The Triangle Shortwaist Factory Fire took place in New York City in March 1911. It is one of the deadliest industrial disasters in U.S. history, resulting in 146 deaths. Richard Bluttal explains.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire on March, 25, 1911.

“My name is Sadie Frowne. I work in Allen Street (Manhattan) in what they call a sweatshop. I am new at the work and the foreman scolds me a great deal. I get up at half past five every morning and make myself a cup of coffee on the oil stove. I eat a bit of bread and perhaps some fruit and then go to work. Often, I get there soon after six o'clock so as to be in good time, though the factory does not open till seven.

At seven o'clock we all sit down to our machines and the boss brings to each one the pile of work that he or she is to finish during the day--what they call in English their "stint." This pile is put down beside the machine and as soon as a garment is done it is laid on the other side of the machine. Sometimes the work is not all finished by six o'clock, and then the one who is behind must work overtime.’’

 

The Life of a Shirtwaist Maker in New York City early 20th Century

The shirtwaist makers, as young as age 15, worked seven days a week, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. with a half-hour lunch break. During the busy season, the work was nearly non-stop. They were paid about $6 per week. In some cases, they were required to use their own needles, thread, irons and occasionally their own sewing machines. The factories also were unsanitary, or as a young striker explained, “unsanitary—that’s the word that is generally used, but there ought to be a worse one used.” At the Triangle factory, women had to leave the building to use the bathroom, so management began locking the steel exit doors to prevent the “interruption of work” and only the foreman had the key.

The “shirtwaist”—a woman’s blouse—was one of the country’s first fashion statements that crossed class lines. The booming ready-made clothing industry made the stylish shirtwaist affordable even for working women. Worn with an ankle-length skirt, the shirtwaist was appropriate for any occasion—from work to play—and was more comfortable and practical than fashion that preceded it, like corsets and hoops.

 

The Fire

It was a warm spring Saturday in New York City, March 25, 1911. On the top three floors of the ten-story Asch Building just off of Washington Square, employees of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City began putting away their work as the 4:45 p.m. quitting time approached. Most of the several hundred Triangle Shirtwaist employees were teenage girls. Most were recent immigrants. Many spoke only a little English. Just then somebody on the eighth floor shouted, "Fire!" Flames leapt from discarded rags between the first and second rows of cutting tables on the hundred-foot-by-hundred-foot floor. Triangle employee William Bernstein grabbed pails of water and vainly attempted to put the fire out. As a line of hanging patterns began to burn, cries of "fire" erupted from all over the floor. In the thickening smoke, as several men continued to fling water at the fire, the fire spread everywhere--to the tables, the wooden floor trim, the partitions, the ceiling. A shipping clerk dragged a hose in the stairwell into the rapidly heating room, but nothing came--no pressure. Terrified and screaming, girls streamed down the narrow fire escape and Washington Place stairway or jammed into the single passenger elevator.

In the hell of the ninth-floor, 145 employees, mostly young women, would die. Those that acted quickly made it through the Greene Street stairs, climbed down a rickety fire escape before it collapsed, or squeezed into the small Washington Place elevators before they stopped running. The last person on the last elevator to leave the ninth floor was Katie Weiner, who grabbed a cable that ran through the elevator and swung in, landing on the heads of other girls. A few other girls survived by jumping into the elevator shaft, and landing on the roof of the elevator compartment as it made its final descent. The weight of the girls caused the car to sink to the bottom of the shaft, leaving it immobile. For those left on the ninth floor, forced to choose between an advancing inferno and jumping to the sidewalks below, many would jump. Others, according to survivor Ethel Monick, became "frozen with fear" and "never moved."

It took only eighteen minutes to bring the fire under control, and in ten minutes more it was practically "all over." Water soaked a pile of thirty or more bodies on the Greene Street sidewalk. Doctors pawed through heaps of humanity looking for signs of life. Police tried desperately to keep crowds of hysterical relatives from overrunning the disaster scene. Officers filled coffins and loaded them into patrol wagons and ambulances. The bodies were taken to a temporary morgue set up on a covered pier at the foot of East Twenty-sixth Street. Firemen searched the burned-out floors of the Asch building, hoping to find survivors. What they mostly found were, according to Chief Edward Croker, "bodies burned to bare bones, skeletons bending over sewing machines." Four hours after the fire, workers discovered a lone survivor trapped in rising water at the bottom of the elevator shaft.

Suzanne Pred Bass, Executive Board Member at the Remember the Triangle Fire Coalition, located in New York City, to discussed how the legacy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, which took the lives of 123 women and girls and 23 men, has inspired future movements to protect workers’ rights – particularly for vulnerable populations such as immigrants and women. 

‘’ Immigrants struggling to make a life for themselves, without the language and educational skills necessary to protect and guide them, become extremely vulnerable in the workplace. As they struggle to 

help their families survive, they end up working wherever they can. Many don’t have the necessary papers to legally work and therefore are prey to greedy bosses who will exploit them and see them as nothing but tools to make money. Without unions to protect them they are forced to accept low wages, unsafe workplaces, sexual harassment, and unfair conditions over which they have no say. “

This is what was happening in 1911 when the fire occurred and is still happening here and around the world. The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU) had been fighting for the creation of unions since 1900. The union’s first major strike – comprised of 20,000 female workers – occurred in 1909, followed by an even larger one in 1910. Led by Clara Lemlich, women sweatshop workers went on strike to protest their unsafe, unfair workplace environments. The strike succeeded in getting many sweatshops to become union shops. Unfortunately, the Triangle Factory owners – Max Blank and Isaac Harris – refused to be unionized. They made promises to workers that were never fulfilled. The Triangle Factory fire galvanized New Yorkers and people across the country as well as in other countries, particularly those from Russia and Italy; countries that claimed the most victims. 

 

Building Structure of the Brown ( Asch ) Building

The Brown (then called the Asch) Building, constructed in 1901 of steel and iron, was advertised as “fireproof” and, hence, attracted several garment factories. The Triangle firm occupied the 8th, 9th and 10th floors, at the top of the building. The building offered few working bathrooms, faulty ventilation, and outmoded heating and cooling systems. The stairwells were poorly lit and hazardous. More egregious, it had no overhead sprinklers and only a single fire escape, which was neither durable nor big enough to accommodate all of the people working in the building in the event of a fire.

Added to these risks, the Triangle Company stored flammable products and chemicals on its production floors. Working cheek by jowl, the seamstresses sat at tightly arranged rows of sewing machines and cutting tables. All over the floor were clippings of flammable fabric. Under one of the work bins, where 120 layers of fabric were once stored, a spark turned into a flame and spread to the tissue paper shirt patterns, or templates, hanging from the ceiling.

The fire soon spread from worktable to worktable, gaining speed, heat, and venom with each passing second. Many died of smoke inhalation. Others, who could not find a means of escape, burned to death. And there also were the indelibly horrific images of the young women who jumped out of windows to their deaths, because the stairwell doors were locked shut and the elevators were out of order.

The New York City Department arrived but their ladders reached only as high as the 6th floor of the building, two entire floors below the fire. The mounting dead—covered in tarps— were arranged in rows along the sidewalk by the city coroners for the newspaper photographers.

Below were the laws of the Department of Buildings at time of the fire and the specific structure of Ashe building of these laws.

 

 New York State Labor Laws (Article 6, Section 80):

“All doors leading in or to any such factory shall be constructed as to open outwardly, where practicable, and shall not be locked, bolted, or fastened during working hours.”

Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:

Whether Section 80 was violated was the key issue in the trial of Harris and Blanck. The case turned on whether the ninth-floor staircase door on the Washington Place side was locked at the time of trial.

The prosecution contended the door was locked and introduced a witness who testified that at the time of the fire she tried the door “in and out, all ways” and was unable to open the door. The prosecution also showed that many of the victims of the fire died in front of the door. The prosecution argued that Harris and Blanck kept the door locked, especially near quitting time, to force exiting workers to pass through the only other exit, where they could be inspected if they were suspected of trying to pilfer waistcoats.

The defense contended that the door was open, but that the fleeing workers were unable to exit through the door because of fire in the stairwell. The defense introduced a witness who said that on the day of the fire a key was tied to the lock with the string and that she used the key to open the door. (The prosecution claimed the witness lied.)

It was also shown that the ninth-floor staircase door did not “open outwardly,” but inspectors failed to note a violation because only the width of a stair separated the door from the stairs, making it not “practicable” for the door to open outwardly.

Staircases
New York Law:

Buildings with more than 2,500 square feet per floor–but less than 5,000 square feet per floor–require two staircases. Each additional 5,000 square feet per floor requires an additional staircase.
Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:
The Triangle Shirtwaist Company floors had 10,000 square feet of space. Any additional floor space would have required a third staircase. As it was, two staircases–the number the Triangle factory had–sufficed.

Fire Escapes
New York Law:

New York law left the matter of fire escapes to the discretion of building inspectors. The building inspector for the Asch building insisted that the fire escape proposed for the building “must lead down to something more substantial than a skylight.” (The architect’s plans showed a rear fire escape leading to a skylight.)
Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:
The Asch building architect promised “the fire escape will lead to the yard and an additional balcony will be put in.” In the final construction, however, the fire escape still ended at a second-floor skylight. During the fire, the fire escape collapsed under the weight of the fleeing workers.

Non-Wood Surfaces
New York Law:

Buildings over 150 feet high must have metal trim, metal window frames, and stone or concrete floors. Buildings under 150 feet high have no such requirements.
Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:
The ten-story Asch building was 135 feet high. If it had one more floor, it would have required non-wood surfaces.

 

 

 

Consequences and Conclusion

More than 350,000 people marched in the funeral procession for the Triangle victims. Activists kept their memory alive by lobbying their local and state leaders to do something in the name of building and worker safety and health. Three months later, John Alden Dix, then the governor of New York, signed a law empowering the Factory Investigating Committee, which resulted in eight more laws covering fire safety, factory inspection, and sanitation and employment rules for women and children. The following year, 1912, activists and legislators in New York State enacted another 25 laws that transformed its labor protections among the most progressive in the nation. Many of these reforms—all proposed to protect the health and safety of the American worker—were swept into federal law during the New Deal. Years later, in 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed and created, “whose primary mission is to ensure that employees carry out their tasks under safe working conditions.” It remains a critically important agency in the lives of working Americans.

The Triangle Fire of March 25, 1911, destroyed hundreds of lives — both those who died and their families. Sadly, it required the ashes of 146 people to redesign and reimagine the workplace of the early 20th century. Once a dirty and unsafe place, filled with dangerous machines and, before child labor laws, small children, American factories and offices are now far safer than they once were only a century ago. Nonetheless, as new technology and manufacturing processes develop, we must remain vigilant in ferreting out and preventing the health risks they impose to workers and consumers. Now, as then, we must always remember the horrific flames of the Triangle.

The company's owners, Max Blanck and Isaac Harris – both Jewish immigrants – who survived the fire by fleeing to the building's roof when it began, were indicted on charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter in mid-April; the pair's trial began on December 4, 1911.Max Steuer, counsel for the defendants, managed to destroy the credibility of one of the survivors, Kate Alterman, by asking her to repeat her testimony a number of times, which she did without altering key phrases. Steuer argued to the jury that Alterman and possibly other witnesses had memorized their statements and might even have been told what to say by the prosecutors. The prosecution charged that the owners knew the exit doors were locked at the time in question. The investigation found that the locks were intended to be locked during working hours based on the findings from the fire, but the defense stressed that the prosecution failed to prove that the owners knew that the jury acquitted the two men of first- and second-degree manslaughter, but they were found liable of wrongful death during a subsequent civil suit in 1913 in which plaintiffs were awarded compensation in the amount of $75 per deceased victim. The insurance company paid Blanck and Harris about $60,000 more than the reported losses, or about $400 per casualty.

 

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

It has been 60 years since an assassin’s bullet cut down President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. The horrific event for America was immediately probed from all angles for any signs of a conspiracy right after the event outside the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. 

Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. Photograph by Robert H. Jackson. The photograph won the 1964 Pulitzer Prize for Photography.

Three days following John F. Kennedy’s assassination, on November 25, the country mourned his death. We have all seen the incredible images of JFK’s funeral. The Horseless Rider in the procession, Jackie Kennedy walking with RFK and Ted behind the casket. John John saluting his father one last time.

Just over 1,300 miles away also on November 25, the Dallas Police Department was on display in their Dress Uniforms to honor Officer J.D. Tippit’s at his funeral. Tippit was gunned down in a Dallas residential area not long after the assassination of President Kennedy.

Across town in Fort Worth, a very different type of funeral was taking place. Twenty-four-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald, the killer of J.D. Tippit and suspected killer of JFK was being laid to rest in Rose Hill Cemetery. The logistics of this funeral turned out to be the most difficult.

When Oswald’s body was collected in the middle of the night from Parkland Hospital, Miller Funeral Home was surrounded by authorities. Next was the obstacle of getting a clergyman to provide a sermon for Oswald. With a possible concern of sniper fire during the outdoor service, several clergy members backed out.

The 4:00 P.M. funeral had no mourners except for Oswald’s immediate family, who attended as well as authorities and the press. When the time came to carry Oswald from the hearse to the gravesite, local reporters were the only pallbearers who were available to carry the casket.

Then suspicions arose that Oswald was not actually in the casket, that it was instead a spy who was hired to assassinate Kennedy. The casket was opened briefly so that the family could see the body.

 

Exhumation

With suspicions continuing about a spy in Oswald’s casket for years after the funeral, the body was exhumed in 1981 despite Robert Oswald’s objections. When the casket was damaged during the exhumation, and a Texas Funeral Home attempted to sell the original for more than $87,000, Robert Oswald did sue and was able to stop the transaction as well as winning a court ruling.

Shannon Funerals Chapels was originally founded in 1906. The 84-acre cemetery was founded in 1928 and the two united in 1986.

If you visit Oswald’s grave today at Shannon Rose Hill, you’ll no doubt notice the headstone in the next plot that simply reads NICK BEEF.

Since 1996, the headstone has occupied the plot next to Oswald’s. The plot is owned by writer Patric Abedin, who traveled to Fort Worth to see the Kennedys during the 1963 visit. He was propped up on the shoulders of a marine serviceman to see the Kennedys, and this made an impression on Abedin as did his visits to Oswald’s grave as a child.

