General Benjamin Butler and Runaway Slaves During the US Civil War

In late May 1861, slaves began fleeing to the Union outpost of Fortress Monroe, Virginia. When arriving, they were given sanctuary by the post’s commander, Major General Benjamin Butler. Richard Bluttal explains.

General Benjamin Butler during the US Civil War.

Newly arrived at Fortress Monroe, on May 23, 1861, Butler was confronted by the arrival of three fugitive slaves from the Confederate defensive works project across Hampton Roads. Faced with the looming prospect of being shipped to North Carolina to work on fortifications, Goodheart writes “the three slaves decided to leave the Confederacy and try their luck, just across the water, with the Union.”

As Civil War Emancipation has chronicled, they were they were not the first slaves to seek sanctuary in a Union military post. Soon after Lincoln’s inauguration in early March, slaves in separate incidents had presented themselves at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor and Fort Pickens near Pensacola, Florida. Consistent with the Fugitive Slave Act the slaves in both instances had been rebuffed and turned over to local authorities. The post commanders at Sumter and Pickens took this action on their own initiative and it was accepted by the Lincoln administration, still hopeful at that point for reconciliation with the slave states.

However, by the end of May the situation was very different. Confederate forces had attacked Fort Sumter on April 12 and forced its surrender. In response, Lincoln called for volunteers to restore federal authority in the South. Lincoln’s actions led four of the remaining eight slaves in the Union to secede, including Virginia. On the same day the three slaves appeared at Fortress Monroe, May 23, the Commonwealth’s voters had ratified secession.

Taking action

In this atmosphere of uncertainty, Benjamin Butler had to decide what action to take. His hand was forced by the arrival of a Confederate officer at Fortress Monroe under flag of truce demanding the slaves return. Adam Goodheart relates the encounter between Butler and the Virginian, Major John Baytop Cary.

Cary got Cary got down to business. “I am informed,” he said, “that three Negroes belonging to Colonel Mallory have escaped within your lines. I am Colonel Mallory’s agent and have charge of his property. What do you mean to do with those Negroes?”“I intend to hold them,” Butler said. “Do you mean, then, to set aside your constitutional obligation to return them?”Even the dour Butler must have found it hard to suppress a smile. This was, of course, a question he had expected. And he had prepared what he thought was a fairly clever answer.“I mean to take Virginia at her word,” he said. “I am under no constitutional obligations to a foreign country, which Virginia now claims to be.”“But you say we cannot secede,” Cary retorted, “and so you cannot consistently detain the Negroes.”“But you say you have seceded,” Butler said, “so you cannot consistently claim them. I shall hold these Negroes as contraband of war, since they are engaged in the construction of your battery and are claimed as your property.”

If anyone was qualified to devise, on short notice, a solid justification to hold slaves who had escaped Confederate custody, it was Benjamin Butler. A crafty litigator and politician from Massachusetts, Butler was a recently commissioned Major General who owed his appointment to Lincoln’s desire to solidify the support of Democrats like him that favored military action against the South. Butler would prove a dismal battlefield commander, but in this incident showed him to be a gifted administrator.

By declaring the three slaves “contraband of war,” Benjamin Butler did not challenge their status as property and by extension call into question of slavery’s legality. At this stage of the conflict, most political leaders in the North were eager to depict the developing conflict merely as a rebellion against legitimate government authority which had nothing to do with slavery. However, officers on the ground like Butler quickly realized the slaves were a significant military asset to the Confederacy, acting not only as laborers, teamsters, and in other support roles for the army, but also by keeping southern agriculture functioning allowing a much larger portion of the white male population to be available for military service than might otherwise have been the case. Hence, as property being used in support of a rebellion against the government, Butler’s “contraband of war” formulation legally justified the seizure of the slaves without immediately undermining their status as property. The Lincoln administration quickly acquiesced to Butler’s policy and Congress gave it the force of law in early August through the Confiscation Act of 1861.

Impact

What neither Butler nor leaders in Washington, D.C., reckoned on was the slaves’ response to his contraband policy. Soon other slaves began seeking sanctuary with Union forces, over 500 at Fortress Monroe alone by June 1861. The northern press soon dubbed these escaped slaves as “contraband,” a name initially resisted by some black leaders and abolitionists, but which even they eventually accepted.

But if the episode at Fortress Monroe demonstrated anything it was the fierce determination of the slaves to be free. A few slaves seeking sanctuary quickly became hundreds and then even more. As Adam Goodheart writes:

Within weeks Within weeks after the first contrabands’ arrival at Fort Monroe, slaves were reported flocking to the Union lines just about anywhere there were Union lines: in Northern Virginia, on the Mississippi, in Florida. It is unclear how many of these escapees knew of Butler’s decision, but probably quite a few did. Edward Pierce, a Union soldier who worked closely with the contrabands, marveled at “the mysterious spiritual telegraph which runs through the slave population,” though he most likely exaggerated just a bit when he continued, “Proclaim an edict of emancipation in the hearing of a single slave on the Potomac, and in a few days it will be known by his brethren on the gulf.”Within little more than a year, the stream of a few hundred contrabands at Fort Monroe became a river of tens — probably even hundreds — of thousands. They “flocked in vast numbers — an army in themselves — to the camps of the Yankees,” a Union chaplain wrote. “The arrival among us of these hordes was like the oncoming of cities.”

Undermining slavery

So the arrival of Union forces in a locality in the South, or even the prospect of their arrival, quickly began to undermine the institution of slavery, as slaves now had a place to escape from slavery with little fear of recapture. Yet without the initiative of the slaves this situation likely would have never arisen. Certainly, the slaves could not gain freedom on their own, but they determinedly pried at the tiniest fissure in the slave system made by the arrival of northern troops and the peculiar institution began to crumble under the weight of countless individual slaves fleeing it.

As Adam Goodheart relates, Lincoln administration policy about the contrabands quickly began to lag behind the reality on the ground. So much so, that the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which was announced in September 1862, in many ways was merely playing catch up. Goodheart ends his story with an anecdote that captures that situation well. He writes:

On the On the September day of Lincoln’s edict, a Union colonel ran into William Seward, the president’s canny secretary of state, on the street in Washington and took the opportunity to congratulate him on the administration’s epochal act.Seward snorted. “Yes,” he said, “we have let off a puff of wind over an accomplished fact.”“What do you mean, Mr. Seward?” the officer asked.“I mean,” the secretary replied, “that the Emancipation Proclamation was uttered in the first gun fired at Sumter, and we have been the last to hear it.”

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

What if Martin Luther King Jr. had not been Assassinated?

Many figures throughout history stand as beacons of hope, courage, and change. Among them, Martin Luther King Jr. shines as a luminary of the Civil Rights Movement, whose vision of equality and justice resonates across generations.

However, his life was abruptly cut short by an assassin's bullet on April 4, 1968. Yet, what if that tragic event had never occurred? What if Martin Luther King Jr. had lived to see his dreams fully realized?

Terry Bailey considers.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. in August 1963.

This speculative exploration delves into the alternate reality where his assassination never happened, pondering the impact on civil rights, social justice, and the course of American history.

