggests Meade was incompetent and ignores this action as having any importance, which is completely wrong: he almost had Lee trapped.

Meade actually planned a rapid movement just west of Chancellorsville and where the Wilderness would be the next Spring. In fact, the Union movements were in the same general vicinity.

Unfortunately, Maj. Gen. William H. French's III Corps got mired in fording the river at Jacob's Ford, causing traffic jams when they moved their artillery to Germanna Ford, where other units were attempting to cross.

Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson's division was marching along the Raccoon Ford Road to join Early when the head of Gen. French's III Corps made contact in the heavy wooded terrain along the Widow Morris Road. Johnson turned his division about and ordered what can only be described as a reckless double-envelopment assault against a mostly unseen enemy of unknown strength, throwing his 5,500 men against French and John Sedgwick's VI Corps (a combined 32,000).  The fact is, if Johnson had cleared the Widow Morris Road before the arrival of French and Sedgwick, or had been driven away in defeat, the 32,000 Federals could have marched behind Lee's left flank and into his rear.

This battle is called the Battle of Payne’s Farm. Theodore P. Savas, together with Paul Sacra of Richmond, Virginia, set out to locate and map the Payne's Farm battlefield in the early 1990s. Savas believed published articles and books had incorrectly located the fighting area and was determined to test his theory. Armed with extensive primary sources and battle reports, he and Sacra located what they believed was the field and, with the permission from several landowners, used metal detectors to prove it. Within a couple days Savas and Sacra had unearthed hundreds of artifacts, including bullets, a ramrod, bayonet socket, a partial harmonica, belt buckles, buttons, and much more.

Overland Campaign

Often in the telling of Grant’s brilliant strategy of 1864 and the Overland Campaign, one gets the impression that Meade had been so incompetent that he was starting almost from Washington, but the fact is, in early 1864, the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia faced each other across the Rapidan River. It was there because Meade had placed it there, and had fought for it to be there.

In the spring of 1864 Meade’s authority was superseded by the appointment of Ulysses S. Grant as general-in-chief of all Union armies. Although he was still technically the commander of the Army of the Potomac, Meade acted as Grant’s subordinate for the rest of the war.

In this capacity, Meade participated in Grant’s aggressive Overland Campaign of 1864, in which the Union army absorbed staggering casualties. Meade took part in in the Battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. He was also instrumental in the prolonged Siege of Petersburg (June 1864-March 1865), which was launched after Meade’s early assaults on the city resulted in heavy Union casualties.

Meade and Grant

In 1864, Grant was appointed as the overall commander of the Union armies and placed his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac, led by Meade. Grant had a high regard for Meade's military abilities and acknowledged his successes, but there were instances where their working dynamics faced challenges.

Grant and Meade had a complex working relationship. Initially, there were some tensions and miscommunications between the two, but over time they developed a professional rapport and worked together effectively.

Meade sometimes felt that Grant did not fully appreciate his contributions and achievements. There were instances where the press assigned to the Army of the Potomac focused more on Grant's role in successes, while downplaying Meade's contributions. This caused frustration for Meade, as he felt he was not given the credit he deserved.

Despite occasional disagreements, Grant and Meade maintained a functional working relationship. They shared the goal of winning the war and coordinated their efforts to achieve military success.

Grant made his headquarters with Meade for the remainder of the war. Following an incident in June 1864, Meade disciplined reporter Edward Cropsey from The Philadelphia Inquirer. He falsely reported that  Meade had wanted to retreat after the Battle of the Wilderness. All of the press assigned to the AoP agreed to mention Meade only in conjunction with setbacks. Meade apparently knew nothing of this arrangement, and the reporters giving all of the credit to Grant angered Meade.

Meade wrote to his wife:

“I had a visit today from General Grant, who was the first to tell me of the attack in the Times based upon my order expelling two correspondents. Grant expressed himself very much annoyed at the injustice done to me, which he said was glaring, because my order distinctly states that it was by his direction that these men were prohibited from remaining with the army. He acknowledged there was an evident intention to hold me accountable for all that was condemned and to praise him for all that was commendable.”

Nevertheless, Meade is frequently blamed for specific problems in the Overland Campaign. As the fighting reached Cold Harbor and Petersburg, Meade is blamed for not directing his men to scout properly prior to the former battle and failed to coordinate his corps properly in the opening stages of the latter. During the siege of Petersburg, Meade again erred altering the attack plan for the Battle of the Crater for political reasons. But it is known that Grant approved these plans.

Grant issued orders to Meade who in turn issued them to the army. 

Meade, despite his aggressive performance in lesser commands in 1862, had become a more cautious general and more concerned about the futility of attacking entrenched positions. Most of the bloody repulses his army suffered in the Overland Campaign were ordered by Grant, although the aggressive maneuvering that eventually cornered Lee in the trenches around Petersburg were Grant's initiative as well.

Without question, Grant’s strategy won the war. Without doubt, Grant made the tough decisions and took the criticism of the heavy casualties.  But it was Meade who made Grant’s strategic plan a reality, being the commander who positioned his army to operationalize Grant’s vision.

Conclusion

General Meade was a thorough, methodical man as would be expected of a professional military man and engineer.

What do you think of the General George Meade? Let us know below.

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

Suggested Reading

• Brown, Kent Masterson. Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2005.

• Nugent M, Petruzzi JD, Wittenberg EJ. One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, July 4 - 14, 1863. Savas Beattiem 2011.

• Coddington, Edwin. The Gettysburg Campaign. Morningside Bookshop, 1979.

• Sears, Steven W. Gettysburg. Mariner Books, 2004.

• Woodruff, Joshua D. The Impact of Logistics on General Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1083715

Why are China and Taiwan even Separate? A Tale of Two Chinas - Part 2

A rival nationalist government formed on the island of Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War in 1949. This separation from the communist controlled mainland China has been a source of International tension ever since. Here, Victor Gamma looks at how and why mainland China separated from Taiwan. He continues the series by looking at the Chinese Civil War and how China and Taiwan grew apart.

Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong meeting in 1945 in Chongqing, China.

