The origins of the 1918-19 German Revolution, or the November Revolution, can be traced back to the face of hubris of the German hereditary system: Wilhelm II. A fierce arms race with Britain covered in German chauvinism threatened the might of the Royal Navy and escalated World War One into the global conflict that it was, whilst defeat in the Great War divided the Kaiser’s subjects. Plagued with mutinies and insubordination, contrasting with the pride of soldiers spouting the stab in the back myth, the First World War provided an intense battleground for an intense battle between democracy and autocracy that fundamentally transformed the German political society.

Tom Cowling explains.

Leftist soldiers during fighting in the Berlin City Palace in 1918 as part of the German Revolution. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1976-067-30A / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

World War One

Armed with 5 naval laws aimed at threatening British dominance of the seas, the Kaiser and his court were gearing up for war. Totalling hundreds of new ships, and an increase of 136,000 in the army in 1912 (1), the naval laws forced Britain and her allies into creating formal alliances in the face of German hostility. Britain had alliances with Japan, Russia, and France. War was inevitable. Victories in the east against a flailing Russian Empire proved irrelevant by the time the American Expeditionary Forces landed in Europe. With hundreds of thousands of men entering Europe each month from the US, the German army was simply awaiting its fate. On the domestic front, the origins of a revolutionary movement were brewing as it became evident that this war was one of imperialism, with Germany occupying vast swathes of Eastern Europe. A split in the SPD, which had initially supported the war effort, saw the establishment of the Independent Socialists, fundamentally opposed to war. Led by the far-left Spartacists, there was a wave of strikes in January 1918, forcing a declaration of martial law (1). The age of insubordination had begun, and a fierce sense of chaos had swept across Germany.

At President Wilson’s indirect request, Germany made itself a constitutional monarchy and kickstarted the Revolution from Above. Governmental positions were granted to members of the Reichstag rather than the Kaiser’s comrades (1). The chancellor was made responsible to the Reichstag, whilst war could not be declared without parliament’s approval (1). His abdication came in November, at the insistence of Wilson’s men (1). The empire had shifted from a feared titan in Europe to a republic at the mercy of democracy. Friedrich Ebert, moderate SPD politician, was named chancellor (1). Wilson and his 14 points had established upheaval in Germany.

The start

Indiscipline marked the beginning of the Revolution from below; the new republic’s first threat to its existence. The left had an insatiable appetite for dictatorship, authoritarianism and control – the gravity of the situation was profound. Orders for an arrogant, and unwinnable, attack on the Royal Navy inevitably culminated in mutinies, which spread unstoppably to numerous ports on the Baltic Sea. With the military refusing to accept orders of the state, revolution was imminent. Communists seized power in Bavaria and workers’ councils snatched control of fourteen cities within days (2). Germany was on the brink of collapse, and submission to the left. Masses gathered in the capital as Karl Liebknecht, a key antagonist of democracy and prominent figure in the Spartacist League, stood on the Reichstag balcony and unabashedly called for a socialist republic (2). In a flurry of panic, the Freikorps, a paramilitary group of veterans desensitised by the experiences of war with loyalties firmly resting on the Kaiser, were sent in by Ebert to quell such left-wing dissent (1). Spartacist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were executed for their revolutionary crimes (2). Their revolution had failed completely to build up the necessary foundations of an undemocratic, communist system. But efforts to change Germany into the ultra-democratic state it existed under in the Weimar Republic were successful enough that the political, governmental and constitutional framework of Germany was revolutionised following the events of 1918.

Success or failure?

From a Marxist perspective, the revolution was an abject failure. Capitalist institutions remained firmly in place, and the bourgeois tendencies of the army raged on. Democracy was entrenched in the new Weimar constitution, with proportional representation and universal suffrage (1). The results of 1918 were a far cry from Marx’s ideal of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Germany was well and truly a liberal state with institutional rejection of communist beliefs. Capitalism was central to the workings of Weimar democracy, with unions making agreements with industrialists not to cause disruption to production – the German workers were barred from seizing the means of production. Industrialists such as Hugo Stinnes presided over a huge amount of German industrial production in the new Germany, much to the dismay of Marxists. To the far-left in Germany, the events of 1918 served only to be scorned at as useless incremental change.

To the social democrats amongst the left in Germany, the revolution and its impact was a resounding success. They had swept away an antiquated system that kept people under the thumb of the monarch, and truly suppressed the will of the people that social democracy so desires. The left, in the form of the SPD, had power, with Ebert as chancellor, and the political extremes had been dealt with. The military system in Germany was committed to upholding democracy, having made deals with Ebert in return for the suppression of violent, extremist uprisings. The Freikorps were a reliable group to counteract left-wing rebellions, albeit through near insanity, but they would never let Germany fall to the communists, as they proved in the crushing of the rebellion that they contributed so significantly to. Democrats across Germany were undoubtedly intoxicated by the newfound democracy the new republic had in such abundance.

The right was naturally infuriated by the news of political change. The conservative doctrine couldn’t accept such sweeping changes, and such a rejection of ‘stability’. They had lost their deity in the form of the emperor, and had surrendered control and power to their natural enemy in the form of the centre-left. Despite this attack on the conservative order in Germany, they begrudgingly accepted the new political framework. They were protected from democratization of the army (1) which meant the most adored, to conservatives, institution was left alone from the transformation underwent in 1918. In spite of the rejection of nationalism by the new government, and the armistice, the conservative right more or less accepted the position they found themselves in.

Conclusion

To many aligning themselves with the political extremes, the revolution was something to look upon with great disdain. Marxists and conservatives alike were sworn enemies of democracy, and both looked upon the revolution as a ‘failure’. But the democrats won. They won democracy and they won freedom from the Kaiser, whilst winning power. To them, the revolution was a blessing, and saw them get what they wanted. As Marxists didn’t get enough change, and conservatives got far too much, social democrats in Germany were granted their wish of democracy and accountability as a direct result of the 1918 revolution.

What do you think of the 1918 German Revolution? Let us know below.

Bibliography

  1. Kitchen, M. (2006) A History of Modern Germany 1800-2000. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

  2. Sewell, R. (2018) The German Revolution of 1918, In Defence of Marxism. Available at: https://www.marxist.com/the-german-revolution-of-1918.htm (Accessed: 24 July 2023)

The Trans-Siberian railway was an 8,400km track that was built upon the desire to unite Russia under a single culture and to strengthen the autocratic rule of the Tsar. The idea of building a railway into Siberia was toyed with in the mid-1870s, mainly proposing short routes into Siberia. The Russo-Turkish War put a halt on the development of any railways as funding was diverted to the war effort. Then 10 years later and after the finances of Russia had recovered from the war, discussions had returned. The proposed ideas however were much grander; a train route spanning the entire continent connecting east to west. This was fueled by a new director and the Tsar’s desire to make sure his autocratic rule reached every corner of his empire. This led to the idea of the Trans-Siberian railway coming to fruition.

Kyle Brett explains.

Construction work on the Eastern Siberian Railway near Khabarovsk, circa 1895.

Origins of the Idea for a Railway

The idea of a railway connecting East and West Russia was proposed in the 1870s to connect Siberia to European Russia. This idea was proposed by an American entrepreneur Perry McDonough Collins, to the Minister of Transport Communications, Konstantin Nikolayevich Posyet. Collins wanted to connect America to Russia via telegraph and proposed a route to do that to Posyet. Posyet liked this idea as he was ambitious to develop the far east, but the state had neither the finances nor the infrastructure to facilitate this project.

The Russian state in the latter half of the 1870s decided that the minerals and political benefits of building a railway into Siberia were beneficial and had decided on a short route from Nizhny Novgorod to Tyumen. Posyet had originally proposed a similar length railway to the north and saw this as the Russian state disregarding his position as Minister of Transportation. None of this would matter in the end because of the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War in 1877 which shut down all state-sponsored railways. The state diverted a majority of its finances to the war effort, which left Posyet with the satisfaction of not having to build the railway he disagreed with. The unfortunate side effect of this war was that the war spending combined with the poor harvests in the early 1880s hurt the Russian ruble delaying discussions about a Trans-Siberian Railway until 1884.

In 1881 Alexander III would take power from his father Alexander II after he was assassinated by a socialist terrorist group. His father had passed many radically liberal laws and that had made him a target. Alexander III would spend his time as Tsar undoing many of these liberal reforms and reestablishing Autocratic rule over Russia. One of his main focuses was on Siberia and how he could unite and spread Russification and Autocratic rule throughout Russia. Upon hearing Posyet’s proposal for a Trans-Siberian railway stretching from Samara to Vladivostok he decided that was the best way to accomplish his goals.

The Borki Train Disaster

On October 29, 1888, Alexander III and his family were traveling on the Kursk–Kharkov mainline from Crimea to St. Petersburg when a combination of speeding and faulty track line caused the train to derail from the track at a high speed. After the dust had settled Alexander saw that his family was trapped under the collapsed roof of his dining car. He lifted the collapsed roof of his train car allowing his family to escape with none of them injured. In total around 20 people died and around 15 more were injured in the derailment. The trauma from this crash is what caused Alexander’s kidney failure and his eventual death.

The blame for the crash did not go to the railway manager Sergei Witte, but rather to the Russian government. Alexander wanted to close this case as quickly as possible, and this led to Posyet stepping down from his position as Transportation Manager. The man to replace him would be Sergei Witte. Imperial officials had chastised him prior to the crash, telling him that only the lines he manages are slow and all the other lines run at express speed. His response was he would prefer to not bash in the head of the emperor by increasing the speed of his rail lines. This interaction is why he was chosen to replace Posyet as Minister of Transportation.

The Project Begins

In March 1891 the Russian government announced its plan to build a railway that spanned all of Siberia. They broke ground in Vladivostok a few months later and the building of the railway was underway. The head of the project was Sergei Witte who in the years after the Borki Train disaster had risen in popularity in the government, moving his way up the chain of command. In 1892 he was selected to become the Minister of Finance, on top of being the Minister of Transportation. He would use these positions of power to turn the clunky and slow bureaucracy of the Russian government into a well-oiled machine.

His first order of business was to create the Committee for the Siberian Railroad. This committee was created with one goal in mind; to fast-track decisions that would have been slowed by the clunky bureaucracy. It would accomplish these goals by getting approval from a higher power, like the Tsar, and would then go around local administrators to keep the project moving. This ensured that the project would be kept going at a steady pace.

Witte, as Finance Minister, also had a great way to finance the building of the railway; he could raise taxes as high as the project demanded. As a result, he neglected his position as finance minister, disregarding complaints, and concerns from the peasantry as he was laser-focused on building the railway. Alexander would also turn a blind eye to these affairs as Witte got results which were good enough for him to not intervene.

The Material Cost of the Largest Railway

The Committee for the Siberian Railway had a massive challenge in solving the problem of how to get this immense amount of materials to the far reaches of Siberia. Their solution was to utilize rivers to Transport the materials to the building sites. Many of the rivers would not support the size of the boats used to move the materials. The Committee decided that the rivers were to be widened and strengthened to accommodate these boats. There was a lot of special attention placed upon Lake Baikal because of its immense size, being the deepest lake in the world, and because it would also be used to Transport materials in the near future. They surveyed weather conditions, all the port facilities on the lake, and how the ice formed on the lake to better understand how to utilize the lake for material Transportation.