In a world where Martin Luther King Jr. survives, the struggle for civil rights would undoubtedly continue, albeit with a different trajectory. King's leadership and moral authority would have provided ongoing inspiration and guidance to activists and advocates. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, might have faced less resistance and achieved broader implementation under King's advocacy.

His unwavering commitment to nonviolent protest and civil disobedience could have continued to shape the tactics and strategies employed by movements for racial equality. However, King's continued presence would not have necessarily ensured a smooth process and progress.

The Civil Rights Movement was a complex tapestry of diverse voices and ideologies, and internal tensions were already emerging before his death. Disputes over strategy, goals, and priorities probably would have intensified in the absence of a unifying figure like King. Nevertheless, his ability to bridge divides and rally support across racial, religious, and socioeconomic lines could have helped navigate these challenges and keep the movement focused on its core principles.

Beyond civil rights

Without the abrupt end to his life, Martin Luther King Jr. would have had the opportunity to further refine and expand his message beyond civil rights. Already, he had begun to address issues of economic inequality, advocating for economic justice and the eradication of poverty. In the years following 1968, King might have intensified his efforts to address systemic injustices that perpetuated economic disparities among racial minorities.

His vision of a "Beloved Community," where all people live in harmony and mutual respect, might have inspired broader movements for social change. Issues such as environmental justice, LGBTQ+ rights, and global peace could have found resonance within King's moral framework, broadening the scope of his influence and legacy.

The political landscape of the United States would have been significantly influenced by King's continued presence. His moral authority and charismatic leadership could have propelled him into a more prominent political role, whether as an elected official or as a trusted advisor to policymakers. King's advocacy for voting rights and political participation might have led to increased voter turnout among marginalized communities, reshaping electoral dynamics and empowering historically disenfranchised groups.

Moreover, King's influence could have extended beyond domestic affairs to shape America's foreign policy and international relations. His commitment to nonviolence and diplomacy might have influenced the nation's approach to conflicts abroad, fostering a more humanitarian and cooperative stance on issues of global significance.

Activism

In a world where Martin Luther King Jr. survived, his legacy would have continued to inspire generations to come. His speeches, writings, and actions would remain touchstones of moral courage and social activism, studied and celebrated in schools, universities, and communities worldwide.

The annual observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, (officially the Birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. the federal holiday in the United States observed on the third Monday of January each year), might have taken on even greater significance, serving as a call to action for social justice and equality.

However, the passage of time might also have obscured some aspects of King's legacy, as historical figures are often subject to reinterpretation and selective memory. Controversies and criticisms that arose during his lifetime might have resurfaced or evolved in unforeseen ways, challenging the prevailing narratives. Yet, amidst the complexities and ambiguities of history, Martin Luther King Jr.'s enduring impact on American society and beyond would remain undeniable.

Conclusion

The hypothetical scenario of Martin Luther King Jr. surviving his assassination invites reflection on the enduring significance of his life and legacy. While we can never know with certainty what might have transpired in such an alternate reality, we can draw inspiration from his example and continue the work of building a more just and equitable world.

As we commemorate his achievements and honor his memory, let us also recommit ourselves to the unfinished work of realizing his dream. For in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. himself, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

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

The Modern Greek State: 1950–1974 – The Road to Dictatorship and Retreat

On March 25, 2021, the Modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece.

This series of articles on the history of modern Greece started when the country was celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence. This article starts by looking at what happened as the Greek Civil War ended and the 1950s emerged, and ends by looking at the years of dictatorship – and the loss of part of Cyprus. Thomas P. Papageorgiou explains.

You can read part 1 on ‘a bad start’ 1827-1862 here, part 2 on ‘bankruptcy and defeat’ 1863-1897 here, part 3 on ‘glory days’ 1898-1913 here, part 4 on ‘Greeks divided’ 1914-22 here, part 5 on the issues of clientelism here, and part 6 on World War2 and a new divide here.

The leaders of the 1967 Greek military coup d'état. They are Stylianos Pattakos, Georgios Papadopoulos, and Nikolaos Makarezos. Source: Available here.

I Introduction: Power pillars after the civil war

Throughout the civil war and after that Greek remained a parliamentary democracy. To a certain extend and especially during the years of the fighting this was because of the need of the Americans and the British to appear to the public as supporters of a democratic regime that faced an imminent communist threat. Three very general political groupings could be distinguished that corresponded to right-center-left wings: The Right wing of the political spectrum was covered by the traditional anti-Venizelism, loyal to the throne and anti-communist. The Center had its historical roots in the Venizelist space that distinguished it form the right and was opposed to the communist left. The Left included non-communist components but was dominated by the Communist Party. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 17-22)

The latter was declared illegal, as post war Greece was an anti-communist cold war democracy pursuing the political and social exclusion of the Left, and thousands of its former partisans were imprisoned on remote Greek islands or excluded from state jobs. (Heneage, 2021, p. 204) Nevertheless, Greece never reached Stalinist Russia and there was much more freedom in the country compared to Franco’s Spain or Tito’s Yugoslavia. Thus, the Left had the opportunity to participate in the political arena with the United Democratic Left (Eniea Dimokratiki Aristera – EDA), a party whose control from the communists was an open secret, achieving good elections results. Furthermore, clientelism and the powerful and ubiquitous networks of the Greek family were always present and managed to mitigate the effects of political and social exclusion. It was not unusual then for leftists to be recruited into the public sector, from which they were officially excluded, through family political networks. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), pp. 169-170) (Heneage, 2021, p. 206)  

Within this framework there were also extra-parliamentary pillars of power. First, there was the palace and the king. The role of king George II was reconfirmed with the referendum of 1946, (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) but he died soon after in April 1947 and was replaced by his son Paul. The palace would try to shape the political scenery according to its likings. This led the king to consecutive ruptures with all political wings and, from time to time, with the Army. (Rizas, 2008, p. 24)

The Army was the winner of the civil war and foremost agent of anti-communism. Although in the past the officers looked for political patronage with only some autonomous action (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023), by 1949 the Army was a well-organized and well-equipped mechanism with war experience and confidence. It felt a kind of detachment and contempt for parliamentarism, although the stance of individual officers against the palace, on foreign policy issues and on certain parties and politicians varied. In any case, the real possibilities of the political establishment to control the military apparatus were small. (Rizas, 2008, p. 25) 

Finally, there was the American factor. For Washington, Greece had critical geopolitical interest as part of the ‘northern frieze’, together with Turkey and Iran, that would prevent soviet access to warm waters in the Near and Middle East. Thus, they favored a political establishment consistent with this end. The political parties in Greece on the other hand, although with gradations among them and except for the communist Left, favored the integration to the US sphere of influence as a deterrent to the ‘threat from the North’, where traditional enemies, like Bulgaria, now joined the communist bloc. As they lacked the means for the country’s recovery, essential for their survival, and the retention of sufficient military force, American help was essential. The fragmentation of the political forces facilitated further the American intervention, but occasionally the latter faced strong political movements. Thus, the USA was neither the all-powerful factor that steadily and unimpededly shaped the scene at will, as a popular narrative of part of the historiography and political-journalistic literature claims, but nor the non-participating observer of Greek politics, without interests and perceptions, as they claimed from time to time in Washington. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 32-34)

II The way to dictatorship

Attempts for reconciliation (1949 – 1952)

It is only natural that the Greeks should look for reconciliation amongst the rivaling parties after the end of the civil war. The Americans wanted the ratification of the end of the war and the reconciliation of the main political factions to come through the people’s vote. A new, more representative parliament, compared to that running the country during the civil war, was necessary. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 172) In fact, it was time for the struggle to become political and mostly economical with significant means for the necessary reconstruction arising from bold cuts in military spending. (Rizas, 2008, p. 64) American influence was ensured as foreign aid at the time covered 90,6 % of the deficit in the balance of foreign payments, 80,7 % of public spending for the reconstruction and 56,7 % of the Greek fiscal deficit. (Rizas, 2008, p. 119) Thus, the elections took place on the 5th of March 1950 using the electoral system of proportional representation.