Initially the political left (communist) & right (nationalist) wings of the KMT continued to cooperate in the United Front. But it wasn’t long before the conflict which would ultimately lead to the current China-Taiwan conflict began. On May 30, 1925, a crowd of Chinese students in Shanghai staged an anti-foreign protest at the International Settlement at Shanghai. The incident turned deadly when the Shanghai Municipal Police opened fire on the protesters. This sparked outrage throughout China, including the Canton/Hong Kong Strike. The CCP reaped the greatest benefit from these events and attracted many members. Conservatives and moderates grew alarmed at the growing power of the leftists. Right and left also clashed over policy: the left pushed the strike while the Nationalists wanted to end the strike because much of their financial support was coming from foreign trade. Moreover, Chiang was trying to consolidate his control in anticipation of the coming campaign to unify China and did not want political disunity in the ranks. For this reason, as well as suspicion of a possible communist take-over of the Nationalist movement, on March 20, in what is called the Canton Coup, he purged communist elements from the Nationalist army. Chiang moved to limit the fallout from the purge by taking actions to conciliate the Soviets and the remaining leftists. He still desired Soviet support as well as help from the CCP for the campaign fight against the warlords.  

Shortly thereafter, Chiang launched his long - awaited campaign against the warlords. By March, 1927 Chiang had taken Nanjing. Here the fall of the city was accompanied by widespread looting and rioting with foreign warships bombarding the city. This led to conflict between Nationalists and communists. Chiang believed that the Russians and communists instigated the riots and stirred up anti-foreign feelings deliberately to increase their own power and weaken the KMT. Therefore, on April 12, 1927 he ordered the violent purging of communists in Shanghai. This marked the official beginning of all-out war against the communists and the start of the Chinese Civil War. In addition to Nanjing, the nationalist government had moved to Wuhan. Here leftists took control, acting largely independent of Chiang’s authority. By April the Wuhan government had gone beyond that to actually acting against Chiang. They issued a series of edicts reducing Chiang’s authority. They also began to construct a parallel government in KMT territory.  Chiang clearly could not move forward against the warlords and felt it necessary to halt his advance in order to deal with the communists. This marks a pattern which appeared throughout Chiang’s career; no matter how great the problem, he always placed the communists or internal threats as his greatest threat and would cease all other operations to deal with them. And so in the spring of 1927, he halted the anti-warlord campaign and violently turned on the communists. He began with a purge of communists in Shanghai. 

On August 1, 1927, the Communist Party launched an uprising in Nanchang against the Nationalist government in Wuhan. Around 20,000 communist members of the Kuomintang revolted and took over the city of Nanchang. This incident is called the Nanchang uprising. It resulted in the formation of the People Liberation Army and is still celebrated today as “Army Day.” Ultimately, however, the communists withdrew into a remote location to rebuild their strength. Chiang launched several offensives in an attempt to destroy the communists once and for all, but they managed to elude his pursuing armies to reach the safety of a remote city in Shaanxi Province called Yenan. Once settled in their new base, the communists carried an intensive training and indoctrination program to “correct unorthodox tendencies,” mold the peasantry into the communist model and become an effective force.

Anti-communism

Scholars have debated the reasons that Chiang turned on the communists. There are multiple reasons. Chiang was a reformer but also a traditionalist. Although recognizing the need for modernization, he was deeply connected to the past. He was, in fact, a neo-Confucianist. He was an ardent admirer of Tseng Guo Fan, the 19th century paragon of Confucian virtue. In addition to that, like Chiang, Tseng also was involved in leading the government forces in restoring unity to China through quelling the Taiping Rebellion. One of Tseng’s superiors said  “Taiping Rebellion is a disease of the heart, Russia is a disease of the elbow and axilla, England is a disease of skin; We should exterminate Taiping first, then Russia and England.” Chiang repeated this phrase almost word for word in an interview years later, substituting “Taiping” with “communist” - “Remember, the Japanese are a disease of the skin, but the communists are a disease of the soul.” He was alarmed at ideologies that he felt threatened traditional Chinese culture. Chiang had a chance to observe a communist regime up close when he was in Russia for training and rejected it as an appropriate system of government for China. He felt it to be an alien ideology that undermined Chinese traditions. He attempted to unify China both politically and ideologically. Part of his ideological effort would become the “New Life Movement.” This would be a civic campaign that promoted confucian values as well as cultural reform. It was partly launched as a counter to communist ideology. He also was not interested in sharing power. He believed one of China’s greatest needs at this time was one leader firmly in control. The communists had demonstrated that they would not submit to Chiang. One of the first objectives the communists focused on when they gained power in Wuhan during the Northern Expedition, for instance, was an attempt to strip Chiang of his power.

World War II

The state of civil war continued until 1937, when the Japanese invasion forced the two sides into the Second United Front for the duration of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937- 45) Although technically allies in the struggle against Japan, the Front never functioned as a firm alliance, even at times resembling more a hostile competition than an alliance. In practice, though, cooperation between the two factions was minimal. Chiang, in fact, instead of an aggressive strategy against the Japanese, hoarded his forces for the post-war showdown with the communists.

At the end of World War II, although technically on the winning side, the Nationalists were psychologically the losers in the eyes of many Chinese, especially peasants. They were seen as putting more energy into trying to exterminate the communists than fighting the rapacious foreign invader. Some even blamed Chiang for Japanese depredations by using forces against his internal political foes that could have been used against the Japanese. Chiang, in fact, had to be forced at gunpoint to agree to the Second United Front in the first place. Even before the guns fell silent in 1945, he had lost the war for the hearts and minds of the peasants, who were 90% of the population. His alliance with the mercantile and landowning class helped tie Chiang to conservatism. He had little understanding of the plight of the peasants.  His communist rivals, meantime, worked feverishly and brilliantly to build a powerful following, based largely on peasant support. This included a military force that numbered into the 600,000 range by 1945. While Chiang’s Nationalist movement was riddled with corruption and lack of real reform, the communists won the hearts and minds of vast numbers through the training, land reform and fierce, consistent commitment to the struggle against Japan and whatever injustice the peasants had been traditionally subjected to.