Production of the railway parts was originally to be done in Siberia for convenience. Witte soon discovered that Siberia had nowhere enough infrastructure to accommodate a project of that size. The production was outsourced to Western Russia, the UK, and Poland. This meant that it took longer for the materials to arrive at the rail lines as they had to travel as far as the UK to make it into deep Siberia.

The Labor committed to the project was also quite immense, estimated by the Committee for the Siberian Railway at anywhere between 57,000 to 80,000 workers that migrated to Siberia to assist in the building. Much of the labor was from Russia, but some of it came from China. There was a good amount of convict labor utilized as well. These convicts were not treated fairly, however, and would be harassed by their leaders routinely. As for bad conditions, many of the laborers would sleep on the cold ground right up until the ground would freeze. Then when it got too cold the Committee would send people out to build mud huts for people to live in. This, as one can imagine, led to many deaths from the harsh elements. It also made it hard for laborers to do complex tasks like building bridges and utilizing dynamite to make way for tracks to be placed.

The Final Stretch

Through all the harsh conditions by 1898, the track was mostly complete. The track began in Moscow, ran to Lake Baikal then a 4-hour ferry ride across the Lake to the next station which was in Ulan-Ude. From here the train went straight through Chinese Manchuria to Vladivostok. To solve the problem of the rail line going through China a different route from Ulan-Ude to Vladivostok was built along the Amur River. This rail line did not leave Russian territory and allowed for passage to Vladivostok without the need of entering Chinese territory in the event of a territory dispute. The desire to keep the railway in Russia resulted in the Amur River route being completed in 1904.

Then in 1904 development of the Railway would hasten with the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War. The Circum Baikal route around the lake was still being brainstormed, some ideas had been played around with getting around the treacherous terrain that surrounds the lake, but nothing definitive had come to fruition. With the outbreak of the war, the need to utilize the railway to move troops and supplies around lake Baikal became apparent. The only way to circumnavigate the lake was with 2 steam ships that took 4 hours to cross Lake Baikal. However, the 2 steamships, one a freight car hauler and one a passenger vessel, were not enough to accommodate the large amount of movement needed to move an army across Russia. The ships were also stuck when the water froze over, rendering them useless. Some solutions to this problem were presented, the most popular being sledges that towed supplies to the Ulan-Ude station on the other side of the lake. There were attempts to build a track straight on the ice, but the first attempt to put a locomotive on the ice caused it to go straight through, plunging into the depths of the lake. This further reinforced sledges as the solution to the problem.

The terrain on the shores of Lake Baikal was treacherous to build a track onto. It was rocky and rigid and had cliffs that were very dangerous to work on. The original plan was to make tunnels through the rocks to the other side, but when it was decided it would take around 30 tunnels to have a place to lay track it was decided that the track would be built along the shore. To make enough progress to lay track along the rocky terrain in one day it took an entire cart of dynamite. This ground down progress to an extremely slow pace, even with the hastening of progress from the Russo-Japanese War. The track, however, was eventually completed in 1905, finally connecting East and West Russia and completing the largest Railway in the world.

What do you think of the Trans-Siberian Railway? Let us know below.

Sources

Marks, Steven G. Road to power: The Trans-Siberian railroad and the colonization of Asian Russia: 1850-1917. Cornell University Press, 1991.

Tupper, Harmon. To the Great Ocean: Siberia and the Trans-Siberian railway. Brown & Company, 1965.

The June 1876 The Battle of the Little Bighorn, or the Battle of the Greasy Grass, featured Custer’s Last Stand. Its as a battle between the Plains Indians and the US Army. Here, Richard Bluttal considers how history has viewed the battle - and how it is viewed today.

Custer's Last Stand by Edgar Samuel Paxson, 1899.

Every June Enos Poor Bear Jr. traveled from his home in Martin, S.D., to a wind-swept promenade in southeastern Montana to pay homage to his forebears who fought in one of the seminal battles of the American West.

In June 2003, Mr. Poor Bear, a Lakota Sioux, walked past all the tourists who inevitably congregated at a white obelisk marking the site where Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and members of his 7th Calvary died in the battle. He and his friends, instead, stopped down the slope, where they prayed , performed cleansing rituals, and turned their heads away from the battle reenactments occurring in the distance. On this warm Wednesday afternoon in 2003, Poor Bear and hundreds of other native Americans no longer had to celebrate one of the great military triumphs ever achieved on US soil from the relative shadows. A Native American Memorial commemorated the sacrifice of the Arikara, Apsaalooke (Crow), Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Oyate (Lakota Sioux) tribes in the Battle of the Little Bighorn as they fought to protect their diverse values and traditional way of life. The theme of the memorial, "Peace Through Unity", carried the commemoration further by acknowledging the need for cooperation both among Native American tribes and between tribal governments and the federal government. The relevancy and significance is further highlighted when one considers it is the only memorial to the Native American experience mandated by Congress and constructed with federal funds.

Why would federal funding or any funding be used to construct a monument where Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and more than 200 men from five companies of the Seventh infantry cavalry heroically died on June 25, 1876, in a sneak attack by Native Americans in what’s now Montana.

Monuments

During much of the 20th century, the lion's share of public education at the battlefield focused on the movements of the cavalry, treating Native Americans as nearly invisible. Indeed, with no significant markers to call their own, many Native Americans have felt oddly out of place, even here. The worst indignity, they say, was having to pray all these years in the shrine  erected to Custer and his men.

Slowly, public attitudes about how history should be presented here have evolved. In 1991, the name was changed from "Custer Battlefield" to the more neutral Little Bighorn Battlefield. Also, in addition to the white headstones marking where soldiers fell, a smattering of red granite headstones have appeared to commemorate specific warriors who died. Now native Americans have their own dedicated piece of hallowed ground.

There seems to be more to the background story of the Battle at the Little Big Horn. People are just beginning to see that it isn’t just this black-and-white, ‘cowboys versus Indians’ theme, and that’s the way that it’s been portrayed in popular culture and Westerns,” says Mandy Van Heuvelen, a South Dakota native and enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe who is a project manager at the Smithsonian’s Anacostia Community Museum. Traditionally, the Native American side of the Battle of Little Bighorn has been passed down through families; she learned from her grandfather that his grandmother witnessed the battle. “Maybe we shouldn’t hold [Custer] on as high of a pedestal as we have,” she says. “It’s important to understand the history from multiple points of view  than we were taught in school.”

Not so simple

Students still tend to learn about Custer dying bravely during battle, for example, but not about the bravery of the Native Americans who defended themselves against settlers of European descent who were there illegally. What doesn’t fit neatly into the Custer story of the popular imagination is the 1868 Treaty of Laramie, which had given the area where the battle took place to Lakota. To some historians, the Battle of the Little Bighorn happened because the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie, in which the U.S. government guaranteed to the Lakota and Dakota (Yankton) as well as the Arapaho exclusive possession of the Dakota Territory west of the Missouri River, had been broke. Custer was tasked with relocating all Native Americans in the area to reservations by January 31, 1876. Any person who didn’t comply would be considered hostile .Controversy over possession of the lands known as the Black Hills, and the second 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie were critical factors that pitted Plains Indians tribes against the US. federal government. The refusal of Lakota and Cheyenne tribes to live confined within the boundaries of Native American reservations led to the U.S. government's decision to seize the Black Hills and force the Native American tribes onto reservations. In school we rarely learnt about  the Battle of the Washita, which took place eight years before Little Bighorn and in which Custer led an attack on a village of mostly Southern Cheyenne people and rounded up women and children as prisoners.

In 1873, Custer faced a group of attacking Lakota at the Northern Pacific Railroad Survey at Yellowstone. It was his first encounter with Lakota leaders Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, but it wouldn’t be his last. Little did Custer know at the time the two Indigenous leaders would play a role in his death a few years later.

In 1874, an Army expedition led by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer found gold in the Black Hills, in present-day South Dakota. Once gold was discovered in the Black Hills area where the battle occurred, settlers and miners flocked to the area. At the time, the United States recognized the hills as property of the Sioux Nation. The Grant administration tried to buy the hills, but the Sioux, considered them sacred lands.

Why was the Battle of Little Bighorn significant?

It was a huge victory for the Plains Indians over the U.S. military, but it also spelled the eventual doom of the Native Americans because it ensured retaliation by the U.S. Army. It was both the high point and the beginning of the end to the freedom of the Lakota and Cheyenne tribes.

In hindsight, the Battle of the Little Bighorn has come to symbolize an inevitable clash between two irreconcilably different cultures: the buffalo-hunting, mobile culture of the Northern Plains tribes, and the sedentary, agriculture-based culture of the U.S. settlers. This battle was not an isolated confrontation, but part of a protracted series of skirmishes between settlers and U.S. officials on the one hand, and Lakota and Cheyenne Native Americans on the other.

What do you think of the Battle of the Little Bighorn? Let us know below.

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

The American and the French Revolutions were similar conflicts in some wats. However, the American Revolution is considered more successful in outcome than that of the French. In this article, Avery Scott breaks down the differences between the two revolutions and some of the reasons in which the American was more successful than the French.

French Revolution figure Maximilien de Robespierre. By Pierre-Roch Vigneron.

The American and the French Revolutions were similar conflicts in some wats. However, the American Revolution is considered more successful in outcome than that of the French. In this article, Avery Scott breaks down the differences between the two revolutions and some of the reasons in which the American was more successful than the French.

The American Revolution was fought from the years of 1775 to 1783. Primarily, tension rose over the representation of colonist in taxation legislation. Colonist rallied behind the banner of “no taxation without representation.” Colonist were not only angry at the lack of representation in taxation, but the governments lack of concern to their genuine grievances. The conflict erupted in the Battles of Lexington and Concord and ended with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown and the successive Treaty of Paris.

The French Revolution began in 1789, with storming of the Bastille prison, and ended in 1799 with the overthrow of the Directory. The Directory was replaced by the French Consulate with Napoleon as first consul. Revolution occurred in French for a variety of reasons such as a weak economy, food shortages, unfair taxation, and a general discontent with the monarch King Louis XVI and his spendthrift wife, Queen Marie Antoinette.

The two revolutions were similar in principle, as they were both fought to free the individual from the authoritative rule of a monarch. But they differed drastically in execution and outcome. The American Revolution was a traditional war under the control of Congress and General George Washington. Ultimately this victory led to a new nation, and a democratic republic that stands to this day.  Conversely, the French Revolution was largely unsuccessful in its goal of removing a single monarch from power, as it led to Napoleon Bonaparte, an authoritative leader, rising to the status of Emperor. The revolution did spark a variety of productive social and economic changes, but this is a small consolation for the wanton bloodshed of innocent lives.

There are two key reasons that the French Revolution was less successful in the end goal than the American Revolution was.