In 1975, he bought the plot for a $17.50 deposit, and then made monthly payments of $10. In 1996, the headstone appeared with Abedin’s alias.

In November 1967, two teenagers stole Lee Harvey Oswald’s headstone from the cemetery. When it was recovered by authorities, it was returned to Oswald’s mother and stored in a crawlspace under her home, where it remained and changed ownership after Mrs. Oswald’s home was sold after her 1981 death and was finally sold to the Historic Auto Attractions Museum.

Perhaps ending all of the sad, strange events around the final arrangements for Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

Find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington, PA.

The Civil War and the American conquest of the West were two of the most important events of the nineteenth century. However, these events are often treated as separate occurrences, even though the end of the war played a crucial role in stimulating westward expansion. It is important to acknowledge that the expansion of slavery played a prominent role in the power struggles for control over the territories, which would eventually become the Old West. Indeed, what we now perceive as the Old West saw itself as the New South during that period.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Buffalo Bill, around 1880.

Following the defeat of the Confederacy, numerous men who had fought for a cause found themselves suddenly without employment, money, or prospects. Many returned home to find their families and farms devastated, facing circumstances beyond their worst nightmares. In response, those who had the means chose to migrate westward in search of a fresh start. However, their anger, experiences, and familiarity with guns and violence accompanied them on their journey.

The popular perception of the Old West, largely influenced by Hollywood depictions, revolves around lawlessness, gunfights, and violence. In these portrayals, lawmen are depicted as heroes, distinguished by their badges and white hats, while the "bad guys" are characterized by black hats, unshaven appearances, and a tendency to draw their weapons first. However, the reality was far more nuanced. Violence was rampant, and law and order were virtually nonexistent. Interestingly, those who carried badges typically hailed from the northern states, while outlaws were often from the Border States and the old South. And those who wore the badges were of a specific background.

 

 

The Border States

It is crucial to recognize that the western frontier in the 1850s and 1860s encompassed Missouri and Kansas, known as the Border States. Kansas, in particular, had a history steeped in violence, which was deeply ingrained in the lives of its inhabitants. While we may not commonly associate the Old West with the consequences of the Civil War, those who lived during that time held no such distinction. When we envision the Old West today, we often think of states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. However, during the 1860s, the frontier was primarily located in Kansas. Whether we refer to it as a result of the Civil War or as Old West-related, those who actively participated in that era did not make such distinctions. It was the frontier in many different ways: between North and South, for sure, but also the West vs. East, whites vs. Native Americans, and Republicans vs. Democrats. It was a place of violence and lawlessness precisely because it was the border of all of these cultural shifts.

 

Bushwhacking and Western Gangs

Bushwhacking is a form of guerrilla warfare common during conflicts in which there were large areas of contested land and few governmental resources to control these tracts. This tactic was particularly prevalent in rural areas during the Civil War where there were sharp divisions between those favoring the Union and Confederacy in the conflict. The individuals responsible for these attacks, known as bushwhackers, utilized ambushes as a means of attrition. Attrition warfare, a military strategy aimed at wearing down the enemy through continuous losses in personnel, material, and morale, was the underlying objective of these guerrilla tactics.

Bushwhackers were typically affiliated with irregular military forces on both sides of the conflict. While they occasionally launched well-coordinated raids against military targets, their most devastating attacks involved ambushing individuals and conducting house raids in rural communities. These actions were especially inflammatory as they often pitted neighbors against each other, serving as a means to settle personal scores. Due to their lack of proper insignia, the Union considered these attackers as terrorists. Notable figures such as William Quantrill, Bill Anderson, and John Singleton Mosby exemplified the bushwhacker profile. Partisan Rangers, essentially land-based privateers, also fell under the category of bushwhackers.

The association of bushwhacking became particularly strong with the pro-Confederate guerrillas in Missouri, where this form of warfare reached its peak intensity. Guerrilla activities also extended to regions like Kentucky, Appalachian Tennessee, northern Georgia, Arkansas, and western Virginia. In Kansas, pro-Union guerrilla fighters were referred to as "Jayhawkers" and frequently engaged in cross-border raids into Missouri.

 

Jesse & Frank James

The James Brothers, along with their partners the Youngers, can be traced back to their involvement in the Civil War. Understanding the James–Younger Gang solely as outlaws in the Wild West would be incomplete, as their formation can be traced back to the bushwhackers of the Civil War era who engaged in partisan warfare in Missouri during the Civil War.

After the war ended, their motives shifted from fighting for the Confederacy to pursuing personal profit through acts of plunder and murder. Jesse James, a prominent member of the gang, began his insurgent activities in 1864. Throughout the war, he primarily fought against fellow Missourians, including Missouri regiments of U.S. Volunteer troops, state militia, and unarmed Unionist civilians. Although there is only one confirmed instance of him engaging in combat with Federal troops from another state, which occurred after Appomattox, he faced numerous hardships during the war. His mother and sister were arrested, his stepfather was tortured, and his family was temporarily banished from Missouri by Unionist Missourians.

The James–Younger Gang eventually disbanded in 1876 after the Younger brothers were captured during a failed bank robbery in Northfield, Minnesota. It is often mentioned that Union Army veterans played a significant role in the gunfight that led to their capture. Considering the contributions of the Iron Brigade and the First Minnesota in the war, it appears that the gang had chosen the wrong town to engage in criminal activities.

Three years later, Jesse James formed a new gang and resumed his criminal career. However, his reign came to an end in 1882 when he was shot from behind by Robert Ford, resulting in his death. Interestingly, Ford, who was a member of the James-Younger Gang, had been offered a reward and full pardon by the Governor of Missouri, Thomas Crittenden, if he successfully killed James. Crittenden had been elected with the promise of bringing an end to the notorious gang.

 

Buffalo Bill

In 1853, a man named Isaac Cody sold his land in Scott County, Iowa, and he, his wife, and their son moved to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Territory.  The allure of the frontier and the potential opportunities it held were the driving factors behind this move. However, little did he know that he was about to find himself in a tumultuous and violent situation. As an ardent opponent of slavery, Isaac was invited to deliver a speech at Rively's Store, a local trading post known for hosting gatherings of pro-slavery individuals. Unfortunately, his impassioned antislavery rhetoric provoked such anger among the crowd that they resorted to threatening his life. In a shocking turn of events, a man leaped forward and viciously stabbed Isaac twice with a Bowie knife. Although Rively, the store's proprietor, promptly rushed him to receive medical attention, Isaac never fully recovered from the injuries inflicted upon him. 

Following their arrival in Kansas, the Cody family faced relentless persecution from pro-slavery supporters. Isaac's safety was jeopardized to such an extent that he was compelled to spend considerable time away from his home. Matters took a grave turn when his adversaries discovered his planned visit to his family and devised a sinister plot to assassinate him en route. It was at this critical juncture that his 11-year-old son, already an accomplished equestrian, rode an astonishing thirty miles to warn his father of the impending danger. In a surprising twist, Isaac decided to divert his course and journeyed to Cleveland, Ohio, where he organized a group of thirty families to bring them back to Kansas to bolster the antislavery population. Tragically, during his return trip, Isaac fell ill with a respiratory infection, exacerbated by the lingering effects of his stabbing and complications arising from kidney disease. These afflictions ultimately led to his untimely demise in April 1857.

His son, William Cody, was forced to make a living as a young teen. He first worked as a messenger, capitalizing on his exceptional horse-riding abilities. Subsequently, he embarked on a career as a scout, riding alongside the US Cavalry in Utah, where he demonstrated his marksmanship by preventing a Native American from harming his comrade. At the age of 14, he ventured into gold prospecting in California but soon abandoned this quest to become a rider for the Pony Express. In 1861, he attempted to enlist in the Union army, but was rejected (he was just 15). In 1863, at age 17, he enlisted as a teamster with the rank of private in Company H, 7th Kansas Cavalry, and served until discharged in 1865.

With the end of the war, he went to Junction City KS to enlist as a scout with an old friend named Bill Hickok. They would work for various troops and their generals, including George Armstrong Custer. The reunion of Bill Cody with Wild Bill Hickock after the war was a critical part of the Old West story. They first met when Hickok was age 18, and a Jayhawker, and Cody was age 12. They crossed paths again in 1862 when Hickock joined General James Henry Lane's Kansas Brigade, and while serving with the brigade, saw his friend Buffalo Bill Cody, who was serving as a scout.

Buffalo Bill's Wild West Shows have been the subject of much contemporary criticism, with controversy revolving around whether they exploited Native Americans or if Bill was their benefactor.

 

Billy the Kid

Billy the Kid’s real name was Henry McCarty, whose alias was William H Bonney – that was not his real name. He had killed 21 men by the time of his own death at age 21. His connection to the Civil War is indirect but is a fascinating reflection on the times.

McCarty was orphaned at the age of 15. His first arrest was for stealing food at the age of 16 in 1875. Ten days later, he robbed a Chinese laundry and was arrested again but escaped shortly afterward. He fled from New Mexico Territory into neighboring Arizona Territory, making himself both an outlaw and a federal fugitive. In 1877, he began to call himself "William H. Bonney".

After killing a blacksmith during an altercation in August 1877, Bonney became a wanted man in Arizona and returned to New Mexico, where he joined a group of cattle rustlers. He became well known in the region when he joined the Regulators and took part in the Lincoln County War of 1878. He and two other Regulators were later charged with killing three men, including Lincoln County Sheriff William J. Brady and one of his deputies.

Bonney's notoriety grew in December 1880 when the Las Vegas Gazette, and The Sun, in New York City, carried stories about his crimes. Sheriff Pat Garrett captured Bonney later that month. In April 1881, Bonney was tried for and convicted of Brady's murder and was sentenced to hang in May of that year. He escaped from jail on April 28, killing two sheriff's deputies in the process, and evaded capture for more than two months. Garrett eventually caught up with him and shot and killed Bonney, by then aged 21, in Fort Sumner on July 14, 1881. Garrett shot him in the chest in a dark room. Garrett and Bonney had been friends; he had a temper and had killed several men, with and without a badge. Rumors developed that Garrett never actually killed Bonney but it was a set up for him to escape. The movie in the 1970s accompanied by Bob Dylan’s lyrics made it seem as if Garrett was more of an assassin than a lawman. Certainly, a reward offered by the Governor of New Mexico was part of the incentive. And indeed, Garrett’s life story shows him seamlessly drifting among these roles.

Governor Lew Wallace, renowned for his involvement in the battles of Shiloh and Monocacy, as well as his authorship of the novel "Ben Hur," arrived in Santa Fe on September 29, 1878. His service as governor of the New Mexico Territory occurred during a time of lawless violence and political corruption. Wallace was involved in efforts to resolve New Mexico's Lincoln County War, a contentious and violent disagreement among the county's residents, and tried to end a series of Apache raids on territorial settlers.

On March 1, 1879, after previous attempts to restore order in Lincoln County had proven unsuccessful, Wallace issued orders for the arrest of those responsible for the local killings. Among the outlaws was none other than Billy the Kid. On March 17, 1879, Wallace clandestinely met with Bonney, who had witnessed the murder of a Lincoln County lawyer named Huston Chapman. Wallace sought Bonney's testimony in the trial of Chapman's alleged murderers. In return, Bonney requested protection from his enemies and amnesty for his past transgressions. During their meeting, the two struck a deal, with Bonney agreeing to become an informant in exchange for a full pardon of his previous crimes.

Wallace supposedly assured the Kid that he would be "scot-free with a pardon in your pocket for all your misdeeds." On March 20 Bonney agreed to provide grand jury testimony against those involved in Chapman's murder. Wallace arranged for a "fake" arrest and Bonney's detention in a local jail to assure his safety. Bonney testified in court on April 14, as agreed. However, the local district attorney revoked Wallace's bargain and refused to set the outlaw free. Bonney escaped and went back to killing people. Garrett set a $500 reward for his capture. That was when Garrett went after his friend. The authenticity of this bargain, however, remains questionable. It is unclear whether Wallace truly made such an offer or if it was merely a fabrication.

Garrett's early life was marked by financial hardship and tragedy. At age 3, Garrett’s father purchased the John Greer plantation in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. The Civil War, however, destroyed the Garrett family's finances. Their mother died at the age of 37 on March 25, 1867, when Garrett was 16. Then the following year, on February 5, 1868, his father died at age 45. The children were left with a plantation that was more than $30,000 in debt. Relatives took in the children. The 18-year-old Garrett headed west from Louisiana on January 25, 1869. He became a Buffalo hunter and killed his first man in 1876. His first lawman job was as sheriff of Lincoln County during its war between 2 families after the previous sheriff was killed in a 5-day shootout. Billy the Kid was involved, so Garrett began to track him. Garrett went on to great acclaim as a Western lawman, recognized alongside Bat Masterson and Ben Daniels by Theodore Roosevelt. He would eventually be killed on the trail under still-mysterious circumstances.

An intriguing aspect to consider is the contrasting backgrounds of McCarty and Garrett. While McCarty was born in New York City, Garrett hailed from Alabama. in this regard, although an interesting switch of geographic roles, Garrett wasn’t such a good guy; Garrett's reputation as a lawman was not without blemish. On the other hand, Bonney, despite his outlaw status, had spent most of his life in the South. This pattern reveals a recurring theme where the law was often associated with the Republican and Northern states, while outlaws tended to emerge from the Border States or regions with Southern influences.

 

Arizona

In March 1861, Arizona territory issued an ordinance of secession. In retrospect, this is noteworthy because it wasn’t even a state at the time; it was part of a territory with New Mexico. Its stated reasons for this measure included: the need for protection from Native American raids and attacks, continued mail service, and the ties of “southern identity” although the document makes no explicit mention of slavery.  A specific passage in the secession statement says, “RESOLVED, That geographically and naturally we are bound to the South, and to her we look for protection; and as the Southern States have formed a Confederacy, it is our earnest desire to be attached to that Confederacy as a Territory.”

 

Black Americans in the Old West

Old Hollywood Westerns are fantastic updated examples of a Greek morality play: Evil may seem to be winning, but in the end, justice will prevail. There is of course a problem with the casting of these movies: 25% of the estimated 35,000 men who went out west and became cowboys (in the modern sense) were black.  These were former slaves who had been emancipated, went west due to limited prospects in the South, and were now looking to make a living.