The elections showed a clear lead for the Center – Left parties. This adds to the controversy over their decision to abstain from the 1946 elections, after which the civil war entered its most lethal phase. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) Charged with the mission of implementing a policy that would seek to overcome the consequences of the civil war and emphasize on reconstruction and income redistribution, they failed to stand up to the occasion yet again though. Their division into several groups spreading from the Center – Left to the Center – Right (Nikolaos Plastiras, Georgios Papandreou and Sophocles Venizelos, the son of Eleftherios, were leading the most important ones), hostile to one another, rendered cooperation difficult in matters such as that of general amnesty and the policy of leniency towards those exiled, imprisoned (including death row inmates) or prosecuted as communists. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 172)

Things were further perplexed by international developments at that time. The Korean War (25th June 1950) completely changed the perceptions and priorities of the Americans. (Rizas, 2008, p. 75) The Marshall plan was to expire in 1952 (Rizas, 2008, p. 60) and American support was reduced from 250 million dollars in 1950-51 to mere 84 million in 1952-53. At the same time there was no talk anymore for a cut in military spending that took 10 % of the national income in 1951. (Rizas, 2008, p. 123) This led to a complete revision of an ambitious 4 year program elaborated in 1948 aiming at the exploitation of the national water and mineral resources for electrification, which was a prerequisite for the country’s industrialization as a means of economic growth and poverty alleviation. The Americans were not favoring industrialization anymore suggesting alternatives for economic growth, like tourism. This created resentment in political circles and the public opinion, which perceived the American policy as imposing colonial terms on the Greek economy. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 120 - 121) In fact, the most famous monography on the development of Greek heavy industry at the time came from the communist Dimitris Batsis. (Batsis, 1977 (11th Edition)) Its author, together with 3 more members of the communist party (Nikos Beloyiannis, Ilias Argyriadis and Nikos Kaloumenos), were executed as spies in March 1952, as the anti-communist vigilance intensified again. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 174)

In a nutshell, the Cold War climate after 1950 imposed that the development effort would have to be undertaken and paid for with mostly Greek resources, making the stabilization of the economy by any possible means, while at the same time maintaining a high level of military forces and spending, paramount. (Rizas, 2008, p. 120 ) Thus, the Centrist governments implemented a strict stabilization program, which cost them electoral losses and paved the way for the ascent of the conservative Right to power. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 125 - 129)

The conservative Right to power (1952 – 1963)

Alexandros Papagos

The dominant figure of the Right was field marshal Alexandros Papagos. Coming from the high Athenian society, he was Chief of the Army General Staff at the beginning of the Greco-Italian war of 1940 and later assumed the rank of major General of the Army. He was arrested during the occupation and sent to a concentration camp in Germany until 1945. The military stalemate of 1948, during the civil war, was the reason for the return to his duties as commander in chief. In this capacity he managed to close the war against the communists victoriously and received the title of field marshal in October 1949 at the age of 66. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 60 - 61)

Papagos’ profile obviously matched the political climate of the time as he was surely anti-communist and further posed as an alternative to a political establishment in crisis. (Rizas, 2008, p. 93) Nevertheless, a dictatorship was not an option for Washington. The Americans would not object though, if Papagos ran for office and was elected. (Rizas, 2008, p. 79) To this end he had to resign from his post, which he did in May 1951. His resignation caused reactions in the Army and members of the Sacred Bond of Greek Officers (Ieros Desmos Ellinon Axiomatkon - IDEA), a secret military organization, which, according to its Constitution, ‘should establish a dictatorship if the political leaders were unable to protect the country’s national interests, namely to contain communism’, (Arvanitopoulos, 1991, p. 99)(Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 208-209) occupied the General Staff building, the radio station and other places in Athens. The movement ended within a day by the intervention of Papagos, which proves that at the time of his resignation he was in full control of the armed forces. (Rizas, 2008, p. 83) (Tsoucalas, 2020, σ. 209) Furthermore, characteristic of the Army’s power and independence was the fact that grace was granted to those involved in the movement and the matter was closed there. (Rizas, 2008, p. 90) This came to the dismay of the palace as the king particularly disliked the fact that Papagos was not willing to go into politics under his tutelage. (Rizas, 2008, p. 82) He even tried to bring the Army under his influence after Papagos’ resignation, but this met the opposition of the Americans. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 84, 85, 95, 99 - 100)

Nevertheless, one thing on which there was a consensus within the power establishment at that time, with the exceptions of the Left, was the need to join a collective security system. (Rizas, 2008, p. 112) The difference was that for the Center this was perceived as an opportunity to deter the threat from the communist countries in the north with reduced military spending (Rizas, 2008, p. 122), whereas Papagos believed that Greece could ensure its inclusion in the allied planning only if it maintained a significant military capability. (Rizas, 2008, p. 109) In any case, Greece’s participation in the Korean War, in response to the United Nations appeal for assistance, (Wikipedia, 2023) was included in this context, and the country finally joined the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), together with Turkey, in February 1952. (Rizas, 2008, p. 117) (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 213-214)

Papagos’ party, the ‘Greek Rally’, came to power a few months later in November, winning 49.2 % of the votes and 247 out of 300 seats in the parliament. (Rizas, 2008, p. 130) His predominance was facilitated by the fact that the elections were in this case conducted using a majoritarian electoral system. In fact, the changes of the electoral system in a way to facilitate the formation of strong one-party governments away from collaboration is a characteristic of the parliamentary system of Modern Greece that remains to this day. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 200) This tactic obviously reinforces the phenomena of division and the client state. The result of EDA (9,6 %) confirmed the existence of a hard core of communists, but the party was left out of parliament. (Rizas, 2008, p. 131)

This did not go unnoticed by Papagos, who established a bureaucracy of ‘national security’ imbued with anticommunism, whose activity would normally remain opaque. The Central Intelligence Service (Kentriki Ypiresia Pliroforion – KYP) was established in May 1953. (Rizas, 2008, p. 132) He also completed Greece’s integration into the Atlantic security system with the bilateral Greek – American agreement on granting military bases to the USA in October 1953. While the agreement is linked to NATO’s strategy, the operation of the bases was controlled exclusively by the Americans. (Rizas, 2008, p. 162) Further concessions to the Americans included the use of the Greek road and rail network by the American armed forces, low fees and tax exemption for the American activities, and the granting of US military and civilian personnel the right of separate jurisdiction. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 216)