Leadership

At the time of revolution, American colonists were accustomed to their system of government in which states held primary governing control and were only loosely banded together by a “federal” government. Prior to independence, this came in the form of Parliament (and the King). After independence it took the form of congress and General George Washington under the guiding principles of the Articles of Confederation. This was advantageous for the colonist, and the war, because it ensured they would not descend into mob rule when there was no longer a monarch or royal government in leadership. The lives of citizens would change little once a new, non-royal, governor was elected. The governor would, in conjunction with the state legislature, continue to run the state.

The French struggled to maintain order during the revolution as they had no leadership structure outside of the monarch and his appointed officials. They were accustomed to monarchial rule, and therefore had no plans in place to take control when he was removed. This led to mobs sending despotic leaders into power that would steer the country toward violence and/or personal agendas.  Because of this, few leaders retained power for any significant period, and each leader rose to power with a different strategic goal. Leaders’ ideology varied from that of Lafayette to Maximilien Robespierre and everything in-between. Often when a new leader was appointed, a new government was created (i.e., National Assembly, Committee of Public Safety, Directory). This constant turnover made governing very difficult and led to unproductive governments that were not accomplishing the will of the people. The lack of results led to frustration at the government. Then the frustration displayed itself in violent mobs that would often initiate an overthrow of the government – thus starting the process over. To make matters worse, the military was little use in maintaining order as they were frequently apart of the mob and used their weapons against anyone trying to stop them.

Scope

The second major difference in the two was the scope of the revolution itself. The American Revolution sought to separate the colonies from Britain and British rule. Americans wanted to rule themselves, tax themselves, and be free to conduct their personal and business lives without interference from the crown. However, Americans did not desire to change large portions of their laws or culture after independence. Therefore, much of this was left untouched - creating continuity between the two governments. It was not until the ratification of the constitution and the ascension of Washington to the presidency that a truly new form of government was established. However, even though the idea of a democratically elected president was radical, many similarities can be drawn between the British monarch and the American president of the eighteenth century.

The French were much more radical in their revolutionary aims. The sough to rewrite their country and culture from the ground up. Changes to religion, social status, taxation, war, education, politics, business, economy and voting rights were all key issues to the French. While many of these issues are important and needed to be in both countries, the breadth of issues made it difficult for the various French leaders to make any headway. Again, leading to frustration at the leaders and mob uprisings. Eventually the number of issues faced by the country would lead to Napoleon taking absolutist control of France, thus reversing the gains made by the revolution.

Conclusion

The American and French Revolution both achieved different goals at the official end of their conflicts. The American Revolution was very successful in resolving many of the problems that it set out to remedy. In contrast, the French Revolution was less successful in its resolving many of the initial goals. However, there were important changes that arose during the decade of hostilities that likely would not have occurred without the revolution. Because of this, I do not feel that either conflict was a failure. Rather, the revolution was a catalyst for years of change that would occur throughout the 19th century leading to the changes that were desired in 1789.

What do think of the differences between the American and French Revolutions? Let us know below.

Now read Avery’s article on John Adams here.

References

Lafayette by Harlow Giles Unger

Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts

The Last King of America by Andrew Roberts

Washington by Ron Chernow

The stagecoach is one of the most recognizable symbols of the American West. As America expanded westward, this simple wagon would evolve into an organized system of public transportation that would open up the west to thousands of people. This iconic symbol would begin to transport not only people but also large amounts of cash, gold and silver. As this form of transportation grew more popular, so did the knowledge of its precious cargo. Lawless bandits would begin to seek out these stagecoaches loaded with treasure in hopes of getting rich.

Jerad Huskins explains.

A picture of a Kinnear Express stagecoach . This operated from Tombstone, Arizona to Bisbee, Arizona in the 1880s.

The stagecoach travel system allowed for riders to pay a private company a fee to travel a specific distance, while stopping at “stage stations” every fifteen miles or so to attach fresh horses. This allowed riders to cover more miles in a day at a faster pace. It was not uncommon for a stagecoach to cover up to 100 miles in a single day. The stagecoach was typically pulled by four or six horses. Different designs were built to carry between six and later on even up to twenty people. It was usually a cramp and uncomfortable ride. However, stagecoaches still remained the primary form of transportation to remote towns in the old west.

Businesses began competing to transport people, mail and most notably, large amounts of money and precious metals. It did not take long for stagecoaches to become popular targets for bandits. For these outlaws robbing a stagecoach was like shooting fish in a barrel, as it was easy money for these criminals. Bandits would research the coaches’ travel patterns and simply pick the most advantageous spots to ambush their prey. As the act of robbing stagecoaches became more prevalent, stagecoach businesses began devising ways to protect their property. The first step in improving security was placing guards armed with shotguns riding beside the stagecoach driver. Though not called “riding shotgun” at the time, this is where the saying would derive from.

The Monitor

With the discovery of gold in the American West and the massive migration that would follow, stagecoach robberies began to rise in the 1850s. As the cargo became more valuable, the tactics became more violent. Along with the robberies, murder would take place. In 1878 a company called the Cheyenne and Black Hills Stage Company would take securing their cargo to the extreme. They would construct a wagon fit for war. They would call it the Monitor. It would be named after the ironclad ship the U.S.S. Monitor that fought in the Civil War. This stagecoach would earn its name by its 5/16 inch iron plates mounted on the sides of the coach. The coach would also be fitted with shoot through rifle ports and its own makeshift storage safe bolted to the floor.

The Monitor would be used to make “treasure runs” through the Black Hills for the Homestake Mining Company. One such run would take place on September 26, 1878 heading from Deadwood, South Dakota to Cheyenne, Wyoming. The armored stagecoach would be carrying just over $27,000 in gold and currency. It is estimated this payload today would be worth close to 2 million dollars. Regular passengers were not allowed to ride with such valuable cargo. Extra armed guards called “messengers” would fill the cabin. Even with some considering the Monitor impossible of being robbed, there would be those willing to sacrifice everything in an attempt to steal its riches.  A gang of bandits would formulate a plot to hijack this iron beast.

Two men by the names of Cornelius Donahue and Charles Carey would be the masterminds in charge of a gang numbering between five to ten men. Donahue was nicknamed “Lame Johnny”, due to a limp in his walk, some believed caused by contracting polio as a child. Lame Johnny was a career horse thief living in the Black Hills. He had previously worked for the Homestake Mine Company as a bookkeeper. This was a short-lived attempt at conducting an honest living, before returning to the life of an outlaw. The job would allow Johnny an inside track on how Homestake’s shipments would operate. Charles Carey was a former military scout turned bandit. Both were looking to cash in on the valuable cargo hidden within the steel belly of the Monitor.

The gang decided to pull the job at a station in Canyon Springs, Wyoming. The men knew the coach would be arriving at 3 o’clock to swap out for fresh horses. The bandits arrived early and over took the station by locking the station employee in a closet. They set up for their ambush and waited. As the Monitor pulled into the station on schedule, it waited for assistance to begin trading out horses. This process usually took less than ten minutes. When no one came out to greet the ironclad coach, a few men got down to see what was causing the delay. This is when the gang opened fire on the Monitor and its passengers. The messengers from the Monitor realizing they were being hijacked would return fire. A gun fight would ensue. Men from both sides would be mortally wounded. The passengers of the Monitor would evacuate the stagecoach and run to the surrounding treeline. The gang of outlaws would raid the Monitor, breaking into the lockbox rather speedily considering its magnitude. Once in possession of the valuables, the gang made their escape.

The story of the robbery would spread quickly. A reward would be placed on the bandits and the stolen loot. Both lawmen and vigilantes went on the lookout for the outlaws. As the law started to put the squeeze on known bandits in the surrounding areas, and being “there is no honor among thieves”, police began getting information on who was involved.  Two of the bandits would be found dead from gunshot wounds suffered in the fire fight along with a portion of the treasure taken from the Monitor. Lame Johnny would soon be arrested in Nebraska and transported back to Deadwood for trial. He would never make it. On his way to Deadwood Lame Johnny would be intercepted by a posse of vigilantes. Johnny would be found a few days later hanging next to a creek still wearing his shackles. Charles Carey would suffer the same fate. He would be apprehended by vigilantes and be executed by hanging at the Jenny Stockade in Wyoming.

Stolen cargo

Once the bandits were captured and executed, law officers began tallying the stolen cargo. Sources claim that only around sixty percent of the Monitors cargo would be found, with a large amount of gold still missing. Some believe Johnny and his men would bury a portion of the loot somewhere around the Canyon Springs station. If the estimates of the nearly 2 million dollar cargo are accurate, there could be up to $800,000 dollars worth of gold still missing from the infamous heist. It is believed this gold is still buried somewhere in the Canyon Springs area.

From the 1850s through the early 1900s there were over 450 documented stagecoach robberies. The stagecoach would still remain the embodiment of transportation throughout the American West. As time wore on and technology continued to improve, people would create faster, more comfortable ways to travel. The completion of the transcontinental railway in 1869 would be the beginning of the end for stagecoach popularity. The famous Deadwood stagecoach system would eventually shut down, making its final trip in 1890. Then came the rise of the automobile in the early 1900s. This would cause the stagecoach to become a distant memory and bring an end to what was once such a charismatic and alluring time in the American West.

What do you think of the stagecoach robberies in the American West? Let us know below.

Baseball was a sport started in the mid-19th century in New York City. That led to it being a sport played at the time of the US Civil War. Here, Richard Bluttal looks at the impact of baseball during the war.

The New York Knickerbockers baseball team in 1858 (on the left in the picture).

Rather than the pastoral Cooperstown, modern baseball was born in America’s largest metropolis: New York City. By the 1840s, the first known consolidated rule set was created by the Manhattan-based New York Knickerbockers led by Alexander Cartwright. The Knickerbockers were well organized and promoted formalized rules for their game, emulating the more prestigious cricket clubs common in New York City at the time. Other teams in Manhattan and Brooklyn quickly emerged and sought to copy the Knickerbocker’s success.

As the Civil War began, the baseball clubs of New York became enthusiastic supporters of the Union war effort. The New York Clipper, an entertainment journal that covered the NABBP, celebrated players who enlisted and urged others to follow their example: “better join in boys, than be loafing the streets or hanging around bar-rooms, and thus show the people you have some noble traits that atone for whatever bad ones you get credit for.” The rules of baseball in 1860 as adopted by players and organizations are not too different from the modern version of the game. There are four bases spaced evenly apart with one of those being home plate, three strikes and you’re out, three outs in an inning, and nine innings for a standard game. One of the major differences in the rules of baseball in the 19th century is that the batter, after hitting the ball, can only be called “out” if he is hit by the ball. The President learned and loved the game prior to his election campaign in 1860. A popular newspaper even published a political cartoon showing him batting against his opponents in his campaign. During the Civil war he even had a baseball field constructed on the White House lawn. There are stories such as he was late for a war council meeting and said,” They will just have to wait. It is almost my turn at bat”.