And once this fact is pointed out, the reasons are not hard to discern. Former slaves had skills in cattle handling; suddenly free with no prospect of being hired for a fair wage at home, they headed West at the end of the Civil War.  While not treated exactly as equals, black men had equality to white men in terms of pay and responsibilities, A typical trail party consisted of a dozen men, of whom 7 or 8 were white men, 2 or so were Mexicans, and 3 were blacks.  These men were most often employed as wranglers or cooks, but not very often as trail bosses. The freed slaves might not be hired right away. Many came with kitchen or ranching skills but often trained under Mexican vaqueros or native Americans, and then hired by white ranchers and paid an equal wage.).

Many of the authentic characters of the Old West were former slaves who found a better life on the frontier. Here are 5 examples:

Deadwood Dick: Real name: Nat Love from Tennessee. Breaking horses and driving cattle were his specialties. He lived for a time in Deadwood and Dodge City. Later became a rodeo rider and performer.

Bob Lemmons: After being freed, he moved to West Texas and became known for his skills in capturing wild mustangs. He was so good at this that he became wealthy, bought his own ranch, and developed large herds of cattle and horses.

John Ware: Rancher freed from slavery in South Carolina, considered one of the most reliable cowboys on cattle drives from Alberta to Texas.

Bass Reeves: A freed slave from Arkansas who spoke numerous Native American languages, one of the great western lawmen, the first Black deputy U.S. marshal west of the Mississippi. Throughout Arkansas and the Oklahoma Territory, he apprehended over 3,000 criminals. Tales of his exploits are legendary, including that he once went on a posse with just a cook and an assistant and rounded up 21 wanted outlaws, who he led back on a rope. When we think of Western heroes, he really should be among the first we recognize, and the fact that we don’t is purely a manifestation of what old Hollywood thought would sell.

Bill Pickett: Legendary Rodeo performer, who invented steer wrestling, enshrined in the Rodeo Hall of Fame.

 

Wyatt Earp

If you think the Civil War has its myths and legends bent out of proportion to reality, well, the Old West has it beat, and the legend surrounding Wyatt Earp may be its greatest fraud. He is truly the embodiment of “the real America”, just not the ersatz one Hollywood created; the truth about the misogyny and violence of the Old West are romanticized, leading to false legends which have impacted modern views.

The story surrounding the Earps and the McLaurys and the Clantons and the facts of the Gunfight at the OK Corral and the Vendetta Ride go beyond this article. The truth is an even better story than the romanticized, sugar-coated version, and the blending of good guy versus bad guy never really ceases to amaze.

Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson were assistant marshals in Dodge City, KS in the 1870s and 1880s. This town did not exist during the Bleeding Kansas days (it was founded in 1871), but the state’s reputation for violence predated the Old West. Earp moved to Dodge City from another Kansas boomtown, Wichita. His first wife was a prostitute who had opened a brothel there. Earp had been a pimp in Peoria. He was arrested several times while in Wichita for engaging in business with the brothel, and it was considered a conflict for a constable to be engaging in that behavior.

The Earps were northerners, from Illinois. Masterson was Canadian, from Quebec. Wyatt and Bat were Dodge City lawmen, in Kansas in the 1870s. Bleeding Kansas was still fresh in everyone’s mind. The territory west of them was Native American: Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, Kansan, Kiowa, Osage, Pawnee, and Wichita.

Among the Dodge City lawmen of 1883 were Bat Masterson, Earp, and Charlie Basset, the town marshal. You would not want to mess with this group; these men were Tough. And they weren’t especially concerned with the details of the law. They applied the law with their fists and their six-shooters. What we see illustrated is that the guys wearing the star are northerners, sanctioned by Republican politicians in the post-war years by Grant or Hayes or Garfield, all Union generals serving as President; while the outlaws are originally from border states or southerners, and Democrats, who left behind a destroyed land and culture, represent the majority of the settlers. In the movies, the cliché was that the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys black ones. In reality, the lawmen were urban, wore ties, were clean-shaven, and represented society and a brand of frontier justice in the vacuum of the real thing.

Doc Holliday was from Georgia but graduated from Penn Dental School and his first dental practice was in St Louis. He moved west because his dental practice, at first successful, couldn’t survive his active tuberculosis, which was his eventual cause of death. He gambled because it was the only way an intelligent man with a persistent cough could earn a living, and his manual dexterity manifested in his gun handling.

The Clantons were from Missouri, the McLaurys from Iowa, but had become Texas and later Arizona cattle ranchers. The tension between North and South was not lost on anyone even a dozen years after Appomattox. While Hollywood has suggested that “cowboy” refers to the (white) settlers of the West it was a pejorative term suggesting cattle rustling, stagecoach robbery, and other crimes. The Clanton’s were indeed cowboys in this sense. Cowboys were poor, rural, isolated, worked with cattle and horses, worked hard, and did anything necessary to survive.

Tombstone is located in southern Arizona and was acquired as part of the Gadsden Purchase. That land was purchased from Mexico specifically to build a southern transcontinental railroad. Tombstone had its origins in the lead-up to the Civil War, and you just cannot understand the Gunfight or the Vendetta Ride without recognizing this. Tombstone was another boomtown due to silver mining. These kinds of places were infamous for loose law enforcement, perfect for the Earps. Earp’s second wife was also a prostitute. In Tombstone, his girlfriend was Josephine Marcus, a prostitute and gambler, from Brooklyn NY whose actual name was Sadie, called Sarah. She had been Sheriff Behan’s girlfriend before Earp came to town, and he was a friend with the Cowboys.

This is the foundation of the true story: Tombstone, AZ was perfectly happy with a bunch of cowboys – cattle thieves – in charge of town with their own elected sheriff in charge. Then these northerners came down uninvited, ran for office, tried to “reform” the town, stole the sheriff’s girlfriend, and carried badges from a Republican governor. They are not exactly noble: they are rough-and-tumble lawmen from Kansas and an infamous gambler, with reputations as gunfighters.

Those killed at the OK Corral famously are buried on Boot Hill. Where Wyatt Earp is buried is highly illustrative of the real America: Wyatt Earp is buried in a Jewish cemetery in Los Angeles. Despite her gambling addiction, Earp and Josephine, who was Jewish, remained together for many years after the shootout. Earp lived in LA as a movie consultant for Hollywood as one of many real-life roles including working for a time for Theodore Roosevelt. This is the real America, the melting pot, and the part that is left out because it is not the Western narrative Hollywood thrives on.

 

The Native American Perspective

The Civil War profoundly impacted the Native American tribes and led to what followed for the next 30 years. One-third of all Cherokees and Seminoles in Indian Territory died from violence, starvation, and war-related illness. Elite tribal members’ enslavement of African Americans motivated Southern allegiance. It turns out that the Native Americans fought for all the same reasons, influenced by the same economics and politics, as the white man.

It is estimated that over 20,000 Native Americans actively participated in the Civil War, fighting on both sides of the conflict. Approximately 3,500 Native Americans served in the Union Army. While exact numbers don’t exist for the CSA, it is believed to be much higher. It is crucial to recognize that some of the territories that were at the center of the slavery debate in 1850 eventually became the Indian territories in the 1870s. This historical context sheds light on the complex dynamics at play during this period.

Native Americans held complex aspirations during the war, perhaps naively hoping that aligning themselves with the white man would grant them a voice and consideration for their views. A close examination of the geographical distribution reveals that certain Indian territories, such as Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, lay below the Missouri Compromise line, indicating the presence of Native American slave owners. Ultimately, what the tribes truly desired was tribal sovereignty, but their concerns were overshadowed by the larger, more devastating destruction of indigenous ways of life. Oklahoma was the primary site of Indian Territory in 1861, housing at least nine tribes, with the Cherokees being the largest among them. The tribes faced internal divisions and conflicting opinions on the best course of action, both within and between their respective communities. Once again, it is important to emphasize that some of the territories of 1850 where slavery was a political issue would become the Indian territories of the 1870s.

The indigenous peoples of America held complex desires during the war and may have been somewhat naive in their belief that aligning with the white settlers would grant them a platform to voice their concerns. Their primary aspiration, however, was to attain tribal sovereignty. But the war wasn’t about their issues and was just an interlude to the bigger, more chilling destruction of aboriginal ways of life.

Tribes located in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were situated below the Missouri Compromise line, while Wyoming and the Dakotas were located above. This indicates that certain Native American tribes did own slaves while others did not. Oklahoma today was the main location of Indian Territory in 1861, and at least 9 tribes were located there, although the Cherokees were the largest of them. Within these tribes, there were divisions in terms of loyalty and differing opinions on the best course of action to take. These divisions were not only present between tribes but also within individual tribes themselves.

Stand Watie served as Brigadier General in the Confederate States of America (CSA) during a tumultuous period in the history of the Cherokee Nation. Before his leadership, John Ross, who had guided the nation through the tragic Trail of Tears, advocated for neutrality and unity as the secessionist movement gained momentum in and around Indian Territory. Ross, supported by a significant majority, aimed to maintain the nation's sovereignty while also advocating for the abolition of slavery. However, Watie represented a wealthy minority within the Cherokee Nation who owned slaves. He was the most prominent figure of the Treaty Party, a group that defied the majority's wishes and illegally signed a treaty that resulted in the forced removal of Cherokees from their ancestral lands.

In a move that bypassed Ross, Watie formed a Cherokee cavalry by recruiting members from within the nation. Consequently, the Cherokee Nation found itself embroiled in its own civil war. When the CSA eventually surrendered, Watie lost his rank, and Ross resumed his position as chief. Watie actively participated in significant battles such as Wilsons Creek, Pea Ridge, and Cabin Creek. Notably, he became the last Confederate general to surrender. However, the Cherokee Nation suffered immense devastation both internally and externally. The absence of support from the Union army made it clear that their loyalty would not be rewarded. This summary only scratches the surface of a complex narrative filled with ruthless decision-making, self-centered actions, and violence.  

Ely Parker, a Seneca (Iroquois) and a colonel on Grant's staff played a significant role in the Civil War. Unlike Stand Watie, Parker strongly opposed slavery. Before the war, he had served as a civil engineer and diplomat for the Seneca, even contributing to the construction of the Erie Canal. As the war drew to a close, Parker was entrusted with the task of drafting the final terms of surrender for the Confederacy. At the time of surrender, General Lee "stared at me for a moment," said Parker. "He extended his hand and said, 'I am glad to see one real American here.' I shook his hand and said, 'We are all Americans.' After the war, he served in many government capacities including as Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

References

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arizona_Territory_Ordinance_of_Secession

https://listverse.com/2016/04/04/10-african-american-cowboys-who-shaped-the-old-west/

https://historycollection.com/the-little-known-history-of-american-indians-during-the-civil-war/

https://historycollection.com/the-little-known-history-of-american-indians-during-the-civil-war/

https://www.history.com/news/civil-war-native-american-indian-territory-cherokee-home-guard

https://americanindian.si.edu/static/why-we-serve/topics/civil-war/

The 1944 Japanese offensive of “Operation Ichigo” is one of the more under reported offensives of World War Two. However, this offensive would have an important effect on the outcome of the Pacific theater. This operation took place in China and accomplished some important Japanese military objectives. It would have a direct consequence on the U.S. bombings over Japan, and was a major Japanese military victory.

Daniel Boustead returns to the site and explains.

Japanese forces invading Henan, China in 1944.

In April 1944, the Japanese launched their first major offensive in China since they captured Hankow in 1938 ([1]). The operation was code named Ichigo meaning “Number One”. The plan involved Japanese forces in north China who were ordered southward to take the main north-south rail lines and the capture the U.S. Army Air Force’s east China Air bases. At the same time, other forces holding an enclave in the far south around (Canton and Hong Kong) were instructed to drive to the west and clear a line to the French Indochina border. This separate action was designed to open a direct line of communication between the Japanese in China and those Japanese forces in Southeast Asia.

The principal objectives for Operation Ichigo were as follows: seize the north-south rail line, a series of key towns, and the air bases. These were built by General Claire Chenault in 1938 and 1939. Chenault built these air bases for the Chinese Air Force and would be subsequently expanded to accommodate his Fourteenth Army Air Force.

This Japanese force consisted of 15 Imperial Japanese Army Divisions, plus five independent Imperial Japanese Army brigades. This force was commanded by General Shunroku Hata.

 

Early success

The Japanese achieved one of their first goals early in the operation. As the Japanese advanced the Chinese Army of 300,000 men simply capitulated to them ([2]). Japanese units consisting of only 500 men routed thousands of Chinese. In the resulting panic, Chinese officers commandeered most of the available trucks to escape with their families and possessions. It took only three weeks from April to May, 1944, for the Japanese to capture their first important objectives of the Yellow and the Yangtze Rivers. It was soon after the Japanese captured the Yangtze River in May 1944, that they pushed forward to General Chennault’s air bases. The Chinese city of Changsa barred the Japanese from Chenault’s air bases.

Changsha was defended by Chinese General Hsueh Yueh, who would soon make a fatal mistake that sealed the fate of the city. Right before the attack, General Yueh moved his headquarters 100 miles to the south to prepare the defense of Hengyang, China, where General Chenault’s northernmost air bases were located ([3]). This resulted in no one being able to coordinate the defense of Changsha. When the Chinese army artillery commander of Changsha asked General Yueh for infantry to protect his artillery, General Yueh refused. The outcome of these fatal decisions was apparent. The Japanese quickly destroyed the unprotected artillery and then swept away the unprotected infantry as Changsha fell to Japanese control in May 1944.

 

Advances

The Japanese Army then turned their attention to capturing Hengyang, China ([4]). It surrounded Hengyang by June 1944 and captured it by August, 1944(5).  On August 26, 1944 6,000 Japanese counterattacked at Lungling, China and the Chinese Y-Force was forced to retreat (22). In September 1944, the Imperial Japanese Army captured the Fourteenth Air Force base at Lingling, 80 miles southwest of Hengyang, China (6). By October 1944, Imperial Japanese Army forces were threatening Kweilin, China, home of the largest of General Chennault’s air bases. On November 10, 1944 the Imperial Japanese Army captured Kweilin, China (7).  In the aftermath of the fall of Kweilin in November 1944, Imperial Japanese forces began advancing towards Kunming, China (13). The Kunming advance further threatened General Chennault’s Fourteenth Air Force bases. The Japanese forces then moved to take over Chennault’s base at Liuchow, some 100 miles to the southwest of Kweilin. It was soon after this they pushed southward to take four bases around Nanning. They then drove southwest for a link up with other Japanese forces in French Indochina.