In 1945 both Nationalist and communist forces accepted the surrender of Japanese forces. Sovereignty had been restored, but not unity. Both Chiang and Mao knew that the long-awaited showdown was about to commence. After a brief period of post-war cooperation, the old animosities erupted into civil war again. This time, the communists were the winners. The Nationalists retreated to Taiwan but never surrendered, just as the communists had refused to surrender despite a succession of defeats in the late 1920’s and 1930’s.

After the Civil War

For some time after the Nationalists fled to Taiwan both sides insisted that they were only the official government of China. A strict policy of no contact  followed. Chiang reformed the corrupt Nationalist Party and, with American aid, set Taiwan on the path of economic modernization and growth. After Chiang’s death in 1975, political reforms also took place. By the 1990’s, Taiwan was not only an economic powerhouse but full-fledged democracy. Meanwhile, Taiwan has largely given up its claim to the mainland. In 1991 Taiwan declared that the war with the PRC was over. 

In 2000 Taiwan transitioned to a multi-party democracy when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidency. Although the KMT is still important, it now shares power with other parties. The DPP backs full independence so Beijing viewed the election results with alarm. The PRC backed up its disapproval with the "anti-secession law." The law flatly states that Beijing will use force if Taiwan "secedes" by declaring full independence. The DPP returned to power as Tsai Ing-wen, became Taiwan's first female president in 2016. More importantly for the mainland, she is a firm supporter of independence. In words that are sure NOT to warm the heart of Beijing, Tsai declared "Choosing Tsai Ing-wen... means we choose our future and choose to stand with democracy and stand with freedom."   

China has offered a "one country, two systems" scenario in which Taiwan would enjoy significant autonomy while still under Beijing's control. The mainland also would promise not to use force in resolving the issue. Taiwan turned down the proposal.

Differences

Why doesn't Taiwan want to be under Beijing's control?  it has seemed that the two Chinas have drawn closer together, for example beginning in the 1970s the mainland began economic reforms thus it seemed was becoming more similar to Taiwan. However, the mainland did not change the political one-party state and authoritarian regime which is not a democracy. Taiwan, along with the whole world, watched the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre. Hong Kong was promised a "one country, two systems" arrangement in 1997 as China prepared to take back the British Colony. Included was a 50 year promise that Hong Kong would enjoy its capitalist system as well as political freedoms. In 2020, though, Beijing cracked down on basic freedoms with a Security Act that allows the government to punish or silence critics or dissenters. As of this writing, well over a hundred individuals have been arrested for political reasons. Taiwan at one time was an authoritarian dictatorship, it has now diverged even more from communism, evolving into now a free market and a genuine democracy. 

This contemporary dispute reflects China's painful journey from its time-honored ways of old to modernity. A struggle for stability and prosperity and self-respect consumed that nation in the 20th Century. This journey involved the fundamental question of how China should be organized: the nationalist/traditionalist view - which eventually evolved into today's democratic Taiwan, and the communist (with a semi-capitalist economy) vision, now ruling the mainland. These two paths represent the right and left ideologically, one which looked to the West and its liberal traditions and traditional Chinese culture and the other which turned to distinctly antiliberal doctrines of Marx and hostility towards the past. These two approaches struggled over who's vision would succeed. In a sense, then, this struggle has never truly ended and continues to threaten global stability. The world watches to see how far Beijing will go in achieving its goal of one China. 

What do you think of the China and Taiwan separation? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s article on the explosive history of the bikini here.

References

CHIANG ATTACKS WARLORDS AND REDS - 11. Chiang Attacks Warlords and Reds

Timeline: Taiwan’s road to democracy - Timeline: Taiwan's road to democracy | Reuters

Manipulating the Masses: A Brief History (and Future) of Propaganda

The essence of propaganda is to spread a manipulated message with the aim of influencing the masses. The truth is not the most important thing here.  Over the centuries the tools for making and spreading propaganda have changed quite a bit, but the goal has always remained the same: to influence as many people as possible. Bram Peters explains.

British World War One recruiting poster, 1914.

Already in Roman times, the emperors used propaganda to spread the message throughout the empire who held the power. Roman emperors had themselves portrayed on coins to reach as many citizens as achievable.  In a time without the modern mass media as we know them today, this was quite an effective way to circulate information within an empire the size of the United States (the Mediterranean Sea included). This method is even used to this day: many countries have their heads of state printed on their coins or bills.

The disintegration of the Roman Empire in the early Middle Ages resulted in much more locally oriented society. Cities themselves minted their own coins.  However, the invention of the printing press in the late Middle Ages gave propagandists a whole new opportunity to spread their message.  Texts no longer had to be copied by hand, but could instead be produced by machines.  In addition, the message was proclaimed in the vernacular instead of Latin. This made it possible to reach a much larger audience.

The industrial revolution gave a huge boost to paper production.  With the use of steam engines and the switch from cottonpaper to pulppaper, production costs fell significantly and more people than ever had access to printed information.

20th century

In the twentieth century other mass media made their appearance: radio and film. Sound and motion picture could now be used to spread propaganda.  The Nazi regime is an excellent example of a government that has been able to make optimal use of new technologies.  Famous are the speeches of the specially appointed Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, which the whole country could follow on cheap radios provided by the regime. Citizens could watch propaganda films in cinemas that aimed to influence the masses.  Much attention was paid to national symbolism (with a special role for flags), military parades, cheering crowds worshiping Hitler and theatrical music. In the second half of the twentieth century, the role of film was increasingly taken over by television.  From now on propaganda came straight into the living room.

The Internet made its appearance at the end of the century, revolutionizing the way messages are conveyed to the general public.  Although initially still a fairly static medium, in the twenty-first century the internet has evolved into a platform where new digital technologies have forever changed the way propaganda is created and used.  Smart algorithms offer users personalized content based on their search behaviour.  Manipulation of images in combination with the framing of information has led to the emergence of reporting referred to as fake news.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used to generate deep fake videos capable of making people say things they have never said.  Thanks to AI, anyone with relatively little knowledge can spread propaganda that reaches the entire world. The line between what is real and what is not has become more blurred than ever.