Papagos’ government made an opening to Europe as well, in view also of the reluctance of the Americans to finance the Greek development program, as we saw before. The outstanding pre-war public debt, whose settlement was not allowed by Greek public finances, resulted in the creation of the European credit mechanism. The Greek government submitted specific projects to foreign governments, which they undertook to finance indirectly or directly, often in the form of export guarantees. From now on, West Germany will become Greece’s most important economic partner. (Rizas, 2008, p. 163)

In the field of foreign policy, the minister of foreign affairs Stefanopoulos signed the Balkan Pact with Yugoslavia and Turkey in February 1953 followed by a military agreement in August 1954. The Balkan Pact was perceived as a way for the Western allies to bring Yugoslavia into their sphere of influence in case of Soviet aggression. (Wikipedia, 2023)The undertaking was short-lived though after Tito’s reconciliation with post-Stalinist Soviet Union and the conflict between Greece and Turkey over the Cyprus issue. (Rizas, 2008, p. 163) (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 216-217) The latter arose after an unofficial referendum on the island in 1950 that called for a unification with Greece (Wikipedia, 2023). Nevertheless, whereas previous governments avoided raising the issue as there were other priorities, e.g. joining NATO, and British opposition was fierce, (Rizas, 2008, p. 166) Papagos worked more intensively on it. As we have seen, Great Britain obtained Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire and by 1950 the island was ruled by the British for almost 70 years. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 217-218) (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2021)

For Papagos and most of the Greeks unification with Cyprus was a matter characterized by strong emotional and psychological charge. (Rizas, 2008, p. 167) Although the catastrophe of the Asia Minor Campaign practically put an end to Greece’s concept of the ‘Great Idea’ for expansion to its ancient territories (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023), here we find remnants of exactly this concept. (Rizas, 2008, p. 165) Facing fierce British opposition on a bilateral level, Papagos tried to internationalize the issue by appealing to the United Nations in August 1954. The appeal was fruitless as it also met the American reaction. (Rizas, 2008, p. 168) The Americans had made it clear to Athens, that Greece had to devote itself to its economic and social reconstruction and political stabilization and that its general situation did not allow for redemptive adventures. (Rizas, 2008, p. 166)They also considered the need to safeguard Cyprus’ strategic advantages for Britain, that was now on retreat from the Middle East and Suez, and the Western security system. (Rizas, 2008, p. 167)

The next step for Athens was to recourse to armed action. This started on the 1st of April 1955 by the National Organization of Cypriot Fighters (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston – EOKA) led by the Greek Cypriot colonel of the Greek Army Georgios Grivas. (Wikipedia, 2023) The British responded to the increased Greek and Greek-Cypriot pressure by bringing Greece’s arch-rival into the game. In August 1955 they convened a tripartite conference in London with the participation of Turkey. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 220-221) (Rizas, 2008, p. 169)

Turkey was opposing Cyprus’ unification with Greece for strategic reasons. It did not want the completion of a chain of islands enclosing the Turkish coast from the northern Aegean to the south. To this end it used the Turkish Cypriot minority that made up 18 % of the island’s population. The Turkish position does not accept minority status for the Turkish Cypriots and considers that their presence should be equal in the management of the affairs of the island. In fact, in 1955-56 Ankara went through a maximalist phase requiring either the continuation of the British rule or the return of the island to Turkey as the successor of the Ottoman Empire. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 167 - 168) Thus, the tripartite conference failed completely, because of the unbridgeable approaches of the participants. To make things worse for the Greeks, the Greek minority in Constantinople suffered a pogrom because of the tension. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 221) (Wikipedia, 2023)

The US and British stance on the Cyprus issue caused the dissatisfaction of the Greek public opinion, including that of the Right press. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 222) The Left saw an opportunity to cause a rift in pro-Atlantic perceptions and in the nexus of international and internal arrangements of the post-civil war era. (Rizas, 2008, p. 165) Stalin’s death in 1953 brought about a change in the rigid and dogmatic practises of the Communist Party, which would now seek cooperation with the Center-Left and Center parties on the basis of a joint effort to oust the ‘Greek Rally’ from the government. Indeed, in the municipal elections of November 1954 the joint candidates of the Center-Left and the Left clearly prevailed in the three largest cities, Athens, Thessaloniki and Piraeus, and showed good results in a number of other municipalities as well. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 139 - 140)

The most significant development after the municipal elections of 1954 was Papagos’ illness (he eventually died in October 1955), that created the need for his succession to the leadership of the ‘Greek Rally’ and the premiership. The case as it developed is simultaneously indicative of the structural weakness and opacity of the Greek political and party system. As there is no stable party structure and institutionalized process of intra-party functioning and leadership succession, due to the political culture and tradition that structures party organization around persons, the natural eclipse of the leading figure allows informal processes to fill the gap, in which extra-parliamentarian factors have a prominent role. (Rizas, 2008, p. 156) The result of such processes including  the extra-parliamentarian power pillars described in section I as well as interest networks formed by politicians and businessmen (see next section) resulted in Konstantinos Karamanlis taking over as prime minister. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 209-212)

Konstantinos Karamanlis

Konstantinos Karamanlis is the founder of one of the few families that ruled over modern Greece (other famous ones include those of Trikoupis, Venizelos, Papandreou and Mitsotakis) significantly reducing the inclusiveness of the Greek political institutions. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2021) He was the minister of public works in the Papagos’ administration and his rise through the ranks of the Greek politics was quick after World War II . (Wikipedia, 2023) Karamanlis had the support of the palace (Rizas, 2008, p. 145) (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 209, 232) and king Paul gave him the mandate to form a government on the 5th of October 1955. (Rizas, 2008, p. 160) For the Americans, that after Papagos’ death turned to the king, who had the institutional capacity to be a factor of anti-communism continuity (Rizas, 2008, p. 152), this was a welcome development. The Left was on the rise again (see above) and the Americans were interested in the retainment of the Right in power (Rizas, 2008, p. 145), although the armed forces constituted a backup security force for the political and social establishment in case of exhaustion of the parliamentary means. (Rizas, 2008, p. 172) The British embassy was in agreement. (Rizas, 2008, p. 144)

This foreign consent was interpreted by the opposition press as the result of Karamanlis’ unpopular opinion referring to the need for a compromise solution to the Cyprus issue. (Rizas, 2008, p. 155) The fact was that there was a revision of the British strategic needs in Cyprus. London had concluded that to fulfill British commitments in the Middle East it was sufficient to maintain military bases in Cyprus rather than rule over the entire island. (Rizas, 2008, p. 241)The British made it clear that the Cyprus issue now depended very much on Turkish perceptions and sensitivities, which had to be taken into account as a priority, if the Western powers did not want to alienate a necessary ally in the critical region of the Middle East. (Rizas, 2008, p. 239)

Eventually, the idea of unification with Greece was given up and Cyprus was proclaimed an independent state on the 16th of August 1960. The organization of the new state was based on the London and Zurich agreements of February 1959. (Wikipedia, 2022) These were met with displeasure in Greece, also by a portion of the officers corps, as the position of the Turkish – Cypriots was strengthened and the new state would operate under international and constitutional restrictions that contradicted the right of the majority to direct Cypriot affairs as they wished. In fact, the content of the agreements was considered roughly equivalent to national concession, abandoning the ideal of the union. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 233, 244) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 225) The leader of the Center Georgios Papandreou pointed out that with the London and Zurich agreements it was the first time that Turkey was returning to territory it had lost after the establishment of the modern Greek state. (Rizas, 2008, p. 245) Greece was on the retreat.