The Imperial Japanese Army had succeeded in their twin objectives: capturing the east China airfields and securing the main railway line to the south. As part of this Ichigo advance the IJA’s Eleventh Army (under the command of Lieutenant Isamu Yokoyama), began operating under his own his initiative, and quickly captured the American Chinese air base. This air base was located on the northwest trail towards the Chinese city of Kweiyang. The Chinese who were defending this air base quickly capitulated to the Japanese. This was due to their lack of supplies and weapons.

By early December 1944, the only thing that stood in the way of the Japanese Eleventh Army and the Ichigo offensive were Chennault’s air force. The Japanese forces also were facing the Chinese Army forces in their drive towards Kunming and Chunking China. Chennault’s air force was operating east of the Ichigo advance. The Japanese 11thArmy stopped its advance towards Kunming in December 1944. They had outrun their supply lines and retreated back slightly to garrison for the winter.

Operation Ichigo was such a success that American General Wedemeyer estimated that it would result in the Japanese Army releasing 25 divisions to fight elsewhere. General Wedemeyer also estimated that if the Japanese captured all of China, they could hold out for years, long after the Americans invaded the Japanese Home Islands.

 

Allied air strikes

On February 15, 1944 at an Allied meeting in New Delhi, General Wolf presented General Order No.16 (14). In General Order No.16, it stated that General Chennault and his Fourteenth Army Air Forces would be responsible for fighter defense of B-29 bases in China. The Japanese knew it was only a matter of time before the B-29 Bombers would be using the Fourteenth Army Air Force bases. The first B-29 Bombers took off from Chengtu, China, to bomb the Coke Ovens at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata, Japan (8). The first B-29 Yawata raid lasted from the nights of June 15 to June 16, 1944. The photoreconnaissance results of the raid were disappointing. Only a single bomb wrecked a small building about three quarters of a mile away from the Coke Ovens. On July 7 to July 8, 1944, B-29 Bombers took off from a base near Chengtu, China to strike the Japanese Naval base at Sasebo, Japan (9). The raid was a failure because the bombs had missed the port facility by as much as 12 miles. This was due to mechanical problems with the radar bombing system. On August 10, 1944, 24 B-29 Bombers flew from Chengtu, China to Nagasaki and dropped 63 tons of incendiaries and fragmentation bombs on the city’s shipyards (10). On August 20, 1944, B-29 Bombers launched from Chengtu China caused little damage to the coke ovens at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata Japan (11). On October 25, 1944, 78 B-29 Bombers took off from Chengtu, China and bombed Omura, Japan (12). According to strike photos and later reconnaissance on November 6, 1944, the Omura raid did a considerable amount of damage on the target, especially in the aluminum fabrication industry of the city. B-29 raids based out of China and India would end in early 1945 (21).

The early B-29 raids from the Mariana Islands on Japan produced varied results. On November 24, 1944, a group of B-29 bombers took off from Saipan island (15). The group of 111 B-29 Bomber’s target was the Nakajima Musashino aircraft-engine plant in northwest, Tokyo (16). This raid resulted in only 24 B-29 Bombers who managed to make a hit on the Nakajima Musashino aircraft engine plant. This bombing raid was severely weakened by the 130 MPH Jet Stream wind that blew the bombs off course. On November 27, 1944, a group of B-29 bombers took off from Isley Field Saipan and tried to hit the same target again (17). The results of this second raid were not very good due to poor aiming over the target, and that was only slightly mitigated by radar (18). On December 3, 1944, 86 B-29 Bombers took off from the Marianas Islands to hit the same target (19). The results of this raid were that only 26 bombs hit the target area and the damage to the factory was negligible. On December 13, 1944, a group of B-29 Bombers (based out of the Mariana Islands) struck at the Mitsubishi Aircraft Engine Works at Nagoya, Japan (20). The results of this raid (according to strike photographs) were one-fifth of the plant’s huge roof was blown in. Furthermore, the plant’s engine production was cut from 1,600 engines per month to 1,2000 engines per month and some vital parts of the factory were completely destroyed (20).

 

Conclusion

The Japanese capture of the American air bases severely reduced the damage to Japanese cities. The early B-29 raids from China and the Mariana Islands produced sparse results. They would have devastated Japan if they had been better coordinated, lasted longer, and had better weather intelligence. Even if the Japanese did not capture the air bases that directly house the B-29 Bombers, the Japanese military offensive along with America’s decision to concentrate on bombing missions from the Mariana Islands, made the Americans realize that bombing from China was no longer a viable option.

“Operation Ichigo” is an often-overlooked military operation. However, it had a strategic and tactical impact on the course of the war.  The operation captured key air bases, railways, and allowed for a link up with forces in Indochina. In addition, it drove the Allies to use nuclear weapons and Operation August Storm to negate the effects of this operation. “Operation Ichigo” was a very successful Japanese offensive.

 

 

In Loving memory of my Grandfather Richard Strayer Shue, a World War II veteran, a published Historian, and my inspiration. Born March 9, 1923 and died July 23, 2023.


[1] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 179.

[2] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 180.

[3] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 180 to 181.

[4] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 181.

5 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 172.

22 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 183.

6 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 188.

7 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 190.

13 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982.71.

14 US Air Force, Office of Air Force History. The Army Air Forces In World War II: The Pacific: Matternhorn to Nagasaki June 1944 to August 1945., Volume No.5. Edited  Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate. 1983. 46.

8 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 57 to 59.

9 Dorr, Robert F. Osprey Combat Aircraft .33 : B-29 Superfortress Units of World War 2. Edited by Tony Holmes. Oxford,  Osprey Publishing Limited, United Kingdom, 2002, (2003 reprint). 20.

10 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 61 to 63.

11 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 63 to 64.

12 US Air Force, Office of Air Force History. The Army Air Forces In World War II: The Pacific: Matternhorn to Nagasaki June 1944 to August 1945., Volume No.5. Edited  Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate. 1983. 140.

21 Dorr, Robert F. Osprey Combat Aircraft .33 : B-29 Superfortress Units of World War 2. Edited by Tony Holmes. Oxford,  Osprey Publishing Limited, United Kingdom, 2002, (2003 reprint). 31.

15 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 101.

16 Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire. New York: New York. Random House. 1999. 53.

17 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 103.

18  Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire. New York: New York. Random House. 1999. 54.

19 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 105.

20 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 105 to 106.

The Hastings Cutoff - why would this area in the western part of our country, near Salt Lake City, be so important in the history of westward expansion? All the wagon train had to do was make a simple decision, make the turn, thereby cutting off three hundred miles or about two weeks on their journey to California.

Richard Bluttal explains the tragedy of the Donner Party, a group who took the Hastings Cutoff route.

James and Margaret Reed.

During their first week in the Cutoff, the Donner party made good progress. Hastings, who had promised to lead migrants along the trail, left Fort Bridger with a different company of wagons, and it fell to James F. Reed to act as the company’s guide. As they broke a new trail through the nearly impassable terrain of the Wasatch Mountains, they lost the two weeks’ time.

In May 1846, the last wagon train of the season left Independence, Missouri for the Mexican territory of Alta California. Led by two men from Springfield, Illinois—farmer George Donner and furniture manufacturer James F. Reed—the Donner Party followed the well-established California Trail as far as the Little Sandy River in Wyoming. It is there that they made the fateful decision to take a new, more direct route over the Wasatch Mountains and across the Great Salt Lake Desert. The determination was made despite the warnings from accomplished mountain man James Clyman.

On August 30, after gathering as much water and grass as they could carry, they entered the Great Salt Lake Desert. A note left by Hastings had assured the party that they would be able to cross the desert in just two days, but the journey took five. The party lost dozens of cattle in the desert, and several wagons had to be abandoned. The pioneers lost valuable days conducting a fruitless search for the missing oxen before beginning a circuitous navigation of the Ruby Mountains in modern north-eastern Nevada. By the time the Donner party reached the Humboldt River, where Hastings Cutoff re-joined the main California Trail, it was late September. All the other migrants of 1846 had completed their journey to California, and the Donner party was racing the weather to clear the passes in the Sierra Nevada.

 

Tension

Tensions were running high among the exhausted migrants, and on October 5 an altercation between Reed and a teamster employed by another family ended with Reed fatally stabbing the man. Some members of the party suggested that Reed be hanged, but he was instead banished from the company. Reed would continue west on horseback while the rest of his family remained with the Donner party.

The migrants began the ascent of the Sierra foothills low on food, and Paiute warriors killed several of the remaining oxen. By this point, the members of the company had cached, or buried, virtually all their personal possessions—except for food, clothing, and the barest essentials necessary for survival—in an effort to minimize the load on their exhausted animals. On October 31 the weary migrants approached what is now Donner Pass across the Sierra Nevada and found their progress blocked by deepening snow.

177 years ago, the Donner Party was unable to cross the Pass in a storm. They returned to the Lake and built cabins. They slaughtered their cattle for food and used the hides as roofs on the cabins. The Breens inhabited the cabin that had been built two years earlier by the Stephens Party. This is the site of the Pioneer Monument at Donner Memorial State Park. The Murphys built a cabin a few hundred yards to the south, against a large rock. This rock is today marked by a plaque in the park. The Graves and Reeds built a cabin about a half-mile down the Creek.

From November 20, 1846 to March 1, 1847, Irish immigrant Patrick Breen, a Donner party member, kept a diary of his ordeal in the mountains. Clinging to survival with his wife Margaret and their seven children, Breen described the harsh winter weather, the leather hides they resorted to eating, and the deaths of their traveling companions.

 

Diary Entries

“Came to this place on the 31st of last month that it snowed we went on to the pass the snow so deep we were unable to find the road, when within 3 miles of the summit then turned back to this shanty on the Lake, Stanton came one day after we arrived here we again took our teams & waggons & made another unsuccessful attempt to cross in company with Stanton we returned to the shanty it continuing to snow all the time we were here we now have killed most part of our cattle having to stay here until next spring & live on poor beef without bread or salt” - November 20, 1846

“still snowing now about 3 feet deep…killed my last oxen today will skin them tomorrow gave another yoke to Fosters hard to get wood” - November 29, 1846 “... snow about 5 ½ feet or 6 deep difficult to get wood no gong from the house completely housed up looks as likely for snow as when it commenced, our cattle all killed but three or four them, the horses & Stantons mules gone & cattle suppose lost in the Snow no hopes of finding them alive” - December 1, 1846 “... Milt. & Noah went to Donnos 8 days since not returned yet, thinks they got lost in the snow…”

December 17, 1846 “... May we with Gods help spend the comeing year better than the past which we purpose to do if Almighty God will deliver us from our present dreadful situation…” - December 31, 1846

 

Ordeal

Breen’s account of the winter of 1846–47 would provide the only contemporary written record of the Donner party’s ordeal. On December 15 Baylis Williams, an employee of the Reed family, died of malnutrition at the lake camp; his was the first recorded death. On December 16 a party of 10 men and 5 women set out to cross the mountains on improvised snowshoes. During a month’s harrowing, often overwhelming hardships from cold, storms, deep snow, and inadequate food, they struggled on. Eight of the men died, and the bodies of some of these were eaten by the others. Two men and all the women got through to the Sacramento Valley. The settlers of California organized a relief party which left Fort Sutter (Sacramento) on January 31, 1847. Heroically struggling through the deep snow, seven men reached the lake camp on February 18. They then took twenty-three of the starving emigrants, including seventeen children, back to the settlements; several deaths occurred on the way. Other relief parties followed, but, because of illness and injuries, it was impossible to remove everyone.

After dogs and cowhides had been devoured, many deaths occurred, and the survivors were forced to resort to cannibalism of the dead bodies. The last survivor, Lewis Keseber who had supported himself during the last weeks by cannibalism, did not leave camp until April 21. Five of the emigrants died before reaching the mountain camps, thirty-four at the camps or on the mountains while attempting to cross, and one just after reaching the settlements. Two men who had joined the party at the lake also died. The total number of deaths was thus forty-two, with forty-seven survivors, although many others would soon follow.

The ordeal of the Donner party highlighted the incredible risks that were inherent in the great overland trek, but it did little to slow the pace of migration. Indeed, even the survivors of the party encouraged others to undertake the journey. In a letter to her cousin in Illinois, Virginia Reed recounted that “I have not wrote you half of the truble, but I hav Wrote you anuf to let you now what truble is,” before concluding, “Dont let this letter dishaten anybody. Never take no cutofs and hury along as fast as you can.” The discovery of gold in California in 1848 would turn the flow of migrants into a virtual flood, and the legacy of the Donner party would become less a cautionary tale and more a grim historical footnote in the story of the great westward movement.

After examining remains from the Alder Creek campsite, researchers in 2010 announced that they had been unable to find any human bones or other physical evidence of cannibalism. The researchers themselves clarified, however, that the absence of archaeological evidence did not rule out the possibility that cannibalism had occurred, especially given the extensive contemporary accounts by members of the rescue parties.

 

Key problems

There has been a lot written about the Donner party’s own problems, below were a number of them.

  1. The Donner Party started its trip dangerously late in the pioneer season. The core of what became the Donner Party did not leave their jumping-off point at Independence, Missouri until May 12. They were the y fell behind schedule after taking an untested shortcut.

  2. After reaching Wyoming, most California-bound pioneers followed a route that swooped north through Idaho before turning south and moving across Nevada. In 1846, however, a dishonest guidebook author named Lansford Hastings was promoting a straighter and supposedly quicker path that cut through the Wasatch Mountains and across the Salt Lake Desert. There was just one problem: no one had ever traveled this “Hastings Cutoff” with wagons, not even Hastings himself. Despite the obvious risks—and against the warnings of James Clyman, an experienced mountain man—the 20 Donner Party wagons elected to break off from the usual route and gamble on Hastings’ back road. The decision proved disastrous. The emigrants were forced to blaze much of the trail themselves by cutting down trees, and they nearly died of thirst during a five-day crossing of the salt desert. Rather than saving them time, Hasting’s “shortcut” ended up adding nearly a month to the Donner Party’s journey.