Organized game

The first organized baseball game of the war took place on July 2, 1861, when a team from the 71st New York Regiment defeated the Washington Nationals amateur club, 41 to 13, in a park across from the White House. Later that month, the regiment suffered heavy casualties at the First Battle of Bull Run, losing many of its best athletes. The teams arranged a rematch in early 1862 where the Nationals defeated the decimated New Yorkers 28 to 13.

Organized events like this helped to popularize the game among Union soldiers. Colonel Mason Whiting Tyler explained that by 1863 baseball was “all the rage now in the Army of the Potomac…[the camps are] alive with ball players, almost every street having its game.” John G.B. Adams of the 19th Massachusetts Regiment reported that “base ball fever [had] broke[n] out” as different regiments played against one another usually favoring the New York game.

In most cases, Civil War baseball was played in the relative safety of military encampments. However, battles often disrupted these games. George Putnam, a Union soldier stationed in Texas in 1863, described one such incident. He wrote that a game had to be “called-early” after a surprise attack by Confederate infantry: Despite these dangers, baseball usually provided a welcome distraction from the carnage of the battlefield. On April 3, 1862, Frederick Fairfax of the Fifth Ohio Infantry wrote home from Virginia describing the specter of violence that haunted these games:

“It is astonishing how indifferent a person can become to danger. The report of musketry is heard but a very little distance from us…yet over there on the other side of the road is most of the company, playing [baseball] and perhaps in less than half an hour they may be called to play a ball game of a more serious nature.”

Moments of leisure

For soldiers, these games were rare moments of leisure from the anxiety and rigorous lifestyle typical during the Civil War. As John G.B. Adams put it, playing baseball “was a grand time, and all [participants] agreed that it was nicer to play base [ball] than minie [bullet] ball.” Consequently, officers often used baseball for official purposes, encouraging soldiers to play as relief from the monotony of military camp life and to complement training activities. They also hoped to use these games to foster camaraderie and teamwork among men who would soon be required to fight together in the battlefield.

The Civil War exposed many soldiers from all southern states to New York baseball for the first time and, over the course of the war, helped to popularize the game. Unfortunately, relatively little documentation exists regarding Confederate baseball. Judging from soldiers’ letters and diaries, many southerners’ initial exposure to baseball came largely in the form of watching Union men play the New York game in prisoner of war camps. Within Confederate POW camps, Union prisoners often used baseball to pass the time, with the most prominent site of play occurring at Salisbury Prison in North Carolina. Charles Carroll Gray, a Union physician held at Salisbury during the summer of 1862, reported in his diary that POWs celebrated July 4th “with music, reading of the Declaration of Independence, and sack and foot races in the afternoon, and also a baseball game.”

The Civil War started and ended in April, the traditional beginning of the now baseball season. The soldiers on both sides went home and brought baseball with them. The game exploded in communities all over the country. They were often referred to as the Textile Leagues.

What do you think of the role of baseball in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

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

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 Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar. He looks at how they both wanted independence from Spain, but came from different generations - one an elder statesman, the other an idealist revolutionary

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, and Colombia’s Revolt of the Comuneros here.

Francisco de Miranda by Martin Tovar y Tovar.

Miranda the Gadfly

Unlike the other pre-Bayonne viceroyalties, Gran Colombia had a small independentist movement. This can be ascribed to the workings of one man: Francisco de Miranda. Although a very thorough series about his life can be found here, an abbreviated version is in order.

Miranda was born in Caracas in 1750 to parents who did not quite fit into the city’s socioeconomic structure. On a racial and class basis, the Mirandas did not have a comfortable life due to persecution by the city’s Basque, old-money elites. This caused a great deal of resentment for Miranda. His father had been forced to sacrifice his military position and a significant part of his wealth refuting accusations of “racial impurity”.

Resentment against the colonial structure that enabled the Byzantine rules of New Granada made the decision to leave the colony easy for Miranda. After serving in the Spanish army in North Africa fighting the Moors and in the Caribbean and North America during the America Revolution, he was caught up in some illegal business deals, and potential spying, and became an object of suspicion for the Spanish colonial authorities who ordered his arrest. Miranda fled first to the United States and then to Europe.

While in Europe, Miranda met many of the most prominent people of the time, from William Pitt the Younger to Catherine the Great. When the French Revolution broke out, Miranda, a student of the Enlightenment, enthusiastically joined the French army and was made a general. As the French Revolution ate its own, Miranda got swept up in the persecution and was briefly put in prison, though he was later released and fled to Britain.

With his previous contacts and notoriety as a friend of seemingly every prominent person in Europe at the time, Miranda was able to leverage his contacts to fulfill his dream of liberating his homeland from the oppression of Spain. At the time, Spain was allied to Revolutionary France, and Miranda very pointedly told the British government that if they supported him with money, ships, and men, he could lead a revolutionary movement against Spain, deprive a British enemy of their most lucrative colonies by igniting a hemispheric revolutionary movement, and open the area to increased British commerce. Seemingly constantly, Miranda would come up with new plans and memoranda and send them off to Prime Minister Pitt looking for more of everything for his revolutionary projects. Eventually, he would tire of waiting on the British and returned to the United States to reignite his contacts there.

In 1806, Miranda, with alleged support from the administration of Thomas Jefferson, organized several ships and a few hundred volunteers and attempted an invasion of New Granada, landing at Coro. A British ship and some Royal Marines helped in the attack. It was a total catastrophe. Ashore for not even two weeks, Miranda would retreat back to the safety of his ships when Spanish troops arrived, and the expedition broke up.

Back in Britain, Miranda, having shown himself to be a man of action, began to receive real support from the British government. After a failed invasion of the Viceroy of Rio de la Plata that was defeated mostly by local forces, the British realized they needed the support of the local populace. Here is where the British thought Miranda would be useful. Still with contacts in New Granada, Miranda could be used to set the stage for local support for a British invasion of the colony. Being unable to directly strike the Napoleonic juggernaut, the British could strike at the soft underbelly of the Napoleonic system, the Spanish Empire.

Chaos of Bayonne

The stage had been set. A large British army under the command of General Arthur Wellesley was all ready to go. Miranda would go as well to lead his people. Then, the Abdications of Bayonne happened. Spain was no longer a British enemy. With now-King Ferdinand a prisoner of the French, the new revolutionary Junta that claimed to be leading Spain in his name was an ally. Additionally, that army now needed to be used in Iberia, not all the way in South America.

As in the other viceroyalties, the Abdications of Bayonne created chaos. Few wanted to accept the new King José I of Spain (Joseph Bonaparte). The Junta in Spain claimed authority over the colonies, but as the colonists saw it, by what right? If the Spanish people could rise up against the usurper, they could rise up as well to defend their rights.

By 1810, Juntas began forming in the colonies. The Supreme Junta of Caracas, like the Junta of Seville, declared itself the supreme government of all of the Captaincy-General of Venezuela. What was interesting was that the Junta only claimed to represent Venezuela, just one constituent part of the whole of New Granada. Officially the Junta was simply a sort of regency for the captive King Ferdinand. It was on this basis that the Junta requested help from the British. See, they were not rebelling against Britain’s ally Spain, they were fighting for King Ferdinand, and the British should help them succeed. It was just obvious. The diplomatic mission sent over to Britain by the Junta toed this line until a young hothead in the delegation, a man named Simón Bolívar, ranted to the British diplomats about how Venezuela should be free and independent.

Bolívar Meets Miranda

The meeting between Bolívar and Miranda would be a crossroads in both of their lives. Here was Miranda, the elder statesman. French revolutionary, Spanish-American revolutionary, world traveler, and supposed lover of Catherine the Great. Bolívar was a young idealist. The first “great man” he worshipped was Napoleon, but Bonaparte had betrayed his ideals, in Bolívar’s mind, when he crowned himself. Now, here was Miranda, the man who had been fighting to make America free since almost before Bolívar was born.

Bolívar’s Early Life

Like Miranda, Bolívar was from Caracas, having been born there in 1783. Unlike Miranda, Bolívar’s family was descended from the group of Basques that dominated the high society of Caracas. Although he was born into one of the wealthiest families in the Americas, tragedy struck early in Bolívar’s life. His father died when he was only 3 years old, and he would go on to be raised by relatives away from his siblings. He would be sent to live with his uncle, Carlos Palacios y Blanco, whom Bolívar would despise since he was convinced that the man was only after the family’s inheritance.

Carlos Palacios knew he had to at least do the bare minimum to show he was caring for his nephew, so he sent him to school. From there, he would meet one of the formative people in his life, Simón Rodriguez. Rodriguez was a liberal who believed in independence for Venezuela. He would be considered one of the earliest influences on Bolívar’s political upbringing.

First Taste of Revolution

Eventually, Bolívar would run away from his uncle’s care and fled to live with his sister and her husband. Not particularly wanting the very defiant and unruly boy hanging around too much, his sister arranged for Bolívar to move in with Simón Rodriguez to further his education. Rodriguez would teach the boy the values of the Enlightenment that we so much in vogue at the time. Bolívar, being a naturally defiant child, eagerly lapped up the philosophies that taught questioning established authorities and the vaguely libertarian outlook that early Enlightenment philosophers held.

Bolívar’s political education would end prematurely in 1797. Rodriguez was caught up in what was called the Gual and España conspiracy, named after two of the leaders. This conspiracy sought to throw off, what they saw, as the shackles then in place in Venezuela. Although the exact details of the conspiracy are shrouded by the mists of time and unclear, what is clear is that the basis for this movement was a checklist of Enlightenment philosophies: free trade and the elimination of tariffs and burdensome taxes, elimination of the tribute that Indians were required to pay, the immediate and total abolition of slavery, and complete racial equality. Independence for Venezuela was not an explicit goal; neither was republicanism. It was also not explicitly anti-Spanish, as many later rebellions would be. The conspirators believed that the interests of all people in Venezuela were in alignment and that no Venezuelan was an enemy.

While the conspiracy was broken up with ease by the colonial authorities, it did show that even at this early time, Venezuela was a hotbed of dissent. Simón Rodriguez would be exiled to Europe and Bolívar’s formal education in Venezuela was at an end. After a brief stint in the colonial militia, he would be sent by Carlos Palacios to Madrid to continue school. While in Madrid, Bolívar’s education would be broadened to create a more well-rounded education.

In the Belly of the Beast

His time in Madrid would be tumultuous. He stayed with his uncle, Esteban Palacios, who recognized almost right away that, although Bolívar came from an aristocratic family of means, his education was terrible. His uncle set about remaking his young ward. Bolívar was taught not just better grammar and spelling, but also how to dress, speak, and act as a member of his class and station. Part of this effort was getting Bolívar recognized at court. One of Esteban Palacios’ acquaintances in Madrid was a young man of the royal guard named Manuel Mallo.