Karamanlis’ attempt to put the Cyrpus issue ‘on the self’ was done in order to manage to deal with the financial problems as a priority. (Rizas, 2008, p. 155) In fact, as minister of public works he had already won the admiration of the US Embassy for the efficiency with which he built road infrastructure and administered American aid programs. (Wikipedia, 2023) Furthermore, his premiership initiated the beginning of a period, that extended well into the 1970s, in which GDP grew nearly 7 % a year and per capita income trebled. It wasn’t far short of the German postwar miracle. (Heneage, 2021, p. 204) Karamanlis’ administration also pursued the association with the European Economic Community and the relevant agreement was signed in Athens in July 1961. (Rizas, 2008, p. 248)

Nevertheless, the Greek economic development of the 1950s and 1960s was based on foreign support (also in the form of tourism), that did not favor the industrialization of the country, (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 184) shipping and state intervention. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 190-191) (Rizas, 2008, p. 257) Favorable arrangements with Greek and foreign businessmen repeatedly provoked discussions of ‘colonial-style’ contracts, while the state’s capabilities (i) in selecting ‘partners’ to lease state-owned enterprises or (ii) to lend to commercial and industrial activities from state-controlled banks are such that they have certainly created networks of public and private interests (Rizas, 2008, pp. 258 - 259)starting a tradition that continues to this day. In fact, the Governor of the Bank of Greece at that time Xenophon Zolotas criticized the mentality of the Greek ‘entrepreneur class’ and the failure of the banking system to work against this mentality aiming at the hoarding of profits or the acquisition of consumer goods rather than the use of these profits for productive investments. (Rizas, 2008, p. 260) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 188)    

It is then not inexplicable that from 1951 to 1963 405 thousand Greeks left the country in search for better luck elsewhere. Actually, the annual remittances to their families back home reached 173 million dollars in 1963  contributing also to the country’s development. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 191) By 1980 immigration would exceed 1 million, that is about a quarter of Greece’s active workforce. (Eleftheratos, 2015, p. 182) (Heneage, 2021, p. 204)Thus, the country continued to foster non-inclusive political and financial institutions, as discussed also previously (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2021), which according to Acemoglu and Robinson are characteristic of a failed state. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013)

Karamanlis and the Right was also accused, not unjustly, of authoritarianism and oppression. After his appointment as a prime minister he reorganized the ‘Greek Rally’ as ‘National Radical Union’ (Ethniki Rizospastiki Enosi -ERE), that concluded the transformation of the old anti-Venizelist faction to a conservative party of the post-war era, (Rizas, 2008, p. 174) and asked for the affirmation of the king’s choice through the public vote in February 1956. This was the first time that the Greek women were granted with voting rights. (Rizas, 2008, p. 179) He won only thanks to a carefully chosen electoral system that gave him 165 seats in the parliament with 47,4 % of the votes against the Center-Left alliance that gathered 48,1 % but only 132 seats. This immediately raised issues of political legitimation for the government. (Rizas, 2008, p. 181) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 233) Karamanlis’ position was nevertheless strengthened with another round of elections in May 1958, (Rizas, 2008, p. 204) but the result reserved the unpleasant surprise of EDA becoming the largest opposition party. (Kostis, 2018, p. 333) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 233)Karamanlis then responded with the intensification of police action against the Left, arrests and deportations. (Rizas, 2008, p. 206) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 234) When a third round of elections came in the autumn 1961 the leader of the Center Georgios Papandreou accused Karamanlis that he used the oppressive state mechanism set up by the Right during its rule, the army and paramilitary organizations against all rival parties and ERE’s victory was seen as the product of force and fraud. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 201-207) (Kostis, 2018, p. 333) He called the people to an ‘unyielding struggle’ (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 239-242) that managed to mobilize the electoral base of the Center as well as wider social strata, especially since the demand for new elections was linked to other political, economic and social issues such as the Cyprus issue, unemployment, poverty and immigration described above. (Rizas, 2008, p. 269) The tension culminated with the assassination of EDA MP Grigoris Lambrakis in May 1963 by a right-wing extremist organization under conditions that made even Karamanlis wonder ‘Who in God’s name is running this country?’. The truth is that Karamanlis’ relations with the other power pillars of section I were worsening after 1961 and especially the palace, that was also targeted by the ‘unyielding struggle’, was looking for a way out of the crisis. Karamanlis was replaced as prime minister by another king’s man, Panagiotis Pipinelis, but it became obvious that the only way to relief the tensions was free elections.  These took place in November 1963 and Papandreou’s ‘Centre Union’ (Enosi Kentrou – EK) removed Karamanlis’ ERE from the government. The twelve-year rule of the Right had ended. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 242-245)

The short-lived government of the Center (1963 – 1965)

The Center won, but the majority in Parliament was small (42% of the votes and 138 seats against ERE’s 39.4% and 132 seats) (Rizas, 2008, p. 284) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 245) and the reaction of the, much closer to the Right, Army to the result of the elections unknown. Thus, Papandreou avoided extensive interventions in the latter at this phase and sought new elections, to obtain an independent majority in the Parliament. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 285, 292) Indeed, the Army remained in the barracks and Centre Union won an overwhelming majority of 52,7% of the votes and 171 seats (out of 300 in total) in the elections of February 1964. (Rizas, 2008, p. 293) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 247)

Significant changes in the social stratification of the country had occurred since the last government of the Center. The economic conditions described above did not cause only external but internal immigration as well. Whereas in 1958 the ratio of rural to urban income per capita was just over half (220 to 437 dollars), by 1964 it was significantly less (282 to 621). (Rizas, 2008, p. 295) No wonder then that the rural dwellers sought for a better fortune in the cities. The urban population increased from 37.7% in 1951 to 43% ten years later with another 13% living in semi-urban areas. 62.7% of this increase was absorbed by the city of Athens. By 1961 Greece’s capital had a population bigger than the total urban population of the rest of the country and was established as the most important center of the socio – economic life. It absorbed more than 50% of those working in the industry, received 80% of the country’s imports, paid 75% of the direct and 65% of the indirect taxation, the income of its population was 40% higher than the average national income, bought more than 50% of the daily newspaper sheets, had the highest amount of hospital beds, 85% of qualified doctors and housed the bulk of those working in the public sector. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 181 - 182) This dominance of Athens remains to this day.