  3. The emigrants lost a race against the weather by just a few days. Despite the Hastings Cutoff debacle, most of the Donner Party still managed to reach the slopes of the Sierra Nevada by early November 1846. Only a scant hundred miles remained in their trek, but before the pioneers had a chance to drive their wagons through the mountains, an early blizzard blanketed the Sierras in several feet of snow. Mountain passes that were navigable just a day earlier soon transformed into icy roadblocks, forcing the Donner Party to retreat to nearby Truckee Lake and wait out the winter in ramshackle tents and cabins. Much of the group’s supplies and livestock had already been lost on the trail, and it was not long before the first settlers began to perish from starvation.

  4. During the “Forlorn Hope” expedition, the hiking party included a pair of Indians named Salvador and Luis, both of whom had joined up with the Donner emigrants shortly before they became snowbound. The natives refused to engage in cannibalism, and Salvador and Luis later ran off out of fear that they might be murdered once the others ran out of meat. Indeed, when the duo was found days later, exhausted and lying in the snow, a hiking party member named William Foster shot both of them in the head. The Indians were then butchered and eaten by the hikers. It was the only time during the entire winter that people were murdered for use as food.

 

Conclusion

Of the eighty-one pioneers who began the Donner Party’s horrific winter in the Sierra Nevada, only forty-five managed to walk out alive. The ordeal proved particularly costly for the group’s fifteen solo travelers, all but two of whom died, but it also took a tragic toll on the families. George and Jacob Donner, both of their wives and four of their children all perished. Pioneer William Eddy, meanwhile, lost his wife and his two kids. Nearly a dozen families had made up Donner wagon train, but only two—the Reeds and the Breens—managed to arrive in California without suffering a single death.

 

Did you find that article of interest? If so, get more by joining us for free - click here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Hungary became involved in World War Two largely due to circumstances that were present at the end of World War One. Hungary underwent a variety of governments, leaders, and economic structures that created a difficult political situation – ripe for the embrace of a totalitarian regime. An embrace that they accepted with gritted teeth, but one they accepted none-the-less. Weak leadership, incongruent leadership, and radical ideology all guided Hungary into the arms of the Nazis, an embrace they spent the remainder of the war attempting to loosen.

Avery Scott explains.

Hungarian Arrow Cross forces and a German tank in Budapest, October 1944. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-680-8283A-12A / Faupel / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

From 1919 to 1921, the White Terror (led by a counter-revolutionist group) occurred in Hungary. The terror was an attempted purge of those the country found undesirable – largely Jews. Archduke Joseph August stepped forward as regent to maintain power within the Hapsburg line. However, allied powers did not recognize August, and therefore he held no authority – requiring abdication. Eventually, the turmoil was cooled slightly in the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary and with Parliament’s selection of Miklós Horthy de Nagybánya to serve as the regent of the Kingdom in March of 1920. Horthy’s power was slightly more limited than a king, but only slightly in that he had free will to appoint ministers and influence legislation. One major goal of Horthy’s rule was to reverse Hungarian losses sustained as a result of the Treaty of Trianon. The Treaty ended World War One but diminished Hungarian landholdings. The loss of land resulted in Hungary struggling economically, just as much of the world was struggling at the time. In 1927, Prime Minister István Bethlen signed a Treaty of Friendship with Benito Mussolini, thus bringing the two nations closely together both politically and economically. A few years later, Prime Minister Gyula Gömbös signed a similar treaty with Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, acquiescing to many demands of Hitler to spur an economic relationship between the two nations. One major selling point to the Kingdom of Hungary was the promise that Hitler would return land lost in the Treaty of Trianon. This land would be valuable to Hungary in its aim to climb out of the current depression that was wreaking havoc on the nation.

 

Tilt to the Axis

Gömbös soon died and was replaced by Prime Minister Kálmán Darányi who was forced to step down to be replaced by Béla Imrédy. Both Darányi and Imrédy began their tenure as Prime Minister by trying to court both their fascist neighbors, and the allied powers. This two-faced style worked for neither minister, and ultimately, they were forced to choose a side, typically doubling down on the side of their neighbors. Both passed anti-Semitic laws, and installed members of their cabinet that were pro-German in policy (despite Imrédy’s own Jewish heritage). After Imrédy stepped down, he was replaced by former Prime Minister Pál Teleki. Teleki was more moderate in his stance on involvement with the Nazi regime, and despite being complicit in anti-semitism, was more accommodating in his approach to Jews than other prime minsters had been. Teleki hoped to keep Hungary out of any wars but felt pressure from both the allied and axis powers to pick a side. Teleki hoped that a small war involving Germany could restore more land to Hungary, but he did not want a drawn-out struggle. Despite his moderate stance, Hungary signed the Tripartite Pact which would likely embroil them in the upcoming struggle, as it allied them with the axis powers. However, Teleki also signed a Treaty of Friendship with Yugoslavia in which the two countries would not be aggressive toward each other. As a result of the Tripartite Pact, Hitler felt that Hungary should assist him in is war efforts. Specifically, Hitler’s Nazi regime was adamant that Hungary should allow German troops to march through Hungary to attack Yugoslavia. Teleki wanted Hungary to remain neutral in this, but British pressure was going to force him to pick a side. Unfortunately, before Teleki was able to do so, private arrangements were made for Germany to march through Hungary. As a result, on April 3, 1941, Teleki committed suicide as he could not stand the thought of Hungary being complicit in the war.

 

War

After the death of Teleki, László Bárdossy became prime minister, and supported a pro-German policy. This was amplified after a bombing raid by Yugoslavia and then another raid allegedly by the Soviet Union. The raid by the Soviet Union was the catalyst that led Hungary to declare war on the Soviet Union. The allied powers warned Hungary that if they did not end their involvement in the war, they would also declare war on Hungary. Bárdossy did not comply (even though he could not even if he had wanted to). Because of this, Hungary was soon fully engulfed in World War Two. In an attempt to distance the country from Germany, Horthy asked for László Bárdossy to resign. Horthy hoped that by doing so, there would be less reliance on Germany thus allowing them to avert any additional consequences. Dr. Miklós Kállay took control as Prime Minister. Kállay was far more moderate than his predecessors and was less willing to work with Germans or follow their commands. Under Kállay, Jews were not treated well; however they were not persecuted to the extent they had been previously. Most importantly, they were not being turned over to the Germans. Kállay, despite still maintaining a relationship with Germany, was attempting to negotiate with the United States and Britain. The Germans found out about this relationship and were infuriated. Germany followed through on their promise to occupy Hungary if support for Germany ended. Thus, when German forces invaded Hungary, Kállay was removed from his post and replaced with Döme Sztójay. Kállay fled but was eventually captured and remained in the custody of the Germans for the remainder of the war. Sztójay only served for a few months as prime minster and was effectively a German puppet during that time. Horthy was very unhappy with many of his decisions, including the deportation of Jews, and was eventually successful in ousting him for Géza Lakatos. Lakatos, similarly, only served for a few months but attempted to end Hungarian involvement in the war with a peace treaty with the allies. However, this was unsuccessful. After Horthy’s son was kidnapped, Horthy surrendered to the Germans, and Lakatos was imprisoned. Ferenc Szálasi was made the leader of the Government of National Unity, essentially a Nazi puppet government. Under his control, Jews were deported, funds sent to Germany, a draft occurred, and Hungary increased overall military presence with the Germans. During this time, Béla Miklós de Dálnok attempted a provisional government with which to fight back against a Szálasi government. This was eventually successful, and he became prime minister from March to November 1945.

 

Conclusion

Hungary is a tale of a country that was falling into the perfect storm of struggle leading them to accept the dictates of an oppressive government. Hungary courted the Nazis too closely early on and became reliant upon them for trade and commerce. Because of this connection, they were unable to move away from Germany when they no longer agreed with its policies. John Adams once stated that, in the American Revolution, France assisted America in putting their hand “above our chin to prevent us from drowning, but not to lift our heads out of water.” There are many times in history this statement has been true, but possibly none more perfectly than in the relationship of Hungary and Germany. Germany needed a struggling Hungary, as it gave them power over their government.

Additionally, Hungary attempted to be on the allied side, axis side, and neutral all within the same conflict, sometimes within a matter of days of each other. This position was untenable and the direct result of poor leadership. The prime minister was replaced so frequently that it is difficult to understand who was really in power all too often. This greatly reduced continuity of government and did not allow for any one policy to take root. Hungary was led based upon the current leader’s agenda. Horthy did a poor job of vetting ministers and did not exert control over them to effect positive policies for Hungary. This weak leadership allowed for Hitler to come into Hungary and dictate what they would do, and how they would govern. Thus, Hungary became an ally, an unenthusiastic one, but an ally still to Nazi Germany and the Nazi regime that terrorized the world.

 

Did you find that article of interest? If so, get more by joining us for free - click here.

Mental health is fast becoming an issue at the forefront of the public consciousness, but it has not been without struggle; history is littered with a multitude of inhumane ways those suffering from mental health issues have been treated - all you have to do is look through the history of ‘lunatic asylums’ to discover that their methods were usually cold, brutal and often detrimental to the patient.

These asylums commonly had a high volume of women within their walls; many of whom were abandoned at the gates by their husbands or other family members, as they were unable to deal with their ‘issues’ - which could have been anything ranging from mood swings and nervousness, loss of appetite, or even simple dizzy spells. The diagnosis: a bad case of female hysteria. The treatment? Well, a pelvic massage, of course!

Rachael Elizabeth explains.

Marie Wittman in a cataleptic pose taken, circa 1880.

The Queen of Hysterics

One such place where these afflicted women would be sent was the Salpetriere Hospital in Paris, France. The Salpetrieire Hospital was originally a gunpowder factory until its recondition in 1656, when it was converted into a ‘hospice’ for women suffering from hysteria, epilepsy, and dementia, along with poor women and female criminals. Although it is cited as a ‘hospital’ or ‘hospice’, the Salpetrieire Hospital quickly became a notorious insane asylum, and the go-to place to dispose of women suffering from so-called ‘hysteria’. The hospital had a capacity of 10,000 “patients” and 300 prisoners - but among the women, a patient named Marie “Blanche” Wittman became the unlikely star of Dr Jean-Martin Charcot’s hysteria show.

Dr Jean-Martin Charcot was a French neurologist, and famously became known as ‘the father of neurology’. Dr Charcot would use Miss Wittman, along with other female patients, for his hypnosis shows, demonstrating his ability to induce and stop moments of hysteria. Whilst on stage, Charcot could arouse an attack of hysteria from his female host via hypnosis, and it was Wittman who became the main attraction - due to the fact she would reenact any scenario Charcot asked with an extreme display of emotion, making her audience coo with disbelief. In one such event, Charcot made Wittman believe that an image of a donkey was in fact a nude image of herself, and through her shock and embarrassment, Wittman smashed the picture.

In order to “switch off” Wittman (or the other women), Charcot would use ovary compression, as this was believed to bring them out of their hypnotic state - at first, Charcot would manually press down on the women's bodies - that is, until he invented the first ovary compression device, aptly named “the ovary compressor”.

The first demonstration of the device was on February 7, 1888, with Wittman as the hypnotized demonstrator. The straps, made from leather, would fasten around her back and the padded screws were placed over the abdomen, before being slowly tightened which would squeeze the woman's abdomen, towards the “hysteric centre”, and would magically appease their hysteric state.

 

The History of Hysteria

The word ‘hysteria’ is derived from the ancient Greek word ‘Hystera’ (which, loosely translated, means ‘uterus’), and it was believed that if a woman didn’t keep her uterus in check (usually by engaging in sexual encounters with her husband or by producing offspring), her uterus would angrily ‘wander around her body’ - like a naughty child throwing a tantrum - and thus cause a myriad of symptoms and diseases; but because hysteria was only thought to be caused by the womb, this “condition” was only ever attributed to women.

In the Victorian era, hysteria diagnosis was rampant, and the physicians of the time concluded that rubbing the woman’s pelvis until she reached “hysterical paroxysm” was a way to cure (or at least provide some temporary relief to) the hysteria-ridden woman and help bring the womb back to its rightful place.

The action of massaging the woman’s pelvis consisted of the physician physically performing the task himself - and although this could be construed as predatory, the act itself was supposedly never considered or intended to be sexual. Unfortunately, however, as with many archaic medical interventions, there were downsides to the procedure - it was a difficult technique to master, and could in some cases take hours to gain a successful result. The laborious task of curing a woman’s hysteria quite rapidly became a hindrance, both due to the volume of women affected, and the volume of women who needed ‘repeat prescriptions’, if you will.

In 1734, the invention of the first clock-work vibrator named the ‘Tremoussoir’ provided welcome relief to the cramping hands of the physicians, as now they had an apparatus to take the strain out of manual pelvic massages. A little later, around the early 1800s, Joseph Mortimer Granville patented the first ‘electromechanical’ vibrator; its original purpose was for the relief of muscular aches and pains for men, and he specifically stated that it should NOT be used to treat hysterical women - although many physicians began implementing the devices regardless.

Although the invention of the vibrator did help to alleviate the workload of the physicians, they were still manually using the devices to treat the women. As electricity became a growing staple in people's homes, women were now able to buy their vibrators to use in the comfort of their own home; in the 1920s, the vibrating devices began making an appearance in adult films, therefore catapulting them deep into the world of eroticism, and they were subsequently rendered obsolete by the medical community.

 

A Happy(ish) Ending

To our modern minds, doctors facilitating the use of a vibrator sounds ludicrous, and perhaps even ominous, but we have to remember that in the 1800s, when this was a popular topic, not one iota of the device's purpose, nor the treatment itself was intended to be sexual - in fact, physicians sometimes even used the device to help deter women who made ‘sexual forward advances’, as that behavior was also seen as an affliction.

Although it is tempting to poke fun at the historic medical blunders that seem so outlandish by today’s standards, it’s important to remember that historical sexism towards women’s ailments was a deeply troubling and disturbing time, and even though ‘hysteria’ is no longer a diagnosis, it took until the 1950s for Female Hysteria to be declassified as a mental health issue.

Even today, although thankfully vastly improved, the remnants of the dismissive attitude towards women’s health problems are still ingrained in us - a study on heartandstroke.ca details, “Women who mention stress, along with physical symptoms of cardiac disease, are more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety than men reporting the same issues”. According to the British Heart Foundation, another study has also shown that women have a fifty percenthigher chance of heart disease being misdiagnosed as anxiety-related disorders when compared with men.