The Spanish royal court at the turn of the 19th century was a sad parody of royalty. The Queen of Spain, Maria Luisa was the power in the country. It would be generous to call King Carlos IV dim. He was a man completely out of his depth ruling a country and had no discernable self-awareness. Maria Luisa was a woman with no beauty or charm, but she was strong-willed and pursued what she wanted. Two things she valued most of all were power and young, handsome men. For a young man with ambition and good looks, an appointment to the royal guard was also a ticket to the queen’s bedchamber and, subsequently, wealth and power. By this point in the story, she had already convinced her husband to elevate Manuel Godoy from said bedchamber to the prime ministership of the empire. Carlos was probably the only person in the court who was unaware of where Godoy’s rapid rise came from. While Bolívar was in Madrid, the queen cast her eye on Manuel Mallo. He was showered with wealth and power, with the king none the wiser. This relationship was Bolívar’s entry to the court.

Although Bolívar would be expelled from the court for a time for wearing diamonds to a reception, which was forbidden without express permission, his time at court was formative. He became acquainted with the heir to the Spanish throne, Prince Ferdinand, the future Ferdinand VII. There was a story that one day, Bolívar went to the royal palace to visit Ferdinand and they decided to play a game of badminton together. During the game, the shuttlecock came down and hit Ferdinand on the head. As everyone around laughed at the situation, Ferdinand became so embarrassed and angry that he refused to continue to play. Only by his mother shaming him, and her demand that Ferdinand be hospitable, was Ferdinand convinced to continue.

Eventually, Manuel Mallo fell out of the queen’s favor. When he was arrested, Esteban Palacios decided that this would be a good time to take Bolívar out of Madrid and away from court. One can only imagine how much damage close familiarity with the court in Madrid did to Bolívar’s loyalty to the crown. Indeed, Bolívar got a good look at how the Spanish court ran at this time, and it would color his views on both monarchies and the mother country.

A Match Made in Heaven

One thing Bolívar left in Madrid was love. He had met María Teresa Rodríguez del Toro during his time in the capital. She was also from New Granada, and she was a cousin to one of Bolívar’s childhood friends. They had become close during this time, but Bolívar’s abrupt exit from Madrid did not dampen his love for her. When he was able to return In April 1802, Bolívar immediately applied for a marriage license and he and María were married.

With his new bride in tow, and feeling his education complete, Bolívar decided to go back to New Granada. When the new, happy couple arrived, he reconnected with all of his old friends and acquaintances in Caracas. A grand future awaited the couple, splitting time between Bolívar’s estate at San Mateo growing indigo and cacao, and the city of Caracas. For Bolívar, who had grown up being passed around amongst family members who cared more for the inheritance he had than him as a human being, he felt reborn with the sanctity that a marriage of true love can bring. A comfortable life as a wealthy aristocrat awaited the Bolívars.

The Turning Point

Unfortunately, María contracted yellow fever (most likely) soon after arriving in New Granada. After only eight months of marriage, María passed away on January 22, 1803. She was only 21 years old.

For Bolívar, this was devastating. He had finally given his heart to another person after the chaos of his childhood, and now the love of his life was gone in the blink of an eye. Some close to him feared that he might even take his own life. His brother believed that Bolívar was going to go mad from anger and grief. Although he would reach the other side of the dark night, Bolívar emerged a changed man. It was the death of María that would change the trajectory of Bolívar’s life. Prior to her death, he would have been perfectly happy and contented to continue on with the empty-headed life of a colonial aristocrat, achieving prosperity and little more. Now, the nervous energy needed an outlet somewhere. It was this event that placed him on the road to being the Bolívar the Liberator.

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.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Between the years 1865-1868, the United States confronted one of the greatest political crises in its history, the battle between President Andrew Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction. The crisis arose from the intersection of three developments: (i) Militancy of the former slaves in demanding substantive freedom, (ii) White southern reluctance to accept the reality of emancipation, and (iii) Johnson’s intransigence in the face of growing northern concern over a series of momentous events in the South.

There is one particularly important historical event occurring at the beginning of the war that had a tremendous effect on reconstruction.

Richard Bluttall explains.

Andrew John in 1860.

Contraband

Newly arrived at Fortress Monroe, on May 23, 1861, General Benjamin Butler was confronted by the arrival of three fugitive slaves from the Confederate defensive works project across Hampton Roads. Faced with the looming prospect of being shipped to North Carolina to work on fortifications, Goodheart writes “the three slaves decided to leave the Confederacy and try their luck, just across the water, with the Union.” They were not the first slaves to seek sanctuary in a Union military post. Soon after Lincoln’s inauguration in early March, slaves in separate incidents had presented themselves at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor and Fort Pickens near Pensacola, Florida. Consistent with the Fugitive Slave Act, the slaves in both instances had been rebuffed and turned over to local authorities. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, Benjamin Butler had to decide what action to take. His hand was forced by the arrival of a Confederate officer at Fortress Monroe under flag of truce demanding the slaves return.

Adam Goodheart relates the encounter between Butler and the Virginian, Major John Baytop Cary on the three slaves.

Cary got down to business. “I am informed,” he said, “that three Negroes belonging to Colonel Mallory have escaped within your lines. I am Colonel Mallory’s agent and have charge of his property. What do you mean to do with those Negroes?”

“I intend to hold them,” Butler said.
“Do you mean, then, to set aside your constitutional obligation to return them?”

Even the dour Butler must have found it hard to suppress a smile. This was, of course, a question he had expected. And he had prepared what he thought was a fairly clever answer.

“I mean to take Virginia at her word,” he said. “I am under no constitutional obligations to a foreign country, which Virginia now claims to be.”

“But you say we cannot secede,” Cary retorted, “and so you cannot consistently detain the Negroes.”

“But you say you have seceded,” Butler said, “so you cannot consistently claim them. I shall hold these Negroes as contraband of war, since they are engaged in the construction of your battery and are claimed as your property.”  Officers on the ground like Butler quickly realized the slaves were a significant military asset to the Confederacy, acting not only as laborers, teamsters, and in other support roles for the army, but also by keeping southern agriculture functioning allowing a much larger portion of the white male population to be available for military service than might otherwise have been the case. Hence, as property being used in support of a rebellion against the government, Butler’s “contraband of war” formulation legally justified the seizure of the slaves without immediately undermining their status as property. The Lincoln administration quickly acquiesced to Butler’s policy and Congress gave it the force of law in early August through the Confiscation Act of 1861.

Within a little more than a year, the stream of a few hundred contrabands at Fort Monroe became a river of tens — probably even hundreds — of thousands. They “flocked in vast numbers — an army in themselves — to the camps of the Yankees,” a Union chaplain wrote. “The arrival among us of these hordes was like the oncoming of cities.”

This was such an important situation because it resulted in the creation of a separate organization to handle the refugee crisis.  A whole new system had to be developed to address slaves crossing Union lines throughout the war effort in many parts of the country leading to the development of refugee camps.

History of Secession

Many people, especially those wishing to support the South’s right to secede in 1860–61, have said that when 13 American colonies rebelled against Great Britain in 1776, it was an act of secession. Others say the two situations were different and the colonies’ revolt was a revolution. The war resulting from that colonial revolt is known as the American Revolution or the American War for Independence.  As to Lincoln’s belief on this issue see below:

First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken. We find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Message to Congress in Special Session July 4, 1861

The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against the law and by revolution.

Effect of the Civil War on the South

The losses were so great that the numbers ceased to register. In what Walt Whitman called “the desolated, ruined South . . . nearly the whole generation of young men between seventeen and thirty” had been “destroyed or maimed; the rich impoverished; the plantations covered with weeds; the slaves unloosed and become the masters; and the name of Southerner blackened with every shame.” Emancipation alone had wiped between $ 1.6 and $ 2.7 billion of capital investment off the books. Per capita income in the South collapsed by more than 40 percent, and real estate fell in value, ranging from an 18 percent loss in Tennessee to a whopping 70 percent devaluation in Louisiana. A third of Southern livestock and half of the South’s farm machinery had disappeared, and with them, the agriculture that depended on them, as land under cultivation shrank by 34 percent in South Carolina and 30 percent in Louisiana. Banking capital, much of it invested in Confederate securities, suffered losses of 28 percent, sending interest rates on what remained for borrowing through the few intact roofs. Total direct and indirect costs of the war for the South were probably close to $ 13.6 billion— which does not even begin to convey the sense of demoralization that accompanied the losses. “The whole country is alive with robbers,” shivered one Tennessee woman. “Every night we hear of a new robbery and sometimes murder.” Keep in mind the question, what would it take to resurrect the South economically?

The slave community was the seedbed for the ways African Americans responded to the coming of emancipation and shouldering the responsibilities of freedom during Reconstruction. After the war thousands of freedmen and women seeking to locate family members from whom they had been separated while in slavery would place advertisements in newspapers and solicit aid from the Freedman’s Bureau. Many families divided under slavery because their members belonged to different owners, now lived together.  Remember the experience of working under their own direction and of marketing produce they had grown as slaves helped to prepare African Americans for involvement in the market economy during Reconstruction. Many affirmed their newly acquired freedom by physical movement, separating themselves from former owners, if only by a few miles, “If I stay here,” one freedwoman told her ex-owner, “I’ll never know I am free.” Thousands of blacks converged on southern towners and cities. Schools, churches, fraternal societies, offices of the Freedman’s Bureau, and federal army outposts were built in cities.  There was a broader theme- a desire for independence from white control, for autonomy as individuals. Some married women established bank accounts in their own names at the Freedman’s Savings Bank.

Remember freedom meant more than establishing autonomous institutions. Recognition of their equal rights as American citizens quickly emerged as the animating impulse of black politics. In a society that had made political participation a core element of freedom, the right to vote inevitably became central to the former slave’s desire autonomy and empowerment.  “Slavery,” said Frederick Douglas in 1865, “is not abolished until the black man has the ballot.”

“We simply ask, “declared the South Carolina Colored People’s Convention of 1865 in a petition to Congress, “ that was shall be recognized as men; that there be no obstructions placed in our way, that the same laws that govern white men shall govern black men; that we have the right of trial by jury of our peers;…. That in short, we be dealt with as others are- in equality and justice.”

Freed people remained adamant in the desire to work without the supervision of masters and overseers, to determine their own hours and pace of labor, and to receive wages commensurate with their effort. Genuine economic freedom could be obtained only through ownership of land, for without land, blacks’ labor would continue to be exploited by their former owners.  The response, summed up by a Kentucky newspaper: the former slaves was “free, but free only to labor.” What the freedman wanted most, said Martin Delany, the black abolitionist, “is a home-one that he can call his own, and possess in fee simple.”

What was the definition of freedom for slaves?

  • Many affirmed their newly acquired freedom by physical movement, separating themselves from their former slave owners, if only by a few miles.

  • Some former slaves jettisoned the surnames of their masters.

  • A desire for independence from white control, for autonomy as individuals and as newly created communities. They want to work without supervision of masters and overseers. The ownership of land, without land, black’s labor would continue to be exploited by their former owners.

  • Reunite relatives separated by slavery and to consolidate long-existing family relationships.

  • Access to education.

  • The right to vote.

In South Carolina, Louisiana, and other areas occupied earliest by the Union soldiers, federal authorities found themselves presiding over the transition from slavery to freedom.