Propaganda has been a way of influencing people for thousands of years.  Propaganda makers want to convince their target group and do not  take the truth too seriously.  What has changed throughout history are the possibilities to reach an ever larger public. With the rise of the internet, the whole world now is the audience.  At the same time, AI is more than ever creating the dilemma of what is real and what isn’t. It is of great importance that young generations learn the purpose of propaganda and how to recognize it.  Who made something and for what reason? Examples from the past can therefore be useful to study. In a time where it is easier than ever to manipulate everything, we all should take an extra critical look at the information presented to us.

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

Now read Bram’s article on an approach to racism and Black Pete here.

About the author: Bram Peters is an historian from the Netherlands. He has a MA in political history from one of the major Dutch universities, and specialized in national identity and traditions, as well as parliamentary history, the second world war and war propaganda. He worked for years as a curator at one of the largest war museums in the Netherlands. He likes to get involved in public debate by writing articles for national and regional newspapers and websites.

The Legacy of 19th Century American Military Leader George Custer

Lieutenant Colonel George Custer played a role during the American Civil War on the Union’s side. However, he is most famous for his engagements with the Plains People in the American West. Here, Olivia Jacobs, in her debut article for the site, explores Custer’s legacy.

George Armstrong Custer in the mid-1860s.

Introduction

One of the United States' most notable military figures is Lieutenant Colonel George Custer. His legacy is gilded with themes of Manifest Destiny and the romanticization of the American West. In the past, Custer has been painted as a great hero who sacrificed his life to defend America, and Western media have idolized his story. He has been depicted in at least twenty films beginning in 1912 with the silent film Custer's Last Fight. Many of these depictions portray the lieutenant colonel as the gallant hero that the history books have described him. However, a shadow has been cast on him in a select few pieces of American media.

The musical legend and staple of American culture, Johnny Cash, performed a song called Custer. It details the unspoken dark parts of Custer's story. His likeness is also used in the Dreamworks film Spirit; Stallion of the Cimarron. Unlike most depictions of Custer, the character, only referred to as "The Colonel," is a significant antagonist of the children's film. However, as the character is not referred to by name, it is clear to older audiences who The Colonel should be.

Simply by analyzing the media of Colonel Custer, it is clear that his reputation is hyper-complex. By diving into his military career and reading first-hand experiences of both his friends and victims, historians have attempted to sort out Custer's morality. Despite these efforts, however, the water remains murky.

George Custer's legacy began in 1861 when Custer enlisted in the Union Cavalry. He was present for significant battles, including the most famous American Civil Conflict, Gettysburg. By 1865, Custer had distinguished himself as a successful military man, even finding himself at the surrender of the Confederate military. He earned the Brigadier General rank and supported the Union Army at the Appomattox Court House (Wert 225).

Custer and the Plains People

By mid-1866, Custer was appointed Lieutenant Colonel of the Seventh Cavalry Regiment. Up until 1868, he found himself on the frontier and scouting duty. Later that year, Custer raided the territory of the Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle. The conflict is commonly known as the Battle of Washita River; this 'victory' caused casualties to the Cheyenne peoples and forced a significant portion of their territory under American Control (Hardoff 30).

The Battle of Washita River was not uncommon, as during this age, the United States government was driving people away from their ancestral land in hopes of eradicating the traditions and cultures that differed from their narrative of white greatness. Despite the unfortunate commonality of Custer's actions, he was set on the Plains people like a rabid dog.

Custer's most popularized military feat is the Battle of Little Bighorn. Many films, including the very first, Custer's Last Fight, depict the events of Little Bighorn. However, much of this conflict is shrouded in mystery. What is known is that with the help of the Crow People, the Seventh Cavalry identified a significant encampment. Said encampment consisted of recorded history's most considerable convergence of Plains Peoples. Members of the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho peoples had gathered together to oppose the American government.

On June 25, 1876, Custer divided his forces into two groups. Five companies remained with Custer, while the others were entrusted to Marcus Reno. His tactics at Little Bighorn were similar to his actions at the Battle of Washita River. The strategy consisted of using non-combats as hostages to force the 'hostiles' into submission. These non-combats would typically consist of women, children, elders, and disabled members of the community.

The intention was for Reno's team to lure the active combatants away from the encampment, and Custer would flank the encampment to kidnap the unarmed innocents. Unfortunately for the Seventh Cavalry, they grossly underestimated the size of the indigenous forces. Their presence was also already known by the occupants of Little Bighorn. Due to this, Reno's companies were forced to form a skirmish line instead of luring the warriors away. Marcus Reno's forces could not hold the line and were forced to withdraw as at least five hundred furious Plains warriors counterattacked (Perrett 8).

After taking control of the non-combats, Custer was supposed to reinforce Reno's team, but they have yet to make it that far. At this point, it needs to be clarified on the precise details. What historians do know for sure is that Custer and all of his companies were successfully wiped out. The other details come from the oral accounts told by indigenous survivors.

An Apsáalooke Crow woman, Pretty Shield, recounted that Custer died while attempting to ford the river of Little Bighorn. She remarks seeing the multiple white men in blue attire attempting to cross the river. Pretty Shield's story is countered by the story of Chief Gall, a Lakota, who claimed that Custer did not attempt to ford the river. Chief Gall stated that Custer died near the famous Custer Hill. Other Lakota people corroborate Gall's story, also present at Little Bighorn (Michno 284-285).

The exact circumstances of Custer's idolized death are foggy; however, when his remains were found, Custer had two bullet wounds. There was a bullet in his skull and a bullet in his chest. To make the story more complex, some historians suspect that the wound on the left side of his skull indicates assisted suicide. Current speculation suggests that the right-handed Custer was fatally shot in the chest, and one of his men shot him in the head shortly after. However, that is only speculation, and the Lakota narrative claims that Custer was shot off his horse (Brininstool 60-62).