Although it is easy to look back at the science of the time and laugh at its absurdness, we should also consider that they were probably trying to do the best they could with the information they had available at the time. Nowadays, we can rest assured that medical science has evolved in a variety of ways which has had an overwhelmingly positive effect on many people's lives.

 

Did you find that piece fascinating? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

References

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/from-awareness-to-action/202303/the-history-of-hysteria-in-womens-lives

https://www.glamour.com/story/the-history-of-doctors-diagnosing-women-with-hysteria

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/female-hysteria_n_4298060

https://www.rti.org/insights/myth-female-hysteria-and-health-disparities-among-women

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/the-controversy-of-female-hysteria#Hysteria-in-the-19th-century

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/women/misdiagnosis-of-heart-attacks-in-women

https://theamericanscholar.org/beyond-nerves/

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/12/3342/285315

https://www.bestfranceforever.com/the-hysteria-show/

https://gizmodo.com/meet-the-queen-of-hysterics-who-was-freuds-early-muse-1604567867

Quackery by Lydia Kang

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232746123_Women_And_Hysteria_In_The_History_Of_Mental_Health

https://victorian-era.org/female-hysteria-during-victorian-era.html

https://victorian-era.org/female-hysteria-during-victorian-era.html?expand_article=1

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vibrator/

Despite being neighbors and having deep ties with Mexico, most Americans don’t realize that the United States played a key role in sowing the seeds of the Mexican Revolution. In fact, long before the Mexican Revolution even kicked off, three parties emerged, and later their respective interests converged, setting the stage for a violent, bloody uprising. Mexican president Porfirio Diaz, Gilded Age, American industrialists and tycoons, and Mexican revolutionary Ricardo Flores Magón collided, leaving in their wake an indelible influence still felt in both countries today.

Adam Miezio explains.

Porfirio Diaz.

The Diaz Master Plan

Mexico had just cast off France’s colonial shackles in 1867. By this time, Mexico had been beaten, bludgeoned and bloodied by centuries worth of European colonial domination. Diaz wanted to pull Mexico up out of its mostly agrarian based economy and turn Mexico into a legitimate, wealthy country on the world stage. Diaz’ plan to modernize Mexico included welcoming foreign investment and production for international markets.

At first, Diaz’ plan paid off. The coups and foreign invasions ended, health and literacy increased and renewed vigor pulsed through Mexico. The progress came at the cost of violent suppression of dissent, imprisoning or executing public challengers, rigging elections and dismissing democratic principles. However, as well-meaning as his intentions may have been, Mexico became a quick and easy target for exploitation from north of the border.

Tired of being the new kid on the block, targeted by bullies, Diaz saw opportunities to open Mexico to capital investment. He was in luck, and all he had to do was look to the U.S for a bit of fresh, oxygen rich, air to breathe new life into Mexico.  At the time, the U.S. was experiencing the Gilded Age (1877-1900), an era exemplified by American, economic titans. Although the Spaniards and French took much of the wealth, Mexico was still rich in natural resources: precious metals, oil, and much more. The Gilded Age industrialists saw the vast, untouched wealth Mexico had to offer and couldn’t resist. Diaz welcomed them with open arms to come down to Mexico, do business and plunder the nation’s resources.

 

Mexico Opens for Business

Diaz opened Mexico for business and:

“…literally sold Mexico to foreign interests. Millions of acres were sold to U.S. agriculture, railroad, and mining companies. Ninety-eight per cent of Mexico’s rural and Indigenous population was left landless, whereas U.S. businessmen and the élite Mexicans who collaborated with them grew rich. The Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Doheny families in the United States, and the Terrazas and Madero families in Mexico, among many others, reaped the profits of Díaz’s rule. As a result, titans such as Andrew Carnegie claimed that Díaz was “one of the greatest rulers in the world, perhaps the greatest of all, taking into consideration the transformation he has made in Mexico.”

 

Thus, Mexico and the U.S. consummated a political marriage of financial opportunity and economic convenience. Little did Diaz know that he was helping to start a future, socioeconomic fire. With his coffers filling up, he lost perspective and sight of the ruin that his policies inflicted on Mexico. Nevertheless, Diaz continued the liquidation of Mexico, in turn creating societal fire risk, by selling:

“…land use and mining rights to wealthy landowners and entrepreneurs and to US and European companies. In the process, he confiscated communally held land from peasant communities (ejidos. ) His corruption, favoritism, and dictatorial rule led to resentment by many upper- and middle-class Mexicans. They were educated, white or light-skinned landowners and professionals who resented the lack of democracy and opportunity, but considered themselves superior to the Indian and mestizo masses.”

The collective greed of Diaz and the Gilded Age titans saw no bounds. The 1883 Land Reform Act saw many of Mexico’s natural and material resources sold off to J.P. Morgan, Russell Sage, and the Hearsts. In the late 1890s, sprawling American business investments included sugar, sawmills, cattle ranches and henequen plantations. Oil, copper, lead, zinc, rubber, and agricultural investments swelled American fortunes.  Transportation became a double dip. The mined resources were transported by railroad north to the U.S. using the Mexican railway system, which not coincidentally, was also owned by the same Gilded Age tycoons.

In 1911, American investments represented almost 62% of Mexican railroads, 24% of mining, and 1.4% of oil. Foremost among the American industrialists was the oil and railroad magnate and multi-millionaire, Henry Clay Pierce. In 1914, Pierce owned $115,049,000 worth of bonds of the National Railway of Mexico, or about half of its total value. Now the wood and the oxygen for the Mexican Revolution was set in place, with countless Mexican workers and indigenous natives suffering under debt peonage. All that was left, was the match to start the fire.

Portfirio beer. Copyright and re-produced with the permission of Adam Miezio.

The Revolution Finds Its Fire

The decades of the Diaz regime plunged Mexico into a socioeconomic disaster. For the time being, the man who cared least about Mexico’s growing unrest and inequality, was Diaz himself. He was busy lining his pockets and his cronies’, thanks to the American tycoons surging business enterprises in Mexico. This didn’t sit well with Mexico however, and it would be one man’s pen, that would ignite the bonfire of the Mexican Revolution- Ricardo Flores Magón.

In 1901, in San Luis Potosi, Magón began sparking the match by decrying the Diaz regime as a “den of thieves.” Many Mexicans agreed with the sentiment of the already two decade old regime stealing their lands, rights and wages, but it was never heard or discussed publicly. Ricardo Flores Magón and his brothers became radical dissidents. Along with radical and liberal intellectuals, Magón gained political influence. He was backed by journalists, American dissidents, and thousands of poor workers, farmers, miners, and cotton pickers called magonistas. Magón never strayed far from their side, as the magonistas could always have their leader’s writings in hand.

A year prior, Magón founded the newspaper Regeneración, the leading, revolutionary voice of Mexico. The newspaper circulated far and wide across Mexico, and soon landed Magón in jail. Afterwards, he fled in exile to Canada and the U.S. While in the U.S., he lived in various cities (El Paso, St. Louis, San Antonio and Los Angeles), where he hid, organized, wrote and published Regeneración. By 1905, the newspaper enjoyed a circulation of 20,000 and had gained one quite notable reader- Emiliano Zapata.

While the socialist Regeneración was published from the U.S., Magón gained notable support and help from American socialists and anarchists like Mother Jones and Emma Goldman. Foreign countries weren’t enough to protect and hide Magón. Although he never gained the high profile status of revolutionaries Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa, Magón had achieved most wanted status.

 

Inevitable American Pressure

The percolating unrest south of the border drew the attention of the White House. At a time when it wasn’t common practice for U.S. presidents to meet respective heads of state on their own territory, President William Howard Taft and Mexican President Porfirio Díaz met in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. Up until that point, it was the first meeting between American and Mexican heads-of-state. Around that time, Taft wrote a letter, saying “there would be a revolution growing out of the selection of his successor. As Americans have about $2,000,000 of capital invested in the country, it is inevitable that in case of a revolution or internecine strife we should interfere, and I sincerely hope that the old man’s official life will extend beyond mine, for that trouble would present a problem of the utmost difficulty.”

Magón and his masses of magonistas were still determined to oust Diaz. They had endured more than enough plunder of their beloved country by American imperialists like Guggenheim and Rockefeller to fail. Unfortunately for Magón, the Diaz regime was now collaborating with American officials to hunt him down. U.S. agents of the Bureau of Investigation (precursor to the F.B.I.) were tracking Magón and his whereabouts. Magón also had feds from the U.S. Departments of War, Treasury, Justice and State on his tail, not to mention hordes of police, sheriffs and spies. Magón lays claim to being one of the F.B.I.’s first cases and most wanted men.

Eventually, Magón was apprehended in Los Angeles, on August 23, 1907.

Magón was released from prison in 1910, the same year that the Mexican Revolution began. Magón continued publishing Regeneración in Los Angeles, as the magonistas, led by Zapata and Villa, waged war south of the border. Besides inadvertently helping to launch the F.B.I., Magón left another influential legacy behind - Mexican immigration.

 

The Mexican Revolution Jump Starts Immigration

As the Mexican Revolution kicked off, Mexicans fleeing the violence, poured into the U.S. Insurgents, refugees and campesinos alike came by boat or by foot. Those who came by boat, disembarked in San Francisco, and took trains to Los Angeles and Chicago. Those who came by foot, flooded into the southwest, especially Texas. Laredo and El Paso became two of the most popular destinations.

In fact:

The Mexican population in El Paso grew exponentially between 1910 and 1916, from approximately 9,000 to nearly 33,000, as Mexican refugees, impacted by the Revolution, fled north. The refugees included not only the poor but also, by one city newspaper’s estimation, “tens of thousands of Mexicans of the best classes,” leading El Paso to displace “San Antonio, New Orleans, St. Louis, New York, and Los Angeles [as the] formerly dominant capitals in the mind of the average welltodo [sic] Mexican.”

 

The revolution blazed across Mexico. Peasants, workers, mestizos, intellectuals, business owners and white-skinned Mexicans were forced into competing groups. The undemocratic institutions, unequal land distribution and deep rooted inequality sown by Diaz’ economic policies affected each socioeconomic class in a unique way. The unfortunate reality didn’t help to create solidarity during the revolution. Some success did come fast though.

 

Diaz Out, and Magón Dead along with his Legacy

By May 1911, Diaz was defeated and on his way to exile in France. Even with the 30-year dictatorship vanquished, the Mexican Revolution still raged on for 6 more years. At the time, Magón lived in El Monte, part of the San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County. By this time, he had become fully radicalized and made no effort to hide his anarchist politics. His radical anarchism didn’t sit well among some magonistas, who were more moderate and socialist. Magon began losing support and notoriety, but he had one last gasp in the annals of history.

While WWI broke out, coinciding with the Mexican Revolution, Magon published an anti-war manifesto in 1918. The last stroke of his pen sealed his fate. In 1919, U.S. president Woodrow Wilson launched the Palmer raids. The raids unleashed a wholesale crackdown on dissidents and leftists, foremost among them socialists, communists and anarchists. Magón got swept up along with notable contemporary Eugene V. Debs. Magón was charged with sedition under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, and died at age 48 in Fort Leavenworth penitentiary in Kansas.

Sadly, Magon spent most of the Mexican Revolution in prison, cut off from the movement he started. His increasing militancy and anarchism didn’t provide the cohesion and solidarity that Mexicans sought. Although he earned the credit of the Mexican Revolution’s “intellectual author,” his legacy now lies in the shadows of timeless legends Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa.

 

If you found that piece of interest, join us for free by clicking here.

How did Europe grow quickly and become a hub of innovation, making it a global leader in trade and military strength? Here, Ilyas Ali gives us his take.

The 1836 Siege of Constantine during the French conquest of Algeria.

Historians disagree on how Europe came to be so powerful - to say the least.

But one thing is for certain and which all agree on. And that is that to find the answer, we must not look at what happened or who did during an isolated point in time.

Rather, we must grasp the long-term changes that brought Europe to its current position.

 

Troublesome Geography

One thing that is striking about Europe in 1500 was its political fragmentation. And unlike in places such as China, Europe’s political disunity was not a temporary affair.

In fact, this is as it had always been. Even the mighty Roman Empire had difficulty conquering areas north of the Rhine and Danube rivers.

In comparison to the Ottomans and Chinese, the Europeans were divided into smaller kingdoms, lordships, clans, and confederations in the East.

And the cause that prevented anyone from conquering Europe was geography.

Europe lacked the vast open plains that enabled the Mongols to conquer on horseback in Asia.

Nor were there large rivers like the Nile, Euphrates, or the Yangtze which provided nourishment to easily conquerable peasant populations living along its banks.

Europe was divided by mountains and forests, making it inaccessible for conquerors wishing to dominate the continent. Also, the climate varied considerably across the continent, which made that goal harder still.

But whilst it denied the unification of the continent, it also acted as a barrier to invasion from elsewhere.

Indeed, despite the Mongol horde swiftly conquering much of Asia, it was these same mountains and forests which saved Europe.

 

Free Economy

Because its geography supported dispersed power, this greatly aided the growth of a free European economy.

Do you remember how Europe had different climates across the continent?

This same variable climate allowed for different products to be made and traded.

For example, due to their different climates, an Italian city-state would sell grapes the English couldn't grow. And in return, the English sent fish from the Atlantic.

And another advantage Europe possessed was its many navigable rivers which allowed the easy transport of goods. And to make transporting goods even easier, many pathways were made through forests and mountains.

And dispersed political power also meant that commerce could never be fully suppressed in Europe. This was a recurring problem that Eastern empires had, but not so much in Europe.

If a king taxed his merchants too much or stopped trade completely, they would move to a more business-friendly part of Europe. And they would take his tax money with them.

Because of this, over time European statesmen learnt that it was in their best interests to strike a deal with these merchants and tradesmen. They would give them a law and order, and a decent judicial system. In return, those merchants would give them tax money to spend on their state and military ambitions.

 

Military Superiority

Despite its geographic situation, there was still one way to unify Europe: to have superior military technology.

This is what happened with the ‘gunpowder empires’ of the East. For instance, in Japan, the feudal warlord Hideyoshi brought together the country by obtaining cannons and guns that his rivals lacked. This technological superiority allowed him to unify Japan.