The world of most rural slaves was bound by their local communities and kin. They became extremely familiar with the local landscape, crops, and population, and gathered with slaves from nearby farms and plantations to celebrate marriages, attend funerals and for Christmas and Fourth of July celebrations.

The slave family was central to the African American community, allowing for the transmission of values, traditions, and survival strategies. When freedom came for slaves, legalizing their marriages and consolidating their families were among their highest priorities.

Slaves developed a distinctive version of Christianity that would play a crucial role in the Reconstruction era and, indeed, down to the present time. Before the Civil War, urban free blacks established their own churches. These institutions, at which many slaves as well as free blacks worshiped, became training grounds for postwar black leadership and schools, in a sense, of self-government. The black churches were the center of community life. These churches housed schools, social events, and political gatherings, adjudicated family disputes. The church also became a breeding ground for black leadership, and many ministers entered politics.  At least 240 black ministers, held some public office during Reconstruction.

Central to the meaning of freedom was access to education, so long denied to most African Americans. There was a recognition that learning was a form of empowerment, a desire to read the Bible, a general thrust toward uplift and group advancement. Northern abolitionists had been dispatching teachers as “missionaries” to runaways and contrabands since the first such contrabands had shown up at Fort Monroe in 1861.

The most difficult task confronting many Southerners at the end of the Civil War and beginning of Reconstruction was devising a new system of labor to replace the shattered world of slavery. Planters found it hard to adjust to the end of slavery.  Many former slaves believed that their years of unrequited labor gave them a claim to land. “Forty acres and a mule” became their rallying cry.  Most rented land or worked for wages on white-owned plantations.  Out of the conflicts of the plantations, new systems of labor emerged to take the place of slavery. Sharecropping dominated the cotton and tobacco South, while wage labor was the rule on sugar plantations. As under slavery, most rural blacks worked on land owned by whites. But they now exercised control over their personal lives, could come and go as they pleased, and determined which members of the family worked in the fields. Some urban growth occurred during Reconstruction, both in cities like Richmond and small market centers scattered across the cotton belt. Cities offered more diverse work opportunities for both black and white laborers.

Let’s remember the problem: Were they now supposed to sign contracts and be paid for their labor? Who would guarantee that the contracts would not turn out to be simply a newer version of bondage? Should provision be made by the public purse to educate them? Should they be considered citizens, and entitled to all the “privileges and immunities? Guaranted to citizens by Article 4, section 2, of the Constitution? And what were those “privileges and immunities” anyway? Office holding, jury service, bearing witness in court, voting, election to office?  And what would happen on representation in the House of Representatives, a complete change. The so-called three-fifths rule in the Constitution would disappear and going forward every freed slave would be counted as a full person- yet without any right to vote.

The Emancipation-Proclamation is perhaps the most misunderstood important document in American History.  The proclamation applied almost exclusively to areas under Confederate control. Thus, it had no bearing on the nearly half a million slaves in the board slave states that had never seceded from the Union, or on more than three hundred thousand slaves in the areas of the Confederacy occupied by Union soldiers and exempted by Lincoln from its coverage- the entire states of Tennessee and parts of Virginia and Louisiana. On January 1, 1863, most slaves resided in places where the proclamation could not be enforced.

A New Birth of Freedom- Reconstruction During the Civil War, The Emancipation Proclamation launched the historical process of Reconstruction.

At the war’s outset, the Lincoln Administration insisted that restoring the Union was its only purpose. But as slaves by the thousands abandoned the plantation and headed for the Union lines, and military victory eluded the North, the president made the destruction of slavery his war aim announced in the Emancipation Proclamation. During the war “rehearsals for Reconstruction “took place in the Union-occupied South. On the South Carolina Sea Island, the former slaves demanded land of their own, while government officials and Northern investors urged them to return to work on the plantations. In addition, a group of young Northern reformers came to the islands to educate the freed people and assist in the transition from slavery to freedom.  As the Union army occupied Southern territory, slaves by the thousands abandoned the plantations. The move towards emancipation might alienate the border states or make it more difficult to persuade the Confederate States to rejoin the Union. Just five months after the war had begun, the Union Commander of the Western Department, Major General John C. Frémont, declared martial law in Missouri. The enthusiastic Frémont confiscated property belonging to owners from the Confederacy and announced that the slaves present in Missouri were to be freed. Lincoln intervened, canceling these emancipations and noting that “I think there is great danger that . . . the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us.” When Major General Frémont objected, he was removed from command. When in May 1862 another Union commander, Major General David Hunter, announced the emancipation of freed slaves in South Carolina and Georgia, Lincoln intervened once again and canceled these emancipations too. It wasn’t until June 1862 that Lincoln finally signed legislation that formally outlawed slavery in all U.S. territories though this was not immediately enforced.

Lincoln still had to be very careful. The phrasing of the proclamation meant that slaves in states which were part of the Confederacy would be deemed to be free only if their states were invaded by the north or if they escaped to the north. However, the status of slaves in states which were part of the Union such as Maryland and Kentucky were unchanged. African American slaves in the southern states saw this proclamation as a promise of freedom if they could escape from the south and enter the northern states. Over the next three years, more than half a million slaves made their way north to freedom. This not only deprived the Confederacy of essential workers, but it also provided a vital source of new troops for the Union. Almost 200,000 African Americans, many former slaves, joined the armies of the north and fought bravely during the remainder of the Civil War.

Lincoln and the 13th Amendment

Lincoln defeated Democratic candidate George McClellan and secured his second presidential bid, Congress continued to debate the passage of the 13th amendment.  This time, however, the President positioned himself at the center of the controversy.

 Lincoln argued that emancipation would so undermine the morale of the Confederacy that it would weaken their military and bring about a swift end to the war.  The President undertook his own campaign for passage of the amendment, and his political allies and cabinet members helped to further the cause, convincing constituents and state legislatures to appeal directly to their congressmen for passage of the amendment. The proposal had passed quickly through the Senate the previous spring, but in the House of Representatives debates created divisive partisan factions, with little certainty as to the fate of the proposal.  Finally, after months of conflict, on January 31, 1865, the amendment passed 119-56, a two-vote margin.  In December, it was formally adopted.

The ratification of 13th amendment conferred upon Congress the power to enforce the abolition of slavery by appropriate legislation, granting the federal government the constitutional authority to dictate power relationships among individual citizens as it never had before.

 As the text reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation.

Less than a year after ratification, Congress called upon the enforcement power from Section 2 to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, granting African Americans citizenship and equal protection.  Proponents of the law argued that the 13th amendment authorized the federal government to legislate state action; critics maintained that unequal treatment was distinct from slavery such that the 1866 Act was beyond the amendment’s reach. This act represented the first attempt to give concrete meaning to the 13th Amendment. This Act declared all persons born in the United States (except Indians) national citizens and went on to spell out the rights they were to enjoy equally without regard to race.  No longer could states enact laws such as the Black Codes (noted below) declaring actions crimes for black persons but not white.

 In response to these debates, and as a direct outgrowth of the enforcement clause, Congress went on to pass the 14th and 15th amendments in quick succession, defining citizenship and equal rights and banning voting restrictions based on race.

 The 14th amendment would become the Supreme Court’s principal tool in deciding civil rights cases through the 20th century.  Still the 13th amendment, while less applicable to subsequent controversies than its counterpart, served to fundamentally reshape the American landscape.

 And while its eventual champion may have begun as little more than a symbolic emancipator, Lincoln’s 1865 campaign for ratification served to launch perhaps the greatest legal, economic and social revolution the United States has ever seen.

 

Response to Lincoln’s Plans

Two congressional factions formed over the subject of Reconstruction. A majority group of moderate Republicans in Congress supported Lincoln’s position that the Confederate states should be reintegrated as quickly as possible. A minority group of Radical Republicans--led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House and Ben Wade and Charles Sumner in the Senate--sharply rejected Lincoln’s plan, claiming it would result in restoration of the southern aristocracy and re-enslavement of blacks. They wanted to effect sweeping changes in the south and grant the freed slave’s full citizenship before the states were restored. The influential group of Radicals also felt that Congress, not the president, should direct Reconstruction. This is what led to the Wade-Davis Bill in July 1864.

The Radical Republicans voiced immediate opposition to Lincoln’s reconstruction plan, objecting to its leniency and lack of protections for freed slaves. Congress refused to accept the rehabilitation of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana. In July 1864, Congress passed the Wade-Davis Bill, their own formula for restoring the Union.

  • A state must have a majority within its borders take the oath of loyalty.

  • A state must formally abolish slavery.

  • No Confederate officials could participate in the new governments.

Lincoln did not approve of this plan and exercised his pocket veto. An angry Congress would later pass the Wade-Davis Manifesto (August 1864), which charged Lincoln with usurping the powers of Congress. This statement would have little impact on the public, as the military news from the South improved; Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign restored Lincoln’s popularity and helped assure his reelection.

President Johnson and his Reconstruction Plan

With the Assassination of Lincoln, the Presidency fell upon an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states’ rights views. Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate of Presidents. Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans in Congress, brilliantly led and ruthless in their tactics. Johnson was no match for them.

Born in Raleigh, North Carolina, in 1808, Johnson grew up in poverty. He was apprenticed to a tailor as a boy but ran away. He opened a tailor shop in Greeneville, Tennessee, married Eliza McCardle, and participated in debates at the local academy.

Entering politics, he became an adept stump speaker, championing the common man and vilifying the plantation aristocracy. As a Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 1840’s and ’50’s, he advocated a homestead bill to provide a free farm for the poor man.

During the secession crisis, Johnson remained in the Senate even when Tennessee seceded, which made him a hero in the North and a traitor in the eyes of most Southerners. In 1862 President Lincoln appointed him Military Governor of Tennessee, and Johnson used the state as a laboratory for reconstruction. In 1864 the Republicans, contending that their National Union Party was for all loyal men, nominated Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, for Vice President.

Views on Black Population

What were Johnson’s views regarding blacks?  He held deeply racist views regarding blacks and proved unable to envision their playing any role in the South’s Reconstruction, except as a dependent laboring class returning to work.

Prior to his assuming office after Lincoln’s assassination, Johnson continued to repeat himself: the eleven states of the Confederacy had never actually been out of the Union because they did not have the right to secede. According to Johnson, since these states hadn’t seceded, they had not relinquished their right to govern themselves as they wished. He insisted that slavery provided far better conditions for black men and women than they would enjoy in Africa and certainly enjoyed better conditions than the Northern wage slave, who had to grind out a pittance in a factory. To Johnson, free blacks were much worse off than southern slaves.  By the summer of 1863, Johnson supported immediate, unconditional emancipation. His reasoning was consistent with his hatred of the aristocrat: emancipation would liberate the white man from the tyranny of the plutocrat slaveholders. He did not for a minute believe” that the negro race is equal to the Anglo-Saxon-not at all.” Blacks had no role to play in Johnson’s vision of Reconstruction. In his view Reconstruction boiled down to placing the southern states under the control of loyal whites and bringing them back to their full standing in the Union as quickly as possible. At the end of May 1865 Johnson announced his plans for Reconstruction.