Frustratingly, events after Reno and Custer split ways are mostly speculation, as the survivor stories do not align. Even the exact location of the encampment and the subsequent is uncertain. Custer's death via gunfire and the length of the conflict (under an hour) is clear to modern-day historians (Graham 88)

The Legacy

In less than a week after George Custer's death, he was immortalized by the American newspapers. The New York Times ran an article titled Massacre of Our Troops, thrusting the hero narrative into Custer's lap (New York Times 1). He was romanticized as a gallant hero who sacrificed himself to protect United States territory.

His wife, Elizabeth Custer, was said to have insisted that her late husband was a war hero and heavily pushed the popular narrative. Her efforts were solidified when the painting Custer's Last Fight by Cassilly Adams circulated throughout the continental United States. Budweiser Beer reproduced the painting from 1888 as a branding effort, further popularizing the Custer story.

George Custer's legacy held firm until World War II, as distrust and skepticism in the government rose in the West. Historians began to dig beyond the gilded legacy, bringing light to the reality of Custer's actions. Undeniably, Custer and his men were active participants in eradicating the Indigenous populations. However, the toxic legacy is not the fault of Custer. Although those around him described Custer as glory-hungry, he did not spread his narrative. He can and should be faulted for the atrocities committed by his hand, but the heroic idolization can not be blamed on Custer.

Conclusion

Lieutenant Colonel George Custer was seared into the American history books regardless of if he was a hero or a hedonist. To readjust the scales, stories about Crow woman Pretty Shield or Cheyenne man Chief Black Kettle deserve to be immortalized. The fantasy of American greatness and the "sacrifice" of Custer comes at the cost of ancient cultures deeply rooted in the land. The stories of victims deserve to be known and reach far beyond Custer's untruthful blaze of glory.

What do you think of Lieutenant Colonel George Custer’s legacy? Let us know below.

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

References

Brininstool, Earl A. Troopers with Custer : Historic Incidents of the Battle of the Little BigHorn. Stackpole Books, 1994. p. 60–62.

Graham, William A. The Custer Myth : A Source Book of Custeriana. Stackpole Books, 1986. p. 88.

Hardorff, Richard G. Washita Memories: Eyewitness Views of Custer's Attack on Black Kettle's Village. University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. p. 30.

Linderman, Frank B., et al. Pretty-Shield: Medicine Woman of the Crows. University of Nebraska Press, 1931. pp. 135-136.

Michno, Gregory F. Lakota Noon, the Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat. Mountain Press, 1996. pp. 284-285.

Perrett, Bryan. Last Stand: Famous Battles Against the Odds. Arms & Armour, 1993. p. 8.

Taft, Robert. "The Pictorial Record of the Old West 4." Kansas Historical Society, www.kshs.org/p/the-pictorial-record-of-the-old-west-4/13042. Accessed 27 May 2023.

The New York Times. "MASSACRE OF OUR TROOPS.; FIVE COMPANIES KILLED BY INDIANS.GEN." The New York Times, 6 Jul. 1876, p. 1.

Wert, Jeffry D. Custer: The Controversial Life of George Armstrong Custer. Simon & Schuster, 1996. p. 225.

How did a Bunch of Farmers Beat the Most Powerful Military in the World?

The American Revolution sent shockwaves around the world, but how did the rebel Americans beat the British, arguably the most powerful military in the world at the time? Richard Bluttal explains by looking British weaknesses and American strengths.

A painting entitled The Battle of Long Island. By 21st century artist Domenick D'Andrea.

“The time is now near…” wrote Commander-in-Chief George Washington, which will “…determine whether Americans are to be Freemen or Slaves.” Over the course of the Revolutionary War, as many as 400,000 men from the ages of 16 to 60 fought against the British—about 25,000 gave their lives. Basic training was short, rations inadequate, and pay was poor. Some enlisted out of patriotism, some joined for the adventure, and others were drafted. Length of service varied from a few months to the duration of the war. Leaders like Washington soon discovered that instilling discipline and keeping an army of volunteers on the battlefield and off the wheat field (many soldiers were farmers who returned home during harvests without permission) was no easy feat. In 1778, the royal army consisted of nearly 50,000 regular troops combined with over 30,000 German (Hessian) mercenaries. George Washington, in contrast, never had more than 20,000 troops under his command at any one time. Most of these American soldiers were young (ranging in age from their early teens to their mid-20s), landless, unskilled, and poor. Others were indentured servants and slaves who were serving as substitutes for their masters and had been promised freedom at the war's end. Also in the Continental army were many women who cared for the sick and wounded, cooked, mended clothes, buried the dead, and sometimes served in combat.

The British seemed unbeatable. During the previous 100 years, the British had enjoyed triumph after triumph over nations as powerful as France and Spain. At first glance, the odds were clearly against the Americans. A closer look provides insight into how the underdogs emerged victorious.

Britain's military was the best in the world. Their soldiers were well equipped, well disciplined, well paid, and well fed. The British navy dominated the seas. Funds were much more easily raised by the Empire than by the Continental Congress. Some of those funds were used to hire Hessian mercenaries to fight the Americans.

The Americans had tremendous difficulty raising enough funds to purchase basic supplies for their troops, including shoes and blankets. The British had a winning tradition. Around one in five Americans openly favored the Crown, with about half of the population hoping to avoid the conflict altogether. Most Indian tribes sided with Britain, who promised protection of tribal lands.

So, we ask the question, how was it possible that the Americans could defeat the British. It certainly was a long shot, let’s see.

BRITISH WEAKNESSES

The British fought a war far from home. Military orders, troops, and supplies sometimes took months to reach their destinations. The British had an extremely difficult objective.  Distance was a huge, huge factor. And it wasn’t just about getting orders across the ocean. The British supply chain was simply too long. They could only compensate by looting the local people—which certainly didn’t help the public opinion of “the King’s men.” They had to persuade the Americans to give up their claims of independence. As long as the war continued, the colonists' claim continued to gain validity. The geographic vastness of the colonies proved a hindrance to the British effort. Another weakness of the British army was fighting on the wooded and hilly terrain of the American colonies. The British sought flat, open ground so that they could fight in the European style they were accustomed to, with lines of men blasting away at each other with muskets from 50-75 yards. (Although the British had defeated the French in the French and Indian War, their most crucial victory had been at Quebec, on the Plains of Abraham, where the two foes battled as they might have in France). American soldiers were much more willing to fight from concealment and retreat to fight another day, leaving the British, their supply lines growing ever attenuated and more perilous, chasing after them.