And it wasn’t at all impossible for a ‘gunpowder empire’ to arise in Europe. By 1500 C.E., already the French and English had amassed enough artillery at home to crush any internal enemy who rebelled against the state.

Despite Europe having powerful military forces, no one was able to conquer the entire continent -although the Habsburgs would come close though.

So why did this not happen?

The reason this didn’t happen was because of that same decentralization spoken of before. Due to political decentralization, an arms race occurred among all European states.

Europe, you see, had a habit of constantly going to war. To survive, every European polity aimed to be militarily stronger than its neighbors.

This created a competitive economic climate to create superior military technology.

But this also meant that no single power had complete access to the best military technology. The cannon, for example, was being built in central Europe, Milan, Malaga, Sweden, etc.

Nor could one power easily proliferate the most superior ships. There were shipbuilding ports all across the Baltic to the Black Sea, all locked in fierce competition.

One might ask at this point; wouldn’t the disunited European armies easily be crushed by the mighty Ottoman and Chinese armies of the East?

And the answer would probably be yes.

Europe was definitely lagging behind the Eastern empires in the 16th century. However, by the latter half of the 17th century, the Europeans were gaining an upper hand.

This was because the Europeans were successful in creating superior military technology, which set them apart from others.

Although gunpowder and cannons were invented by other civilizations, Europeans improved and enhanced them. They also worked towards creating more powerful variations.

The Ottomans and the Chinese invented this technology, but they didn't feel the need to improve. There was not much of a threat which forced them to innovate and better those weapons like before. When they were weak, they innovated and improved, but once they had become mighty, they stopped.

But due to the competitive climate in Europe, improvement was a matter of survival. They improved the grain quality of the gunpowder they used, they changed the materials of the weaponry to make them lighter and more powerful.

In their shipbuilding large strides were taken also. They learned how to build big, sturdy ships for the rough Atlantic waters. Then, they learned how to equip these ships with powerful cannons for destructive potential.

And it was these new ships and weaponry that would soon allow them to travel across the whole world and conquer territories in other continents.

All this innovation allowed the Europeans to soon supersede the Eastern empires, and for the age of colonialism to soon begin.

 

Colonialism

With their powerful ships in tow, Europe started venturing outside of its continental borders.

Using the long-range capabilities of the new ships, they controlled ocean trade routes and demonstrated their powerful cannons by bombarding resisting coastal settlements.

The Portuguese and Spanish were the first to explore. The Portuguese dominated the spice trade with powerful ships. Additionally, they carved out an empire stretching from Aden, to Goa, and to Malacca.

The Spanish, in turn, went West into the New World and quickly overcame the comparatively primitive populations of South America in a matter of a few short years. And as a result of their successes, they sent home silver, furs, sugar, hides, etc.

Soon the Dutch, the English, and the French joined in as the Europeans kicked off their bid for world domination.

New crops such as potatoes and maize, along with various meats gave the Europe steady nutrition. And access to the Newfoundland fisheries by the English gave Europe steady access to fish and seafood.

Whale oil and seal oil, found in the Atlantic, brought fuel for illumination.

Moreover, Russia’s eastward expansion also brought other previously inaccessible such as hemp, salts, and grains.

All of this created what is now known as the ‘modern world system’ which allowed Europe to connect the world using their new technologies and exploit various opportunities across the globe in a manner never done so before.

 

Less Obstacles

What allowed the Europeans to achieve this success was that they simply had fewer hindrances.

It was not that there was something special about them. Rather it was that the necessary conditions which allowed Europe to succeed were not present elsewhere.

In China, India, and Muslim lands, there wasn't the correct mix of ingredients like in Europe. Europe had a free market, strong military, and political pluralism.

And because of this they appeared to stand still while Europe advanced to the center of the world stage.

 

Ilyas writes at the Journal of Warfare here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Naturally, we get taken in by imagining the sights, sounds, and smells of the battlefield; our books describe in detail what that experience must have been like. This article will concentrate on battles fought in fancy conference rooms by men wearing expensive clothes. And especially those of one man, who in his own peculiar way, won bigger battles with more important implications than Grant or Lee. Adams came from perhaps the most storied family in the north. But he didn’t get an easy out. Several early defeats in life despite a sterling family pedigree forged a tough diplomat who didn’t let things dissuade him when frustrating, difficult things happened later on.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Charles Francis Adams Sr. As painted by by William Morris Hunt in 1867.

Charles Francis Adams Sr was the youngest of 3 sons of John Quincy Adams and the grandson of John Adams, which is about as illustrious a family tree as one could imagine. As you’d expect of a northern elite family, he attended Boston Latin and Harvard, then studied law with Daniel Webster. He opened a law practice, was elected 3 times to the Massachusetts House and once to the Massachusetts Senate.

But politics was not really his game, and he knew it. Instead, he purchased and edited the Boston Whig, a newspaper for the common people, who were more liberal minded than those he grew up with and wanted to see change faster. His initial successes came as an editor. This paper went from obscurity to national acclaim under his editorship, so much so that he was offered a national candidacy at the age of 41. He edited his grandmother’s, Abigail Adams, letters; then finished his father’s incomplete biography of his grandfather, including a highly acclaimed collection of his letters, which ultimately became the first Presidential Library.

Many of his relatives found the burden of carrying on the family tradition of public service impossible to live up to. Many retired to private life, while others broke under the strain.  Charles Francis Adams was the youngest of 3 brothers; his older brothers were George Washington Adams (1801–1829) and John Adams II (1803–1834). All 3 were rivals for the same woman, their cousin Mary Catherine Hellen, who lived with the Adams family after the death of her parents. In 1828, John married Mary in a White House ceremony, and both Charles and George declined to attend. John was the father of an out-of-wedlock child born later that year to a woman who was the chambermaid to the family’s physician. The child died in infancy.  John was a reputed alcoholic who is believed to have committed suicide the next spring.

 

Charles Francis Adams

Instead, Charles Francis married Abigail, the daughter of Peter Chardon Brooks, a Boston millionaire and one of the richest men in Massachusetts. Her father insisted that they wait several years before getting married, as they were too young when they met. Later, Charles Francis Adams said that if not for Abigail Brooks, he would never have accomplished anything in life. After experiencing his brother's death, his marriage to Abigail Brooks, and his reconciliation with his father, Charles Francis became a more focused and goal-oriented person.

Charles opened his own law office but was careless about its operation, and his father criticized Charles for being aimless and irresponsible. Charles and his father had never been close but after Charles' oldest brother died in 1829, John Quincy seemed to show more interest and affection for his two remaining sons. After his father’s presidency, he spent eighteen years representing the Quincy district; Charles Francis assumed the care of the property the elder Adams possessed.

The controversy over slavery, however, propelled Charles Francis into prominence. In the Massachusetts legislature, where he served from 1840 to 1845, Adams became a leader of conservative antislavery members who concentrated on resisting the encroachments of "slave power." With the issue of the annexation of Texas, Adams became one of the leaders of the "conscience Whigs," that wing of the Whig Party that demanded guarantees that slavery would not be expanded westward. The Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts merged with the broader "Free Soil" movement in 1848.

Adams unsuccessfully ran for vice president as that party's candidate alongside Martin Van Buren. Adams disapproved of the Free Soil tendency to ally with other parties in order to achieve election. He became unpopular in the south for his abolitionist views and unpopular in the north for his strict adherence to supporting abolition over elected office.

In 1848, he was the unsuccessful nominee of the Free Soil Party for Vice President of the United States, running on a ticket with former president Martin Van Buren as the presidential nominee. That same year, his father died from a stroke at age 80. He spent most of the 1850s rehabbing the family home in Quincy, today a national park.

In 1859, Adams was elected to the US House of Representatives. He became chair of a northern committee studying how to work for conciliation with the South. Suddenly, the intransigent abolitionist was looking for a solution: the very definition of diplomacy. He supported Seward – not Lincoln – for the presidential nomination.  But on his election, Lincoln asked him to serve as US minister to Great Britain, which Adams accepted. This became the work of a lifetime. Give Lincoln props for an amazing recognition of talent.

 

US Minister to the Court of St James

The US Minister to the Court of St James (Great Britain) was a crucial post. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom from 1861 to 1868, Adams played a crucial role in preventing British recognition of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Through skillful diplomacy and advocacy, he successfully conveyed the Union's perspective and counteracted Confederate efforts to gain international support. Through firm but skillful negotiations, Adams was influential in persuading the British, and by extension the French, not to recognize the Confederacy.

Britain issued a proclamation of neutrality at the beginning of the Civil War on May 13, 1861. The imposition of the blockade forced Britain to take a position on which side it would support. Southern cotton was critical to the textile industry in western England, especially Liverpool. The United States Secretary of State, William Seward, threatened to treat as hostile any country that recognized the Confederacy. Instead, the Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent, but it was premature to recognize it as a sovereign state.  Britain remained neutral officially and waited to see how things would develop before making a commitment. Adams did incredible work to keep Britain neutral and prevent the British from going any further in their recognition. Both his father and his grandfather had served in this diplomatic post, and so he was immediately accepted by the British as speaking for the new administration with a wise voice.

Official recognition was tied to the idea of the Union blockade being against a belligerent power rather than an insurrection. Adams managed to navigate this by getting the British to respect the blockade officially while still not recognizing the Confederacy as an independent entity. Because of his own family legacy, he managed to form a friendship with Prince Albert.

One of his main accomplishments was leveraging his friendships to prevent the British from supplying Confederate ironclads. A strong element in Britain wanted to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.  Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had strong sympathies with the South and believed it would win independence. The Prime Minister in particular had a lifelong hostility to the US, and despite opposition to the slave trade and slavery, he believed that dissolution of the Union would benefit the British.

Adams played a key role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom through diplomatic efforts and effective communication. Adams skillfully engaged with British officials, politicians, and influential figures, presenting the Union's case and countering Confederate propaganda. Support of the Confederacy in Britain was popular for several reasons. The primary one was the availability of cheap cotton for English mills.

 

Adams in London

Britain had lost 2 wars to this fledgling primitive country on the other side of the pond. Further, the idea of a successful democracy remained unappetizing to a government based on a monarchy. Moreover, southern trade especially cotton was very important to British manufacturers. Finally, they knew that if they helped this new country win independence, it would be forever in its debt; which is precisely what empire is about.

He emphasized the Union's commitment to upholding international law, the abolition of slavery, and the economic benefits of maintaining trade relations with the North. Adams emphasized the military and industrial power of the Union, which was vital in dispelling the perception that the Confederacy could achieve a quick and decisive victory. He provided accurate and timely information about Union victories, the strength of the Union army, and the North's ability to sustain the war effort.

Adams warned that meant war with the United States, as well as the cutting off of American food exports, which comprised about a fourth of the British food supply. ”The English people can't eat cotton” was his strong argument, and the Union supplied too much necessary food to England to make war with the United States a realistic action. Losing grain and meat shipments from the United States would mean a huge fall in food supply. It’s fascinating that the Jefferson Davis government believed King Cotton would be decisive, yet it was corn that really was.

Also, the American Navy, increasingly strong, would try to sink British shipping. Britain depended more on American corn than Confederate cotton, and a war with the U.S. would not be in Britain's economic interest.

Adams recognized the significance of public opinion and worked to shape it in favor of the Union. He engaged with the British press, wrote articles and letters to influential publications, and delivered speeches to counter Confederate narratives and generate sympathy for the Union cause.

Adams conveyed to the British government that recognition of the Confederacy would likely strain relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. He made it clear that such recognition would have negative consequences for British trade and international standing, creating a disincentive for British officials to support the Confederacy.

By employing these diplomatic strategies, effectively countering Confederate propaganda, and highlighting the Union's strength, Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom. His diplomatic efforts helped to maintain the international isolation of the Confederacy and ultimately contributed to the Union's victory in the Civil War.

Had Britain recognized the Confederacy, and given its aid and assistance, the Civil War would have had an entirely different result. Charles Francis Adams took on this exasperating and vexing assignment. Recognition was a fear of the Union and a pipe dream of the Confederacy. In retrospect, it was never really likely to happen without multiple major successes on the battlefield by the Confederacy.  This reality was based on the political situation in Britain more than the circumstances we Americans think the Civil War was about.

 

Trent Affair

The “Trent Affair” in November 1861 produced public outrage in Britain and a diplomatic crisis. The British predicted a war and Seward threatened to fight. Only Abraham Lincoln kept the crisis in perspective.  Ambassador Adams played a crucial role in resolving it, and for a time, things looked bleak. Adams almost single-handedly calmed British anger.

The "Trent Affair” was initiated when an American warship seized two Confederate agents bound for Europe from the British mail ship Trent.A U.S. Navy warship stopped the British steamer Trent and seized two Confederate envoys en route to Europe. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS Trent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate envoys: James Murray Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and to lobby for possible financial and military support.

Public reaction in the United States was to celebrate the capture and rally against Britain, threatening war. In the Confederate states, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Anglo-American relations and possibly even war, or at least diplomatic recognition by Britain. Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on foreign intervention.

In Britain, there was widespread disapproval of this violation of neutral rights and insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners and took steps to strengthen its military forces in British North America and the North Atlantic. PM Palmerston called the action "a declared and gross insult", demanded the release of the two diplomats and ordered 3,000 troops to Canada. In a letter to Queen Victoria on 5 December 1861 he said that if his demands were not met: "Great Britain is in a better state than at any former time to inflict a severe blow upon and to read a lesson to the United States which will not soon be forgotten."  In another letter to his foreign secretary, he predicted war between Britain and the Union.

President Abraham Lincoln did not want to risk war with Britain over this issue. “One war at a time” Lincoln told Seward. After some careful diplomatic exchanges, Lincoln admitted that the capture had been conducted contrary to maritime law and that private citizens could not be classified as "enemy despatches”, which was the only possible legal argument. After several tense weeks, the crisis was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions, although without a formal apology.  Slidell and Mason were released, and war was averted. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to Europe. Adams basically brokered this resolution, by recognizing the British right to engage in diplomacy as it saw fit while maintaining the Lincoln administration’s position that the war was an internal domestic conflict not an international one.