Papandreou increased the agricultural subsidies from 2.6 to 4.4% of the state budget, (Rizas, 2008, p. 297) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 250) but this could do little to reverse the fact that Greece had also entered the stage of mass urban societies when the spirit of the 1960s was spreading through the western world. (Wikipedia, 2023)Combined with an ongoing economic boom, under the name ‘Trente Glorieuses’ in France (Wikipedia, 2023) or ‘Miracolo Economico’ in Italy (Wikipedia, 2023), this drove the demand for increased consumption and services through an income redistribution. Thus, Greece could not remain unaffected. (Rizas, 2008, p. 299) 

Indeed, EK raised the daily wages, pensions, instituted vacations pay equal to ½ of the monthly salary and generally aimed at boosting the demand as a driver of accelerating economic growth. The result was that the increase in consumption exceeded the productive capacity of the domestic industry. In 1965, for the first time the value of industrial output exceeded the value of agricultural output. Thus, the Greek bourgeoisie also had every reason to be satisfied with the economic policy of EK during this period. Protective tariffs were in place, the credit process was simplified, prices were kept at stable heights and economic growth reached 8%. Business was going well, and profits were high. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 250 - 251) (Rizas, 2008, pp. 297 - 298)

The liberal, redistributive, and developmental spirit of the time was also present in Papandreou’s highly popular educational reform. He increased the time of compulsory education from six to nine years and established messes in elementary schools and scholarships for high schools to facilitate the access of children from the weaker social classes to them. To this end, the vernacular was also established as an equal language with the so called ‘clean’ (kathareuousa), that was based on the ancient Greek language and was mostly used by the elitist social strata. Ancient texts were also now to be taught translated in high school. The tuition and examination fees in higher education were abolished and a new university was established in Patras. Plans for two more in Epirus and Crete were laid. Finally, the Pedagogical Institute was also created, responsible for applied educational research, the creation of syllabi and the renewal of textbooks. (Rizas, 2008, σσ. 301 - 303) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 252)    

In foreign policy, once again, the Cyprus issue was dominant. Here Athens did not have the control of the developments and Papandreou was particularly worried about the unbound and uncontrolled initiatives of the Greek-Cypriot leader and first President of Cyprus Archbishop Makarios. (Rizas, 2008, p. 312) The latter announced in December 1963 his intention to proceed with a unilateral revision of the constitution in order to limit the extensive veto rights of the Turkish-Cypriot minority. (Rizas, 2008, p. 307) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 226) This caused tensions and armed conflicts between the two communities that culminated to the dispatch of the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force (UNFICYP) to the island in spring 1964. This marked the consolidation of a situation rather favourable to the Greek-Cypriot side, which in the meantime prevailed in 95% of the island’s territory and had under its full control the state apparatus. (Rizas, 2008, p. 310) Nevertheless, the bombardment, in August 1964, of Greek-Cypriot positions on the islands by the Turkish Air Force, following an attack on a Turkish-Cypriot village by the Greeks, indicated that Turkey was not going to give up its ambitions on the islands easily. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 227)

Apart from appealing to the UN, several alternatives to solve the crisis were also brought forward by the Americans and NATO going as far as the partition of the island between the two communities. The rejection of these plans by the Greek government were interpreted as the result of the influence of the prime minister’s son Andreas Papandreou. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 313 - 317)

Andreas Papandreou was an economist and former university professor in the USA. Nevertheless, he represented a more radical left wing within EK. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 253) This was met with scepticism by the Americans, especially after J. F. Kennedy’s assassination and the assumption of the presidency by Lyndon Johnson that marked a shift in American policy from the need for liberal openness to more traditional notions credible from the point of view of Cold War strategy. (Rizas, 2008, p. 358) Andreas was also perceived as an obstacle for the personal ambitions of many EK politicians that hoped to succeed his aged father. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 253) Some of these, like Konstantinos Mitsotakis (the father of today’s prime minister), had also strong reservations about the economic policy, as they considered that the capacity for further benefits of any kind had been exhausted, and the prime minister’s handlings regarding the Cyprus issue that created tension in the Greco-American relations. (Rizas, 2008, p. 345)

Thus, in spring 1965 started a sequence of events that led to the eviction of Papandreou from the premiership and are often treated as the product of conspiracy by the American factor in collaboration with the palace, where the new king Constantine II had succeeded his father Paul that died in 1964, and defectors within EK. In May, the existence of an officers’ organization under the name ASPIDA (shield) became public. (Rizas, 2008, p. 337) Its aim, according to the indictment, was the establishment of a Nasser-style dictatorship. Politicians were also, supposedly, involved among which was Andreas Papandreou. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 260) The government perceived the accusations as an attempt of the Right to purge the army of pro-government officers and contrary to his original stance Georgios Papandreou now decided to intervene. (Rizas, 2008, p. 339) His proposals, among which was to take over the ministry of national defence himself, were rejected by the king though. The prime minister felt obliged to resign. Before even submitting his resignation in writing, the king had already appointed a new government supported by ERE and dissidents (defectors) of the EK. By July 1965 Georgios Papandreou was ousted, and his son faced charges of high treason. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 261)     

The colonels come to power (1965 – 1967)

The 25 years old king Constantine had overestimated his powers. The dismissal of Papandreou was in direct opposition to the principles of parliamentary democracy. The attempt to form a government with defectors from EK was met with disdain by the Greek people. After two years of the more liberal Papandreou government the latter would now express its dismay in a dynamic way. For weeks, hundreds of thousand of people would demonstrate against the methods of the defectors and the palace. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 263 - 265)

Furthermore, the departure of the defectors from EK strengthened its more radical wing and Andreas Papandreou, who declared that: ‘The Nation’s infrastructure, transport and communication, the credit system and education must be owned by the state. In general, heavy industry should be state-owned and light industry private. There is a primary need to make efforts to limit or even eliminate heavy consumption and the import of luxury goods. It is necessary to stop the granting of monopoly privileges which help the entry of foreign capital.’ (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 268 - 269)Advocating national sovereignty, he also appeared skeptical of NATO and Greece’s integration into the European Economic Community. (Rizas, 2008, p. 391) The king was not spared from accusations of practices that exceeded the limits of constitutional monarchy and at the same time Andreas Papandreou was raising the issue of perceived American interference in Greece’s internal affairs. Finally, he argued that a fairer distribution of the national income was necessary by attacking the wealthier classes. (Rizas, 2008, p. 393) Greece’s elites had every reason to feel worried.

The army was also worried. The parliament did not lift Papandreou’s immunity for the case of ASPIDA and it was obvious that his father would give up his original stance of non-intervention in the army after that. In fact, there was a group of mid and low-level officers established in 1956 already, that exercised pressure on the respective military leadership for a coup, whenever it appeared that the Left and Center would get a majority in the parliament. The leader of this group was colonel Georgios Papadopoulos. (Rizas, 2008, p. 388)

Thus, in the 22 months that followed Georgios Papandreou’s eviction from office the Greek people remained agitated, EK strong in the electorate, Andreas Papandreou’s rhetoric radical, Greece’s elites and the Americans consequently worried and the king also feeling threatened, as his interventions had caused a revival of the issue of choice between monarchy and democracy, (Rizas, 2008, p. 393) was avoiding calling elections using government schemes supported by the Right and defectors from EK. Obviously, the margins for a parliamentary solution to the dispute had become very narrow. On the 21st of April 1967 colonel Georgios Papadopoulos’ group made their move: Dictatorship.   