The British had just fought a difficult war with the French and their native American allies in the French and Indian War. The cost to Britain was enormous. There were constant debates in the British Parliament about the funding of this new conflict, thousands of miles from the homeland.

A related weakness for the British was the fact that it was difficult for the government to recruit men into the army, since there was no military draft, and few able-bodied British men wanted the hard and dangerous life of the army overseas. In order to fulfill Gen. William Howe’s wish for 50,000 men to defeat the colonials, the British government was forced to turn to German mercenaries from the then-province of Hesse-Cassell (whom the Americans therefore called Hessians). Thirty-thousand British and Hessian troops were in fact sent to North America 1776, but since mercenaries felt no loyalty beyond a paycheck, they were prone to desertion.

Another weakness of the British, especially at the outset of the war, was its disdain for the colonial fighters it was facing – Burgoyne would famously call the Americans “a rabble in arms" -- and be defeated by them at the battle of Saratoga. Gen. Thomas Gage, commanding 2,200 British soldiers at the Battle of Bunker Hill (really Breed’s Hill) in June of 1775, sent his men in frontal charges against this “rabble,” only to see the American stand their ground and kill or wound half of the British forces. Finally, the British faced a failure in coordinating strategic objectives -- their commanders, King George III and his ministers in England, were never quite on the same page as to the best way to defeat the Americans, in part because the same distances that made resupply difficult kept communication uncertain and lacking in timeliness.

AMERICAN STRENGTHS

With so many Americans undecided, the war became in great measure a battle to win popular support. If the patriots could succeed in selling their ideas of revolution to the public, then popular support might follow and the British would be doomed.

Even with military victory, it would have been impossible for the Crown to regain the allegiance of the people. Revolution would merely flare up at a later date.

In the long run, however, the patriots were much more successful attracting support. American patriots won the war of propaganda. Committees of Correspondence persuaded many fence-sitters to join the patriot cause. Writings such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" stirred newfound American nationalism.

As to the war strategy, the Native American allies taught the Americans a whole different kind of warfare, guerrilla or snake warfare. The greatest use of guerrilla warfare during the American Revolution took place during the Southern Campaign. Led by American general, Nathanael Greene, and aided by Baron Friedrich von Steuben, guerrilla warfare was used extensively in the later years of the war. In the forests of the South, Greene was able to draw British forces away from their supplies and then engage them with small fighting units in order to inflict damage. By dividing his forces, Greene was able to spread his soldiers across a wider area. As a result, British General Charles Cornwallis and the Southern detachment of the British Army often found extreme difficulty finding the Americans and successfully contending with them in skirmishes. Also, the Americans knew the country. They’d been fighting the Indians (sometimes accompanied by the French) for decades before the Revolution. They knew how to take advantage of terrain, and they did. And then, of course, you had the backwoodsmen, who generally had Kentucky rifles—which were an entirely different order of weapon from the smoothbore Brown Bess muskets the British had: they shot longer and straighter. Now if you’re a Patriot in a buckskin jacket, lying in the brush and aiming at a block of men wearing bright red coats in the woods, crammed together in Napoleonic squares (which was how European armies fought even before Napoleon), trying to shoot from daylight into shadow… who do you think is going to hit the target? Was this why the Americans were called ragtag soldiers?

Many politicians were calling this group of colonists, ragtag soldiers. I think James Volo (MA in Military History and Wars, American Military University) addresses this concept of ragtag soldiers very well. “The American were not a rag-tag bunch of farmers. They had been exposed to and part of the defensive forces of the several colonies since their founding. Most of the soldiers who fought for the English colonies prior to the final cataclysm of the French and Indian War were colonials. Only after 1759 were large numbers of regulars sent to the English colonies. However, these colonials were not formed into a simple citizen army but rather were regular provincial troops—formed into regiments and paid by the colony. From this point provincial regiments were established to replace the less formal militia units in major operations. In many colonies they became permanent organizations known as the Governor's Foot Guard, or Horse Guard. In later times, they became the Royal Americas or the Queen's Rangers. There remains in America the cherished romantic concept of the militia as "minutemen," a mythical army of self-trained and self-armed warriors springing from the colonial soil in times of trouble. This is not completely true. Most of the American officer of the Revolution — like Washington himself — had been officers or NCOs in the French Wars, and many of the Rev War NCOs (excepting the youngest) had served as soldiers in that war — Putnam, Stephen, Hazen, Pomeroy, Wooster, Stuart, Schuyler. Virginia established a system of paid, mounted rangers in the 17th century of almost 1,000 men. They patrolled the frontiers, held down depredations, and tried to keep abreast of the attitudes of the natives for a century. The New England colonies established a similar but less extensive system of rangers along their northern borders in the French and Indian War to protect the outlying settlers from the ravages of sudden attack. The best-known group of rangers was that raised by Robert Rogers from among the tough woodsmen of the New Hampshire frontier. Israel Putnam, one of the later and now a general in the American Revolution, had helped to inform the establishment of British Light Infantry. The British at the end of the war could not believe that a bookseller (Knox), and blacksmith (Greene) and a tavern keeper (Putnam) had beaten them.“

AVOIDING A KNOCK-OUT BLOW

Washington's strategy of avoiding large-scale confrontations with the royal army made it impossible for the British to deliver a knock-out blow. Only once during the Revolution (at Charleston, S.C. in 1780) did an American army surrender to British forces.