The resolution of the Trent affair dealt a serious blow to Confederate diplomatic efforts. First, it deflected the recognition momentum developed during the summer and fall of 1861. It created a feeling in Great Britain that the United States was prepared to defend itself when necessary, but recognized its responsibility to comply with international law. Moreover, it produced a feeling in Great Britain and France that peace could be preserved as long as the Europeans maintained strict neutrality in regard to the American belligerents.  Lincoln, through Adams, turned a potentially explosive event into a huge net positive. (See more at https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/trent-affair)

Slidell was the designee to represent the Confederacy in France.  He failed to bring France into the war, which would not change its position unless Britain made the first move. His major success in the war was negotiating a loan of $15,000,000 from Emile Erlanger & Co. and in securing the ship "Stonewall" for the Confederate government. Slidell, Louisiana is named after him. After the war, he remained in Paris.

Mason was the grandson of George Mason. He was a strong secessionist and white supremacist who strongly favored slavery, wrote the fugitive slave act, and before the war was the chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You’d think he would have been tough competition for Adams, but in fact his views were so extreme that he was ineffectual as a diplomat and he moved to Paris in 1863 where he hoped he would find a more sympathetic ear. After the war, he lived in exile in Canada, eventually purchasing a huge estate in Alexandria VA with white servants as he believed free blacks to be worthless.

 

The British Government

In retrospect, Both the Union and the Confederacy overestimated the potential of British recognition. Not only the Queen and Prince, but also the Church, the Commons, and working people adamantly opposed slavery. Still, faced with both a PM and a ruling party that favored the enemy, you can understand the fears.

Lord Palmerston was the Prime Minister and William Gladstone the Chancellor. Their relationship lasted 35 years, both as allies and as political enemies, exchanging jobs several times. Together they dominated British foreign policy, and If they were in agreement, the US was in trouble. With very little cotton reaching Europe except through Union channels, a strong element in Britain, including both Palmerston & Gladstone, wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.

Palmerston's sympathies in the Civil War were with the Confederate States of America. Although a professed opponent of the slave trade and slavery, he held a lifelong hostility towards the United States, and believed dissolution of the Union would enhance British power. Additionally, the Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures". He expected the Confederacy to achieve its independence.

The British government pulled back from talk of war when the Confederate invasion of the North was defeated at Antietam, and Lincoln announced that he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation.  Palmerston then noted that the only thing positive that had been accomplished by the war was the killing off of thousands of “troublesome Irish and Germans”.

Palmerston and his government were careful to avoid any actions that could be interpreted as favoring either the Union or the Confederacy. While there were debates within his government and among politicians regarding the recognition of the Confederacy, Palmerston ultimately adhered to a policy of non-recognition and neutrality.

Palmerston's government closely monitored the progress of the war, sought to gather accurate intelligence, and maintained diplomatic channels with both sides. However, the British government did not extend official recognition to the Confederacy as an independent nation during Palmerston's tenure.

Overall, Palmerston's approach was one of careful neutrality, prioritizing British interests and avoiding actions that could disrupt relations with either the Union or the Confederacy. The neutrality policy pursued by Palmerston was influenced by the efforts of Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, who effectively conveyed the Union's perspective and countered Confederate attempts to gain international recognition.

Gladstone believed in the principle of self-determination and viewed the Confederacy's struggle for independence as a valid cause. He saw the war as a conflict between two parties, and he argued that the British government should remain neutral and extend recognition to the Confederacy if it appeared likely to achieve independence.

Gladstone's public statements and speeches, such as his Newcastle speech in October 1862, expressed sympathy for the Confederacy and called for British recognition. His views caused controversy both in the United Kingdom and in the United States, where they were seen as potentially detrimental to the Union cause. Gladstone owned a home on Abercrombie Square in Liverpool, and was very likely a confidential member of the Southern Club.

The British government did not officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation. The British government, led by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, adopted a policy of neutrality throughout the conflict and maintained trade relations with both the Union and the Confederacy. The official recognition of the Confederacy as an independent nation did not occur, largely due to diplomatic efforts by Charles Francis Adams and concerns over the potential consequences of such recognition on British trade and international relations.

Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, generally remained neutral and refrained from publicly expressing her opinions on the conflict. As the constitutional monarch, her role was largely ceremonial, and she did not have direct involvement in formulating or implementing government policies.

Queen Victoria's stance on the American Civil War was influenced by the prevailing British policy of neutrality. She, along with her husband Prince Albert, closely followed the developments of the war, but she did not publicly take sides or officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation.

It is worth noting that there were some instances where Queen Victoria's sympathies seemed to lean towards the Union cause. In 1861, she wrote a private letter to Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, expressing her hopes for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and her admiration for President Abraham Lincoln.

James Russell Lowell said, "None of our Generals, nor Grant himself, did us better or more by trying service than he [Charles Francis Adams] in his forlorn outpost in London." As we ponder strategy and battles and generals, we ought to keep in mind that Charles Francis Adams won a huge diplomatic victory of greater value than is ever described in books or articles. The battle of Antietam is usually credited with keeping England neutral, but the question is never asked why that was.

Imagine being Adams, who had to be diplomatic yet persuasive with Palmerston, an obviously arrogant and racist man who made decisions purely on the basis of value to his personal political future. Imagine being able to converse directly with Queen Victoria, the most powerful monarch in Europe, in such a convincing manner as to maintain her views, despite a government whose leaders tended the opposite way. The struggle to keep Palmerston and Gladstone officially neutral despite their evident slant toward the South required someone of experience, who could play the “long game”, and who could unemotionally remind these headstrong men of the consequences of choosing the wrong side. Lincoln needed a man whom the British would immediately take seriously; Adams had his family background (both his father and his grandfather had been Ambassadors to the Court of St. James as well) and the recognition of non-political accomplishments to bolster the power of his argument. And, he had had the taste of failure and frustration in his life, and knew that calmness and composure, not superciliousness, was the right path.

 

After the War

Minister Adams publicly supported moderation toward the South during the last year of the war and at the start of the Andrew Johnson administration after Lincoln's assassination. The British recognized him as a steady hand at the wheel. But support for Johnson's conciliatory policies, particularly his opposition to radical reconstruction of the South, was unpopular at home, and this injured Charles's future political prospects. He gladly resigned his post in 1868 with the election of the new Grant administration and returned to his home in Quincy. He turned down an offer to be president of Harvard.

But in 1871-1872 he returned to Europe with his youngest son Brooks. There, he would win his biggest victory, one that all of the frustrations and setbacks in life he had experienced, all of the diplomatic skills he had acquired, had prepared him for; and no other American of his era could have accomplished it.

As Minister to Great Britain, Adams was quite aware that although the British government was officially neutral, its citizens were taking sides anyway. And that those who supported the South, like the Southern Club, were having critical effects on the war. In particular, he knew exactly how Confederate agents were working to arrange armament shipments through the blockade. He knew that Liverpool shipbuilders were creating commerce raiders and blockade runners. He uncovered how ships were being built on the Mersey, sent off to the Caribbean under the British flag, then its crew & captain changed in port and the ship was renamed as a Confederate ship.

For example, he convinced British authorities to confiscate two ironclad warships from the Laird shipyards that were destined for use by the Confederates. But many others he could merely document. He wrote myriad letters to Secretary of State Seward with documentation of the British private sector working with the Confederacy while the official government looked the other way.

 

The Alabama Claims

Adams and his staff at the Embassy, including his son, collected details on the shipbuilding issue, showing how warships built for the Confederacy caused widespread damage to the American merchant marine. They documented everything in real-time: Who were the agents, where the money came from, who the British citizens were, everything. For the 4 years of the war, he collected the evidence, knowing the British weren’t going to do anything about it, and if he mentioned it, it would be a serious impediment to working with those he had to keep neutral. And so, he waited. He held onto all of these documents and they collected dust.

When Palmerston died in late 1865, Benjamin Disraeli, who for his own political purposes had no interest in getting involved after the war, took his place. Disraeli had maintained a truly neutral position during the war, but he did criticize the Lincoln administration's handling of the war and expressed concerns about the potential growth of American power if the Union were to emerge victorious. He believed that a strong United States could pose a challenge to British interests in the future. Overall, Disraeli's approach during the American Civil War was one of caution and pragmatism, focusing on preserving British neutrality and safeguarding British interests. And so, Adams held onto his notes.

The evidence he collected became the basis of the postwar Alabama Claims. The Alabama Claims were a series of demands for damages sought by the government of the United States from the United Kingdom in 1869, for the attacks upon Union merchant ships by Confederate Navy commerce raiders built in British shipyards during the American Civil War. The claims focused chiefly on the most famous of these raiders, the CSS Alabama, which took more than sixty prizes before she was sunk off the French coast in 1864.

The Alabama Claims were a series of diplomatic negotiations and arbitration proceedings that took place in the aftermath of the American Civil War between the United States and the United Kingdom. The claims arose from the actions of Confederate warships that were built and equipped in British shipyards and subsequently attacked and destroyed American ships during the Civil War.

The most notorious of these Confederate warships was the CSS Alabama, a powerful raider that had a significant impact on Union shipping during the war. The British government's involvement in the construction and outfitting of the CSS Alabama and other Confederate vessels raised serious issues of international law and neutrality. Can a country declare itself neutral but its citizens aid one of the combatants?

After the end of the Civil War in 1865, the United States sought compensation from Britain for the damages caused by these Confederate warships and demanded that the British government take responsibility for its role in aiding the Confederacy. Negotiations between the United States and Britain began in 1866, but they failed to reach a satisfactory resolution.

The United States claimed direct and collateral damage against Great Britain. The United States claimed that Britain had violated neutrality by allowing five warships to be constructed, most especially the CSS Alabama, knowing that it would eventually enter into naval service with the Confederacy. For 3 years, the British denied responsibility. They claimed that officially declaring neutrality had nothing to do with businesses its private industry conducted. They said that there was no proof of American claims. American outrage grew; Sumner, still head of the US Foreign Affairs committee, demanded $2 billion in indirect costs for supplying the South through the blockade. Calls for annexation of Canada, or provinces like British Columbia, as payment for damages became common American political rhetoric. Britain continued to stall, and Canadian separatists began looking into joining the US to control the northwest Pacific Ocean.

As a result, the United States brought the case before an international tribunal known as the Alabama Claims Commission. The evidence leading to the settlement of the Alabama Claims case was collected and presented by the United States government. After the American Civil War, the U.S. State Department was responsible for compiling the evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The U.S. government conducted thorough investigations and collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. This evidence was used to support the United States claims that Britain had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War and should be held responsible for the damages caused by the Confederate warships.

During the negotiations and arbitration proceedings, the U.S. delegation, led by chief U.S. arbiter Charles Francis Adams and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, presented this evidence to the international tribunal, known as the Alabama Claims Commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871. The evidence played a crucial role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in collecting the evidence for the Alabama Claims case. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, Adams was responsible for gathering and presenting evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The evidence collected by Charles Francis Adams was the central documentation evaluated during the arbitration proceedings. Adams had diligently collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals who were involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. His efforts were instrumental in building a strong case against Britain, showing that the British government had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War.

Finally, in 1871, the British agreed to a commission to resolve the dispute, and Adams unveiled the notes and documents he had collected. He showed contemporaneous notes and letters. He named names. He had the proof, because the whole time he was ambassador, he kept meticulous records and documented everything.

The commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871, was composed of representatives from the United States, Britain, Italy, Switzerland, and Brazil. After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the tribunal issued its decision in September 1872. The tribunal ruled in favor of the United States, stating that Britain had indeed violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War by allowing the construction of Confederate warships in its shipyards. As a result of the ruling, Britain was required to pay the United States $15.5 million in damages. Today, that would be equivalent to several hundred million dollars. Nothing like that had ever happened before.

So, who actually paid for the Confederate war machine, war supplies, and naval presence? The British Government did in 1872, along with its citizens and investors who purchased Confederate Cotton Bonds. The evidence Adams had collected during his years as ambassador played a vital role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

The resolution of the Alabama Claims case marked an important moment in the development of international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. It also helped improve relations between the United States and Britain after a period of tension and served as a precedent for future international arbitration cases.

 

Treaty of Washington

A final deal was then arranged. The Treaty of Washington established for the first time a codification of international law and of international arbitration. The Treaty of Washington resolved fishing disputes with the establishment of the Halifax Commission, set up the Alabama Claim arbitration, and set up the San Juan Island territorial dispute arbitration. The Halifax Commission would order the US to pay the UK $5.5 Mil for illegal fishing practices. The Alabama Claims would order the UK to pay the US $15.5 Mil in direct damages, with $1.9 Mil deducted for illegal US blockading practices during the war. An additional $500 million in loans was the biggest part of the agreement, which the US was able to take out with British banks at low-interest rates to refinance their war debt.

 The treaty set principles of what neutrality between two warring factions meant:

1.     That due diligence "ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part."

2.     "The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterward have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step by which the offense is completed cannot be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the neutral country, nor can the consummation of fraud become the means of establishing its innocence."

3.     "The principle of extraterritoriality has been admitted into the laws of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality."

 

And the best part of his story is that although it took many years, eventually his enemies were defeated, and his inherent refinement and intellect ultimately carried the battle. These setbacks that would have buried a lesser man had a funny way of moving him into his real calling. It’s kind of like a real-life “David Copperfield”, overcoming personal losses led to amazing success, albeit not exactly what anyone had imagined. His wife Abigail steadfastly supported him through all of his life’s trials. They succeeded in "passing the torch" to the next generation of the Adams family, which included four noteworthy sons—railroad reformer Charles Francis Adams Jr., Massachusetts politician John Quincy Adams II, celebrated writer Henry Adams, and historian Brooks Adams. His son Henry Adams would go on to become one of the first great American historians and authors. The posting influenced the younger man through the experience of wartime diplomacy and absorption in English culture. After the war, he became a political journalist who entertained America's foremost intellectuals at his homes in Washington and Boston. During his lifetime, he was best known for The History of the United States of America 1801–1817, a nine-volume work.

No, he was never elected President, like his father and his grandfather, and so he is often taught superficially as a man who failed. But his public service saved our country, documented who had assisted the enemy, and sought and obtained reparations from a foreign power for prolonging the war. He changed forever what neutrality entailed. And it turned out he was not only the right man for the job, he was in fact the only man who could have succeeded at it.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.