Johnson’s Plan for Reconstruction

Following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, Andrew Johnson became president and inaugurated the period of Presidential Reconstruction (1865–67). Johnson shared the white Southerners’ attitude toward African Americans, considering black men innately inferior and unready for equal civil or political rights. On May 29, 1865, Johnson made his policy clear:

  • Issued a general proclamation of pardon and amnesty for most Confederates and authorized the provisional governor of North Carolina to proceed with the reorganization of that state. Shortly afterward he issued similar proclamations for the other former Confederate states. In each case a state constitutional convention was to be chosen by the voters who pledged future loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. Johnson offered a pardon to all Southern whites except Confederate leaders and wealthy planters (although most of these subsequently received individual pardons), restoring their political rights and all property except slaves. Petitions for pardons came in by the hundreds and were given the presidential signature by the hundreds. By 1867 Johnson would issue 13,500 pardons.

  • He also outlined how new state governments would be created. Apart from the requirement that they abolish slavery, repudiate secession, and abrogate the Confederate debt, these governments were granted a free hand in managing their affairs. They responded by enacting the black codes, ( note the Black Code folder ) laws that required African Americans to sign yearly labor contracts and in other ways sought to limit the freedmen’s economic options and reestablish plantation discipline. Note the observation of journalist Sidney Andrews on the black codes: “the whites seem wholly unable to comprehend that freedom for the negro means the same think as freedom for them. They readily enough admit that the Government has made him free but appear to believe that they have the right to exercise the old control.” All told, Johnson’s self-reconstructed states chose for senators and representatives six Confederate cabinet officers and four generals. Back to the Black Codes, it defined as “vagrants” or “paupers” any freedperson who appeared unemployed and allowed local officials to bid them out as laborers for up to a year.  The first Black Code was enacted in Mississippi in an ironically titled piece of legislation: An Act to confer Civil Rights on Freedmen. This act required all African American men to present an annual labor contact in January each year. Failure to do so would result in classification as a vagrant and arrest. Workers who reneged on their annual contracts were treated as runaways who could be classed as vagrants. Even whites who associated with or assisted African Americans could find themselves arrested for vagrancy. The Mississippi code was quickly amended to include a clause which noted that “all white persons so assembling themselves with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes, on terms of equality, shall be deemed vagrants.” The Black Code enacted in Mississippi became the model for others that followed, and South Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana all introduced their own Black Codes in late 1865. In early 1866, Florida, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Arkansas all followed the leads of these states. Thomas W. Conway, the commissioner for the Freedmen’s Bureau in Louisiana noted in 1866, “These codes were simply the old black code of the state, with the word ‘slave’ expunged, and ‘Negro’ substituted. The most odious features of slavery were preserved in them.”

  • Johnson vetoed both the Freedman’s Bureau and the Civil Rights bills. He insisted that Congress pass no Reconstruction legislation until the Southern states were fully represented. Although the Senate failed by a single vote to override the Freedman’s Bureau bill (another measure, enacted in July 1867 extended the bureau’s life to 1870). Congress mustered the two-thirds majority to pass the Civil Rights Act.

Johnson assumed that ordinary white yeoman would replace in office the planters who had led the South in secession. He also ordered nearly all the land in the hands of the army and the Freedman’s Bureau returned to its prewar owners, an action that solidified his support among the South’s power class.

Despite the abolition of slavery, many former Confederates were not willing to accept the social changes. The fears of the mostly conservative planter elite and other prominent white citizens, however, were partly assuaged by Johnson’s assurance that wholesale land redistribution from the planters to the freedmen would not occur. Johnson ordered that land forfeited under the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, which were passed by Congress and administered by the Freedmen’s Bureau, would not be redistributed to the freedmen, but instead returned to pardoned owners. African Americans strongly resisted the implementation of these measures, and they seriously undermined Northern support for Johnson’s policies.

Congressional Radical Reconstruction Plan

During the autumn of 1865, the Radical Republicans responded to the implementation of the Black Codes by blocking the readmission of the former rebellious states to Congress. Johnson, however, pushed to allow former Confederate states into the Union, if their state governments adopted the Thirteenth Amendment (which abolished slavery). The amendment was ratified by December 6, 1865, leading Johnson to believe that Reconstruction was over. Congress refused to seat the representatives and senators elected from the southern states, many of whom had been leading officials in the Confederate government and army.

The Radical-controlled Congress, however, rejected Johnson’s moderate presidential Reconstruction, and organized the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, a 15-member panel that devised Reconstruction requirements for the Southern states to be restored to the Union.

Congress continued to pass more radical legislation. The Radical Republican vision for Reconstruction, also called “Radical Reconstruction,” was further bolstered in the 1866 election, when more Republicans took office in Congress. During this era, Congress passed three important Reconstruction amendments. The Civil Rights Bill was passed in 1866, as noted above. No state could deprive any citizen of the right to make contracts. The Congress mustered the two-thirds majority to pass the bill over the President’s veto.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified in 1865. The Fourteenth Amendment, proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, guaranteed U.S. citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and granted them federal civil rights. The Fifteenth Amendment, proposed in late February 1869 and passed in early February 1870, decreed that the right to vote could not be denied because of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” These amendments transformed the Constitution from a document concerned primarily with federal-state relations and rights of property into a vehicle through which members of vulnerable minorities could stake a claim to substantive freedom and seek protection against misconduct by all levels of government.

Congress also passed the Reconstruction Acts (1867-1868), Congress approved the acts in February 1867, and then on March 2 it overrode Johnson’s veto. Their principle task was to create an entirely new electorate in the South that carefully excluded recusant Confederates and their sympathizers among the white population and certified the enfranchisement of the freedman through the creation of vast registries of eligible voters.

The first Reconstruction Act placed 10 Confederate states under military control (dissolving the self-reconstructed governments that Johnson had set up) grouping them into five military districts that would serve as the acting government for the region. One major purpose was to recognize and protect the right of African Americans to vote. Under a system of martial law in the South, the military closely supervised local government, elections, and the administration of justice, and tried to protect office holders and freedmen from violence. Blacks were enrolled as voters and former Confederate leaders were excluded for a limited period. These Reconstruction Acts denied the right to vote for men who had sworn to uphold the Constitution and then rebelled against the federal government. As a result, in some states the black population was a minority, while the number of blacks who were registered to vote nearly matched the number of white registered voters. In addition, Congress required that each state draft a new state constitution—which would have to be approved by Congress—and that each state ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and grant voting rights to black men. One of the acts arrested on the premise that lawful governments did not exist in the South, and that Congress could govern the region until acceptable ones had been established, this is the act that temporarily divided the South into five military districts and led as noted above to the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  Union Leagues spread throughout the South in 1867. The organization had originated among middle-class northerners. The local leagues met in schools and churches, planned rallies and parades, and raised funds for mutual aid societies. Local leagues organized cooperative stores, advised freedmen on contract disputes with landowners and sometimes established their own courts to deal with community disagreements.

The Overthrow of Reconstruction 1869-1877

In 1868, the Republicans unanimously chose Ulysses S. Grant to be the Republican presidential candidate. Grant won favor with the Radicals after he allowed Edwin M. Stanton, a Radical, to be reinstated as secretary of war. As early as 1862, during the Civil War, Grant had appointed the Ohio military chaplain, John Eaton, to protect and gradually incorporate refugee slaves in west Tennessee and northern Mississippi into the Union war effort and pay them for their labor. Grant also opposed President Johnson by supporting the Reconstruction Acts passed by the Radicals.

President Grant’s Reconstruction Efforts

Grant was unanimously nominated by all 650 delegates, “with swinging hats and waving handkerchiefs” and a spontaneous chorus of “The Battle Cry of Freedom,” and went on in November, 1869 to win the presidency by 300,000 votes and a 214 to 80 victory in the electoral college. 3 Even before the election, congressional reconstruction was bringing Southern states back into the Union, this time firmly under Republican control. Between June 22 and July 15, Congress readmitted seven of the ten rebel states— Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North and South Carolina— under new constitutions. South Carolina’s constitution enfranchised any “resident of this State” who was also a “male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty- one years and upwards . . . without distinction of race, color or former condition,” and forbade the state legislature from passing “any law that will deprive any of the citizens of this State of the right of suffrage, except for treason, murder, robbery or dueling, whereof the persons shall have been duly tried and convicted.” And there was serious discussion of appealing to the federal government for a loan of $ 1 million to be used in buying land for the freedmen. “There is but one way to make a man love his country,” argued Franklin J. Moses, an ex- Confederate who had transformed himself into a Radical Republican, “Give them lands; give them houses.”

Immediately upon inauguration in 1869, Grant bolstered Reconstruction by prodding Congress to readmit Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas into the Union, while ensuring their constitutions protected every citizen’s voting rights. Grant met with prominent black leaders for consultation, and signed a bill into law that guaranteed equal rights to both blacks and whites in Washington, D.C.

By the early 1870’s biracial democratic government, something unknow in American history, was functioning effectively in many parts of the South, and men only recently released from bondage were exercising genuine political power. The most startling aspect of the new state governments was the role played by African Americans. Of the eighty- four Republicans in the lower house of the Georgia legislature, twenty- nine were black. In Arkansas, eight were black, and the average age was thirty- seven; five were biracial, three were ministers, three were farmers, and one was a postmaster. Florida elected fifty- three members to its lower house, thirty- seven of them Republican, and of those Republicans, seventeen were African American. In North Carolina, sixteen African Americans were elected to the state House of Representatives and three to the state Senate. As a group, they impressed a New York Times correspondent as possessing “by long odds the largest share of mental calibre.” By contrast, “there is scarcely a Southern white man” sitting in the state offices “who has character enough to keep him out of the Penitentiary.

During Grant’s two terms, he strengthened Washington’s legal capabilities to directly intervene to protect citizenship rights even if the states ignored the problem. He worked with Congress to create the Department of Justice and Office of Solicitor General, led by Attorney General Amos Akerman and the first Solicitor General Benjamin Bristow. Congress passed three powerful Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871. These were criminal codes which protected the Freedmen’s right to vote, hold office, serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. Most important, they authorized the federal government to intervene when states did not act. Grant’s new Justice Department prosecuted thousands of Klansmen under the tough new laws. Grant sent federal troops to nine South Carolina counties to suppress Klan violence in 1871.

Grant also used military pressure to ensure that African Americans could maintain their new electoral status, won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment giving African Americans the right to vote, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which gave people access to public facilities regardless of race. To counter vote fraud in the Democratic stronghold of New York City, Grant sent in tens of thousands of armed, uniformed federal marshals and other election officials to regulate the 1870 and subsequent elections. Democrats across the North then mobilized to defend their base and attacked Grant’s entire set of policies. On October 21, 1876, President Grant deployed troops to protect black and white Republican voters in Petersburg, Virginia.

Election of 1876

In the months following the Election of 1876, but prior to the inauguration in March 1877, Republican and Democratic leaders secretly hammered out a compromise to resolve the election impasse and address other outstanding issues.