The direct assistance of France and Spain, and the indirect assistance of the Dutch was of great importance to the revolution. It also gave the Americans a fighting chance against the Royal Navy, battles like Penobscot proved that the Americans hadn’t much of a chance against the British navy. However, the intervention of French and Spanish navies changed this. The Americans also had the help of privateers. With the French and Spanish against them as well, Britain ended up fighting a war that they couldn’t win. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington’s forces in Virginia. French assistance was crucial in securing the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. Prior to the onset of the American Revolution, the original 13 colonies had no real naval force other than an abundance of merchant vessels that were engaged in domestic and foreign trade. The colonies' merchant service had vast experience with the open sea and with warfare, which included British naval expeditions against Cartagena, Spain, and Nova Scotia during the nine years of war with France (1754–1763). Thus, the importance of naval power was recognized early in the conflict. On 13 October 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the Continental Navy and established the U.S. Marine Corps on 10 November. By 1776, the colonies had 27 warships—in contrast to the powerful Royal British Navy, which had about 270 warships. Also problematic was that American commanders were often confronted by sailors and Marines who had not been adequately trained and lacked discipline.

Perhaps the single most important reason for the patriot victory was the breadth of popular support for the Revolution. The Revolution would have failed miserably without the participation of thousands of ordinary farmers, artisans, and laborers who put themselves into the line of fire. The Revolution's support cut across region, religion, and social rank. Common farmers, artisans, shopkeepers, petty merchants were major actors during the Revolution. Ex-servants, uneducated farmers, immigrants, and slaves emerged into prominence in the Continental Army.

The growth of popular participation in politics began even before the Revolution. In the years preceding the war, thousands of ordinary Americans began to participate in politics--in non-importation and non-exportation campaigns, in anti-Tory mobs, and in committees of correspondence linking inland villages and seaports. Many men joined groups like the Sons of Liberty to protest British encroachments on American liberties. Many women took the lead in boycotts of British goods; they also took up the spinning wheel to produce homespun clothes. During the Revolution itself, some 400,000 Americans, including at least 5,000 African Americans, served in the fighting for at least some time.

CONCLUSION

The Revolution had momentous consequences. It created the United States. It transformed a monarchical society, in which the colonists were subjects of the Crown, into a republic, in which they were citizens and participants in the political process. The Revolution also gave a new political significance to the middling elements of society-- artisans, merchants, farmers, and traders--and made it impossible for elites to openly disparage ordinary people.

Above all, the Revolution popularized certain radical ideals--especially a commitment to liberty, equality, government of the people, and rule of law. However, compromised in practice, these egalitarian ideals inspired a spirit of reform. Slavery, the subordination of women, and religious intolerance--all became problems in a way that they had never been before.

The Revolution also set into motion larger changes in American life. It inspired Americans to try to reconstruct their society in line with republican principles. The Revolution inspired many Americans to question slavery and other forms of dependence, such as indentured servitude and apprenticeship. By the early 19th century, the northern states had either abolished slavery or adopted gradual emancipation plans. Meanwhile, white indentured servitude had virtually disappeared.

What do you think of American strengths and British weaknesses during the American Revolution? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s series of articles on trauma and medicine during war, starting with the American Revolution here.

Why are China and Taiwan even Separate? A Tale of Two Chinas - Part 1

A rival nationalist government formed on the island of Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War in 1949. This separation from the communist controlled mainland China has been a source of International tension ever since. Here, Victor Gamma looks at how and why mainland China separated from Taiwan. He starts by looking at early 20th century China.

A 1920s portrait of Sun Yat-sen.

When Vladimir Putin recently claimed that Taiwan belonged to the People's Republic of China (PRC), he triggered a withering rebuke from Taipei. In response to Putin's remarks, the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs fired back, "the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) is an independent, sovereign nation… The ROC and the autocratic PRC are not subordinate to each other. The regime of the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled over Taiwan for one day and does not enjoy any sovereignty over Taiwan'' …The future of Taiwan can only be determined by the Taiwanese people and Taiwan will never surrender to any threats from the PRC government.”

The communist (PRC) regime, on the other hand, like Putin, sees Taiwan as part of its territory. Thus, in their view, they have every right to demand reunification - by force if necessary. Why are there "two China's" anyway? What lies behind this threat to peace that has even Japan ramping up its military muscle? Let’s see what history has to tell us.

Background

The current Taiwan-China conflict grew out of the crisis of the "Century of humiliation" as the Chinese call it. This was a period from roughly 1840-1949 when China fell victim to foreign aggression and internal division. By 1900, after 50 years of one disaster after another, it was clear to many that the Imperial Qing Dynasty was hopelessly inept and corrupt. It had long proven itself incapable of coping with the challenges of modernization. 

With chaos and humiliation swirling around them, increasing numbers of Chinese became convinced that they needed major change. Numerous reform and anti-Qing movements arose with the goal of solving China’s problems. Many Chinese realized the need to copy Western techniques if China were to survive. As reformer Kang Yu Wei put it in 1906, “We need, too, governmental and political reforms and a reorganization of our political machinery.” 

Among the many organizations seeking to help was the Revive China Society (Xingzhonghui). Today’s Kuomintang Party or Guomindang (GMD) traces its history to this movement, founded on November 24, 1894. The next year the Society adopted an official flag, the blue sky with a bright sun. This emblem remains the Kuomintang flag and adorns the national flag of Taiwan to this day. In 1905 the Revive China Society was merged into the Revolutionary Alliance aka Tongmenghui. By this time Dr Sun had enunciated his famous “Three Principles of the People;” Nationalism, Democracy and the welfare of the people. The Three Principles were partly influenced by his travels in the United States. Especially influential was Lincoln’s philosophy of government “by the people.” The Principles included civil rights or limited government. termed ``popular soveriegnty'' in the US.  Dr. Sun explained that the people should control their government through means such as elections, referendum, recall and initiative. These principles remain as foundational elements to the Kuomintang and the Constitution of the Republic of China. These are the values Taiwan espouses today. Taiwanese revere Sun Yat Sen as "father of the nation. '' Dr Sun's portrait, in fact, hangs in the main legislative chamber in Taipei.

Revolution

Finally on October 10, 1911 (“double tenth”) an uprising triggered an anti-Qing revolution. There was nothing remarkable about an uprising, but then something incredible occurred: Within a few short months, a system that had lasted 2,000 years collapsed like a house of cards. The ROC (Republic of China) was established by the Chinese people through the Provisional Presidential Election held on December 29, 1911. Dr. Sun won a whopping 94% of the vote to become the first president in his country’s history. On January 1, 1912 he was sworn in and announced the official beginning of the Republic of China. On February 12, 1912 the last Qing monarch abdicated the throne, formally beginning China’s troubled venture as a republic. 