III Dictatorship

In his book on the many military interventions in the Greek politics between 1916 and 1936 Thanos Veremis distinguishes them in two categories: 1) The one refers to those interventions that gained national importance and were supported by a large portion of the public. 2) The second refers to those that aimed only to serve private interests or were an expression of discontent of a military faction. (Veremis, 2018, p. 280) Thus, if we were to follow the same distinction, then the military coup of 1967 belongs to the second category.  

Veremis further interprets the people’s tolerance to these regimes as disappointment from and consequently discontent for the political establishment. (Veremis, 2018, p. 279) Nevertheless, tolerance is by no means acceptance. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the repressive mechanisms of the 1967 junta cannot be ignored. The center-left and left-wing resistance organizations established immediately after the coup were quickly neutralized, and the protagonists were in many cases brutalized and tortured. The same is true for the democratic officers of the army (Rizas, 2008, p. 442)

The junta was also ad odds with the king. After all the coup did not come from the high ranking officers of the latter’s entourage, as discussed previously, and as the junta was aiming at the establishment of a permanent regime confrontation with Constantine II was inevitable. (Rizas, 2008, p. 434) In fact, on the 13th of December 1967 the king carried out a counter coup, but once again junta’s reaction was swift and Constantine found himself in exile.

There was also a wide spread belief in a large part of the population, that fed anti-Americanism for many years, that the political question could not be solved by the Greeks themselves, but by the sovereign will of the Americans, who were held responsible for imposing and maintaining the dictatorship. (Rizas, 2008, p. 443) The truth is that for Henry Kissinger, the American national security advisor, the nature of the regime was not an issue for Washington (Rizas, 2008, p. 453) as long as it identified itself with NATO and the western world and Greece remained an ally of the West in the Cold War. (Rizas, 2008, p. 432) The junta did.

Junta’s doings in the financial sector have often been the subject of controversy. During the 2010 economic crisis, for example, when the country found itself at the brink of bankruptcy and a tough program of austerity and heavy taxation was imposed on its people, public discontent against the parties working within the parliamentary system of government gave fertile ground for references to junta’s well-organized economy, which avoided thriftlessness and empowered needy social groups such as farmers. Researchers like D. Eleftheratos showed that this was a myth and stressed the devastating effects of junta’s policies on the Greek economy. (Eleftheratos, 2015)

Thus, the international oil crisis of October 1973 challenged the sustainability of the Greek model of financial growth (Rizas, 2008, pp. 351-352) and as the passing of time inevitably led to a relaxation of the police measures popular discontent was more readily expressed. Universities in particular became a permanent hotbed. (Rizas, 2008, p. 444)The revolt of the Polytechnic University in Athens in November 1973 was violently suppressed, but a group of fiercely nationalist and anti-communist officers already worried that Papadopoulos was becoming too moderate. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 446-447) The internal conflicts of the junta culminated to a coup within the coup on the 25th of November 1973, when brigadier Ioannidis overthrew Papadopoulos and assumed the leadership of the military regime. (Rizas, 2008, p. 474)

The final blow for the junta came a few months later during another crisis in Cyprus. It was mentioned in the previous section already that even Georgios Papandreou, whose funeral in November 1968 marked one of the first massive demonstrations against the military regime, had trouble dealing with the policies of the president of Cyprus Archbishop Makarios. In fact, the dispatch of an army division to Cyprus by Papandreou in 1964, apart from the increase of the Greek deterrent power on the island, was also interpreted as an attempt to increase control over Makarios. (Rizas, 2008, p. 313) Nevertheless, the latter’s initiatives to bring Cyprus into the Non-Aligned Movement (Wikipedia, 2024), to side with the Arabs during the Six-Day War (Rizas, 2008, p. 480) (Wikipedia, 2024) or to order weapons from Czechoslovakia for the Cypriot armed forces (Rizas, 2008, p. 481) indicate clearly the structural divergence between the political system in Cyprus and the military regime in Greece.

Indeed, the junta worked towards the unification of Cyprus with Greece, but Makarios opposed the idea as Cyprus would then be subject to a dictatorship and, furthermore, the proposal included territorial concessions to Turkey (Rizas, 2008, p. 479), in accordance with American demands that Athens should consider the Turkish views in Cyprus. (Rizas, 2008, p. 482) This does not mean that an agreement with Turkey was reached. On the contrary, when the junta tried, unsuccessfully, to impose its views to the Turkish side at the end of 1967, the issue culminated to a Greco-Turkish crisis that eventually forced the junta to withdraw the Greek army division from the island. (Rizas, 2008, pp. 480-481) Later, in March 1970, the junta attempted to murder Makarios and eventually Ioannidis to overthrow him with a coup on the 15th of July 1974. Under the treaty of Guarantee (Wikipedia, 2024), this was the excuse that the Turks needed to justify their invasion in Cyprus 5 days later, that led to the division of the island that lasts to this day. On the 24th of July Karamanlis, in self-exile in Paris after losing the premiership in 1963 (see above), returned to Greece to form a government. The junta had fallen. 

IV Conclusion

What we have seen in this series of articles so far is that modern Greece, since its foundation, was always able to move forward. Despite the difficulties, thanks to some capable leaders, favored also by coincidence and luck, it managed to continuously develop and expand.

Thus, at the end of the dictatorship in 1974 Greece was again a completely different country. The population had largely withdrawn from the countryside and lived in two large cities, Athens, and Thessaloniki. Financially, the rural-urban gap had narrowed, and per capita income had tripled since 1964. There was an extensive service sector, whereas the industry had developed to such an extent that about 40% of exports were industrial goods. It was thus an urbanized country, with a relatively industrialized economy that in parallel to the established relation with the USA was now pursuing admission to the European Economic Community. (Rizas, 2008, p. 490)

Nevertheless, much of all these was done through networks of public and private interests in a way that did not allow for the exploitation of the country’s full potential for the benefit of all its people. Many sought their luck abroad or became trapped in a clientelism system sponsored by exclusive political institutions. What changed after 1974 was the influence of the army. In many cases in the past the collaboration between politicians and military officers for the seizure of power resulted in mild punishments for the latter after army interventions into politics. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) Although after junta’s fall in 1974 many of its collaborators were treated mildly and were even cared for by businessmen favored by the military regime (Eleftheratos, 2015, pp. 313-322) the leading officers were now sentenced to life in prison. Indeed, after 1974 the political establishment managed to eliminate the role of the army in the political developments in Greece. Nevertheless, it remains, to a significant extend, a ‘family business’ (after 1974, 6 prime ministers came from the Karamanlis, Papandreou and Mitsotakis families, for example).   

It was a matter of time then before Greece started to pay the toll for its exclusive political and financial institutions. As we saw, Georgios Papandreou’s remarks for the Cyprus issue, that the London and Zurich agreements marked, for the first time, the return of Turkey to a territory it had lost after the establishment of modern Greece, could be interpreted as an indication that Greece was going on the retreat. The invasion of the island and occupation of its north-eastern part by the Turks in July 1974 made it official. 

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

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books ltd.