Under the terms of this agreement, the Democrats agreed to accept the Republican presidential electors (thus assuring that Rutherford B. Hayes would become the next president), provided the Republicans would agree to the following:

  • To withdraw federal troops from their remaining positions in the South

  • To enact federal legislation that would spur industrialization in the South.

  • To appoint Democrats to patronage positions in the South

  • To appoint a Democrat to the president’s cabinet.

Why did the Democrats so easily give up the presidency that they had probably legitimately won? In the end it was a matter of practicality. Despite months of inflammatory talk, few responsible people could contemplate going to war. A compromise was mandatory and the one achieved in 1877, if it had been honored, would have given the Democrats what they wanted. There was no guarantee that with Samuel J. Tilden as president the Democrats would have fared as well.

To the four million former slaves in the South, the Compromise of 1877 was the “Great Betrayal." Republican efforts to assure civil rights for the blacks were totally abandoned. The white population of the country was anxious to get on with making money.

Once the parties had agreed to these terms, the Electoral Commission performed its duty. The Hayes’ electors were selected, and Hayes was named president two days before the inauguration.

The policies of Rutherford B. Hayes, America's 19th president, began to heal the nation after the ravages of the Civil War. Hayes had a reputation for being upstanding, moral, and honest, despite the controversial election.  Much of Hayes's 1877 inaugural address was devoted to calming down the citizenry. He quickly announced plans for election reform and pledged his earnest desire to heal the rift between North and South. Though he had generally supported Reconstruction, which aimed to secure the rights of black citizens, Hayes came to believe that interventionist policies were breeding more hatred among southerners, preventing the nation from healing itself in the aftermath of war.

Plessy vs Ferguson 1896

The 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson case was extremely important. It was a legal case in which the Supreme Court decided that "separate but equal" facilities satisfied the guarantees of 14th Amendment, thus giving legal sanction to "Jim Crow" segregation laws. The namesakes of the Plessy v. Ferguson case were the plaintiff Homer Adolph Plessy (1862 – 1925) and the defendant Judge John H. Ferguson (1838 - 1915) of the Criminal Court for New Orleans. In 1954, the Supreme Court justices in Brown v. the Board of Education reversed the decision made in the Plessy case by making the decision that legally sanctioned racial segregation was inherently unequal and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Conclusion- End of Reconstruction

Reconstructed ended when national attention turned away from the integration of former slaves as equal citizens enabling white Democrats to recapture southern politics. Between 1868 and 1877, and accelerating after the Depression of 1873, national interest in Reconstruction dwindled as economic issues moved to the foreground. The biggest threat to Republican power in the South was violence and intimidation by white conservatives, staved off by the presence of federal troops in key southern cities. Reconstruction ended with the contested Presidential election of 1876, which put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in office in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South.

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

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

The treatment of Native Americans in the US has a very difficult history. Here, Isabella Kim looks at how expanding to new areas in the early 19th century led to conflict between settlers and Native Americans.

A depiction of US Marines looking for Native Americans near mangroves during the Seminole War.

While the rapidly expanding United States pushed into the lower South in the early nineteenth century, white settlers encountered what they saw as an impediment. The Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations called this region home. However, the settlers and many other white Americans believed these Native nations were hindering their progress. As a result, the settlers pressured the federal government to take over Native territory because they were eager for land to grow cotton.

Andrew Jackson of Tennessee was a firm supporter of Native American removal. He led the American armed forces that overpowered a group of the Creek nation in 1814. The Creeks lost 22 million acres of territory in southern Georgia and central Alabama due to their loss. Then in 1818, the United States claimed even more land after Jackson’s troops invaded Spanish Florida, wanting to punish the Seminoles for harboring fugitive slaves. Jackson had a crucial role in nine of the eleven treaties that traded the southern tribes' eastern territories for areas in the west. The tribes approved the treaties because they sought to satisfy the government to keep some of their territories and shield themselves from harassment. The treaties gave the US power over most of Florida and Alabama and portions of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

Conflict

The five Native American tribes had resisted in the past, but many of their methods were non-violent. Adopting practices like industrial farming, Western education, and slavery was one strategy. They pursued this assimilation method to coexist with settlers and avoid conflict. Yet it enraged and irritated the settlers. Although many of the Native American’s strategies were non-violent, the Creeks and Seminoles went to war to protect their territory. The Seminole Wars were a series of three military conflicts between the United States and the Seminoles. In the first Seminole War from 1817 to 1818, under the order of Jackson, the United States invaded the area burning towns and capturing Spaniard territory.

The Cherokee sought to protect their rights through legal means. They adopted a written constitution in 1827 that declared themselves as a sovereign nation. Previously  Native American countries had been recognized as sovereign and therefore could legally cede their lands. Georgia, on the other hand, did not acknowledge their status as sovereigns and instead saw them as tenants living on state land. After hearing the Cherokee's case, the Supreme Court rejected the Cherokee's appeal. The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee, stating that the Cherokee had the right to self-govern. Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation known as the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress just a year after taking office. It gave the president the authority to negotiate removal treaties with Native American tribes east of the Mississippi. The Native Americans were supposed to surrender their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. However, those who choose to stay in the east would become citizens of their home state.

Removal treaty

The Choctaws were the first to sign a removal treaty in September 1830. Those who chose to stay in Mississippi under the terms of the Removal Act suffered from constant harassment from the settlers who moved into their territory or stole their belongings. Although the War Department attempted to protect those who stayed, many grew tired of the mistreatment, sold their land, and moved west.

For the next 28 years, the United States government struggled to force the relocation of the southeastern nations. Most of the Creeks and Chickasaws migrated west from 1837 to 1838 due to the failure of the government to maintain its promise of protecting the tribes from harassment. By the third Seminole War, the United States paid the remaining resisting Seminoles to move west. On the other hand, the Cherokee were tricked with a false treaty. A tiny faction of the tribe agreed to sign the removal agreement, the Treaty of New Echota. Over 15,000 members decided to sign a protest but were ignored by the Supreme Court, which ratified the treaty in 1836. The group was given two years to migrate until they would be forcibly removed. When the deadline came, only 2,000 members had migrated, leaving around 16,000 still on their land. Seven thousand troops were sent by the U.S. government, forcing the Cherokees into stockades at bayonet point. They were allowed no time to gather their belongings. This march west became known as the Trail of Tears, in which 4,000 Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease. As they left, the white settlers looted belongings from their homes.

What do you think of the treatment of Native Americans in the early 19th century? Let us know below.

Africa held an important place in the Cold War. Hardly had the nations there freed themselves from colonial bondage than they were suddenly made into a battlefield. It was here that the United States and Russia, who did not dare fight on a Europe that had already shed so much blood, fought for supremacy. The Soviet Union tried to appeal to Africans as fellow revolutionaries and paraded capitalism as the enemy. However, the new leaders understood that the Soviet Union would merely absorb Africa into a new colonial empire. Kennedy, though, appealed to the Africans’ newfound taste for democracy. These conflicts met head-on in the Congo Crisis, and the clashes, unlike in much of the rest of the world, were bloody.

Ayrton Avery explains.

US President Richard Nixon meets President Mobutu Sese Seku of Zaire in 1973 in the White House.

Tempting Ideologies

As soon as Ghana achieved independence in 1957, the people were turning to socialism. Guinea, which was also led to independence the following year, followed suit. The Soviet Union viewed these countries as a gold mine. They found similarities between Russian and African history, and thought the subsequent implementation of communism was only logical. However, Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s president, viewed things differently. He preferred a version of socialism that emphasized pan-Africanism, though he admired Russia’s ideology of Marxism-Leninism. This became the reason that the Russians had to fight for Africa, using diplomacy or otherwise.

Much later, during the Portuguese Colonial War (1961-1974) in Angola, Kennedy was tempted to take the stand against the colonizers, probably because he feared Soviet influence in that region. Like the Russians, he tried to appeal to the Africans ideologically. He preached anti-communist and democracy, at one point even meeting with the Angolan politician Holden Roberto. However, Africans viewed the United States as a colonial power and Europeans feared the Angolans would still turn communist despite U.S. support. In the end, the U.S. also had to fight for Africa.

Cold War Not-So-Cold

Naturally, clashes made up the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the U-2 Incident and others were ways the two powers tried to gain supremacy without resorting directly to the gun. However, this conflict was more than just political, it was also economic. The United States needed money to fund their own wars, while the Soviet Union itself was in an economic downgrade. The two nations saw Africa, rich in resources, as a source of funds and diplomatic superiority.

However, even with this, there was no genuine need for any wars in Africa to turn bloody. But, new African countries took Kwame Nkrumah’s (the first president of Ghana’s) lead in viewing the Soviets as a colonial power. These countries accepted money from both sides, all the while refusing to become allied with either. This, of course, pleased neither the Russians nor the Americans. Eventually, Americans got Guinea and Ghana more or less under their foot. But the Congo, which was a confused bag of warring factions in 1960, and also boasted Iron, Zinc, Copper and Tantalum, was even more tempting.

A Fight for Tantalum

In the Congo, no one was in power. Shortly after gaining its independence, a series of rebellions broke out between ethnic groups and those who supported the colonizers. At first, the United States blamed the socialist leader Lumumba for the fighting and refused to send forces at all. But then, the Soviets intervened in August 1960, setting the stage for yet another clandestine battlefield of the Cold War.

The United States put down the Communist secessionists, but soon new ones appeared, inspired by the Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Belgium and the United States intervened directly this time, realizing the threat. Bloody fighting began, provoked by Russia, China, the U.S., and Belgium, but eventually they crushed the Maoists as well, by the spring of 1965.

Although an authoritarian dictator was put in, ever since, the West, not the Soviet Union, have controlled the Congo and all its exports. The defeat also undermined Soviet influence in Africa, and resulted in most governments handing over power (indirectly) to the West. This was possibly one of the greatest factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russians lost huge amounts of revenue as African nations slammed the Russians for not providing better support to the rebels. It also did not help that now the U.N. was giving money to the Congo’s corrupted and authoritarian leadership. Once again, the West had won on a major battlefield of the cold war.

Conclusion

Of course, the violence did not end. The Cold War was not yet over. Russia tried, and succeeded somewhat, to gain control in Angola. But the victory was not enough. The West had tightened its grip on the continent far too tight. After the 70s, though, instability in the continent soared. The First Congo War broke out. Then there was the Rwandan genocide. And the Second Congo War broke, leading into the 21st century. Much of the Diamonds and tantalum are now being sold to Russian mercenaries. The West never truly won in Africa, just like in Korea. It was all an illusion. Both powers have rendered the continent more or less useless for their goals.

What do you think of Soviet and America in Africa during the Cold War? Let us know below.

We have run the site for free for over a decade - if you enjoy the site and want to say “thank you”, donate today >>> Click here.

References

Elizabeth, Schmidt. Foreign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Africa and the Communist World. Stanford University Press, 1963.

Nkrumah, Kwame. Challenge of the Congo. International Publishers, 1967.

William Reno. Warfare in Independent Africa. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Elbaum, Max. Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che. Verso Books, 2002.