At the time of the Revolution, Sun Yat Sen was the acknowledged leader of the Chinese revolutionary movement. In 1912 the Revolutionary Alliance and several other parties merged to form the Kuomintang (Nationalist) Party, KMT for short, aka “National People's Party.” It evolved out of the revolutionary league that had worked to overthrow the Qing. But it was one thing to overthrow a government, quite another to assert authority. By 1913 Sun had lost the power struggle and fled to Japan in exile, not to return until 1916. China’s infant experiment in parliamentary democracy collapsed. In practical terms,  this meant the dissolution of China into a state of anarchy with regional rulers exercising control.

Mao

Meanwhile, another pivotal event took place in 1893: the birth of a son to a prosperous farmer of Hunan Province, named Mao Zedong. Although reared in the ways of traditional China, including the Confucian Classics, Mao rebelled against all this at an early age. He was expelled from more than one school and ran away from home briefly. When he was 14 a marriage was arranged for him and the young women moved into the family home. Mao refused to even acknowledge her. Instead, he moved to Changsha to continue his studies. When the 1911 Revolution came, Mao quickly joined the Anti-Qing military and did everything he could to overthrow the hated Manchu. Having tasted the wine of politics, Mao became insatiable. Between 1913 and 1918, as a student at the Changsha Teacher’s Training College, he devoured works on political ideologies. Especially impressive to him was the 1917 Russian Revolution and the ancient Chinese Legalist philosophy. Upon graduation he took a job at the Beijing University Library. It just so happened that his boss at the library, Li Dazhou, was a budding communist and soon exerted a major influence on the young Mao. He was one of many who became convinced that the solution to China’s problems lay in Marxism.

By 1919, while Mao was still a lowly librarian, a new revolutionary ferment broke out. Seven years after Dr Sun had proclaimed the Republic, China was still mired in political and economic chaos. Warlords and bandits ruled their own territories in defiance of any national government. Sun returned to China in 1916 but his authority was limited to a small area around Canton. To make matters worse, although China had joined the Allied cause in hopes of attaining an end to its semi-colonial status, China was betrayed at the Versailles Peace Conference; Japan was allowed to keep the territory in Shandong Province it had captured from Germany in 1914. This was a massive slap in the face to China. On May 4, 1919 a crowd of students gathered at Tiananmen Square to voice their frustrations. This was part of a resurgence of nationalism. Among other results, leftist ideologies gained momentum. Movements like Sun’s now expanded into a more grass-roots effort. Leaders such as Li Dazhao and Chen Duxin emerged from the May 4 movement. These two, like many others, began to abandon Western-style democracy and turned to leftist ideology. They looked to the new Bolshevik government in Russia as an example. In 1920, Li was head of the library at Peking University and professor of economics. Captivated by the Russian Revolution, he began to study Marxism. Many were impressed with the apparent success of the Bolsheviks. Li founded a study group to discuss Marxism. This evolved into the Chinese communist party, founded in July 1921. Mao Zedong was among the founding members.  

Sun

Meantime Sun and his Kuomintang, lacking military support, had been unable to build a strong enough political organization to assert their authority. Sun began to realize that his movement needed help if he were to unify China - they had proved to be no match for ruthless warlords and helpless to end the foreign concessions. Sun had tried to enlist the aid of Japan and the West. He even wrote to Henry Ford, imploring his help.  In a  letter to the famous auto manufacturer he wrote; “There is much more to hope, in my opinion, from a dynamic worker like yourself, and this is why I invite you to visit us in South China, in order to study, at first hand, what is undoubtedly one of the greatest problems of the Twentieth Century,” The request came to nothing. Rebuffed by the West, he took a step that would have momentous consequences. By 1921 the Bolshevik in Russia revolutionaries had proven they could take and hold on to power. They had established themselves and were carrying out their reform program. They had accomplished this in four short years while the Chinese revolution had now been floundering for a decade. He invited Russian help in building his party. The Russians were only too glad to help but they attached a price tag: Sun must allow the communists to join his kuomintang. Mikhail Gruzenberg, known as Borodin, was sent to Canton in 1923 to advise Sun. Here was a seasoned agent of the newly-formed Comintern. He had already been to several countries to spread bolshevism. He and Sun established a formidable partnership as Borodin put his considerable political skills to work. It would hardly be an overstatement to say that he almost single-handedly turned the Kuomintang into an effective force. He gave them a tight party organization, drafted a constitution for them and taught effective revolutionary and mobilization techniques. Borodin also convinced Sun to admit the small (300) communist party into his nationalist movement and create the first United Front between the KMT and CCP. This was a potentially powerful move to bring unity and stability to China. This United Front thus combined the conservative and leftist political movements of China. Unity was essential to overcome the warlords, who dominated all of north China. Nonetheless, this is where the conflict between the two China’s begins. For all their cooperation, the two ideologies, communism and nationalism, would prove absolutely incapable of working together for long. Some consider this to be Sun’s greatest mistake. Once given legitimacy, the communists would be very difficult to control.

Additionally, Sun and his followers established a military academy to train officers in the struggles to come. Known as the Whampoa Military Academy, it played a critical role in the centuries major conflicts. In 1924 Sun Yat Sen appointed the general Chiang Kai Shek to be the first commandant of the Academy. Chiang had met Sun in Japan and became a devoted follower. Over the years he had proved his faithful commitment to Sun, even at the risk of his own life. Subsequently, several Academy members, including Chiang, were sent to Russia for training. He remained, at least in word, dedicated to Dr. Sun’s principles throughout his career. In a 1942 message to the New York Herald Tribune Forum on Current Problems Chiang asserted “(our) Revolution is the attainment of all three of Dr Sun’s basic principles.” After the death of Sun Yat Sen in 1925, Chiang continued his rise to power. He became commander in chief of the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) and in June, 1927 began the long-awaited “Northern Expedition” with the objective of destroying the warlords and reuniting the country.

What do you think of the early 20th century in China? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s article on the explosive history of the bikini here.