Arvanitopoulos, C. (1991). The Rise and Fall of the Greek Military Regime: 1967 - 1974. Journal of Modern Hellenism, No. 8, pp. 97 - 116 (available at https://journals.sfu.ca/jmh/index.php/jmh/article/view/118/119).

Batsis, D. (1977 (11th Edition)). The Heavy Industry in Greece. Athens: Kedros.

Eleftheratos, D. (2015). Diddlers in Khaki, Economic 'miracles' and victims of the junta. Athens: Topos Eds. (in Greek).

Heneage, J. (2021). The shortest history of Greece. Exeter: Old Street Publishing ltd.

Kalyvas, N. S. (2020 (3rd Edition)). Catastrophies and Triumphs, The 7 cycles of modern Greek history. Athens: Papadopoulos (in Greek, in English under the title Modern Greece: What everyone needs to know by Oxford University Press).

Kostis, K. (2018). History’s Spoiled Children, The Formation of the Modern Greek State. London: Hurst & Company.

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, September 5). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/9/5/the-modern-greek-state-18631897-bankruptcy-amp-defeat#.YVH7FX1RVPY

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2023, March 22). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2023/3/22/the-modern-greek-state-19231940-the-issues-of-clientelism#.ZDj9i_ZBy3A

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2023, October 14). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2023/10/14/the-modern-greek-state-19411949-war-amp-a-new-divide

Rizas, S. (2008). Greek Politics after the Civil War. Parliamentaryism and Dictatorship. Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Tsoucalas, C. (2020). The Greek Tragedy, From the liberation to the colonels. Athens: Patakis (in Greek, originally published in English by Penguin in 1969).

Veremis, T. (2018). The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936. Athens: Alexandria (in Greek).

Wikipedia. (2022). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_and_Z%C3%BCrich_Agreements

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Expeditionary_Force_(Korea)

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Cypriot_enosis_referendum

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgios_Grivas

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_pogrom

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantinos_Karamanlis

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Pact_%281953%29

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960s

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_economic_miracle

Wikipedia. (2024). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

Wikipedia. (2024). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Wikipedia. (2024). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guarantee_(1960)

Is this the Best Movie City in the US?

There are many American cities that can make a case for the being the best ‘movie city’ in America. Here, Michael Thomas Leibrandt considers whether Philadelphia is truly the best…

Don Knotts, who starred in The Shakiest Gun in the West.

“I Have a Case.” The iconic movie line delivered from Tom Hanks in the Philadelphia-based hit movie Philadelphia, thirty years ago.

When it comes to being one of the most historic movie cities in the US — well — move over Hollywood. Last month, we learned that Rocky movie series star Carl Weathers passed away peacefully at his home.

Nearly one hundred and twenty years ago, my great grandfather — a true Philadelphia born and raised — was pulled to be an extra during the filming of The Great Train Robbery in 1903. He was a railroad engineer, who happened to be in New Jersey that day, and the production needed some extras for a scene.

The Great Train Robbery, a ground-breaking silent film from Director Edwin S. Porter, was a marvel for its time. Perhaps the basis for the introduction if the plot-based film, it would give rise to the American Western. Before the end of the 20th century, The Searchers, High Noon, A Fistful of Dollars, The Magnificent Seven, and The Wild Bunch would be some of our most treasured action westerns.

Some reasons

When it comes to iconic scenes, think Philly. It’s been fourty-five years since Rocky’s iconic run through the Philly streets in Rocky II, twenty-five years since M. Night Shayamalan’s thriller The Sixth Sense included St. Augustine’s Church, and sixty-five years since Paul Newman and Robert Vaughn starred in the The Young Philadelphians.

The 2024 Oscars had plenty of Philadelphia representation, too. Jenkintown’s Bradley Cooper who was nominated for Best Actor, Best Picture, and Best Original Screenplay for Maestro. Coleman Domingo had a Best Actor nomination for Rustin, and Da’Vine Joy Randolph for Best Actress in The Holdovers, both of which are graduates of Temple University.

We made movies here from the beginning. At the beginning of America’s obsession with the motion picture industry, Lubin Manufacturing Company produced silent films from 1896–1916, and became a corporation in Philadelphia in 1902. Among the more than 3,000 films produced by Lubin were the 1912 films The Sheriff’s Mistake and The Bank Cashier.

Lubin actually purchased the Betzwood Estate, once the home of Philadelphia Brewer Joseph F. Betz, and utilized it to film what would eventually become known as “Betzwood Westerns.”

Even in the late 19th century, some veterans of the Wild West still existed. Harry Webb had been a part of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, and those who actually had experience on a real western ranch such as Jack Wright. Jake May’s sons Harry and Jack were in charge of the saloon across the street from the Lubin studio in North Philadelphia.

The 1968 production of the film The Shakiest Gun in the West starring Don Knotts was the story of a Philadelphia dentist who travels to the frontier in 1870 and battles attacks from natives, a complete farce of a marriage proposal, and masked robbers.

In 2020, the film Concrete Cowboy told the story of the Fletcher Street Urban Riding Club, which has an over 100 year history in North Philadelphia and takes horses from a livestock auction in New Holland that are cared for in stables between North Philadelphia and West Philadelphia.

The horses are often ridden in races in “The Speedway” in Fairmount Park and also ‘The Oval’ on 15th Street. For years, the horses have been favorites among the Temple University Diamond Band.

Location/Location

According to a Kuoni, Philadelphia is the ninth most popular location for filming a movie internationally, and ranks sixth in the US. The Pennsylvania Tax Credit is a big reason why. Tax credits of 25–30% to production which spend 60% or more of their total production cost within Pennsylvania.

When I began to immersive myself in film studies in college, my Dad recalled his grandfather’s pride about once having been a brief part of a film industry production. After all, he lived in Philadelphia, a city that will forever have great film-making in its blood.

It turns out that it’s in mine, too.

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

Michael Thomas Leibrandt is a historian and writer and lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

What if Abraham Lincoln had not been Assassinated?

Few figures loom as large as Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States. His leadership during the Civil War, his commitment to the abolition of slavery, and his enduring legacy of unity and equality have solidified his place as an icon of American democracy.

What if history had taken a different turn on that fateful April evening in 1865? What if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated?

Terry Bailey considers.

An 1860s painting of President Abraham Lincoln. By George Peter Alexander Healy,

To ponder such a scenario is to delve into the realm of historical conjecture. However, by examining the political landscape of the time and Lincoln's own aspirations, it is possible to glean insight into what might have transpired had his life not been cut short by events.

Firstly, it's essential to consider Lincoln's vision for post-Civil War America. He was deeply committed to the principles of reconciliation and reconstruction, aiming to heal the nation's wounds and forge a path towards unity. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Lincoln sought to reintegrate the Southern states into the Union with leniency and compassion, prioritizing national healing over punitive measures.

Had Lincoln survived, it's plausible that his approach to reconstruction would have been markedly different from that of his successor, Andrew Johnson. Lincoln's conciliatory stance toward the South may have led to a smoother and more inclusive reconstruction process, potentially mitigating some of the deep-seated animosities that lingered in the aftermath of the war and potentially still do today.

Moreover, Lincoln's leadership style and political acumen would likely have played a pivotal role in shaping the post-Civil War era. His ability to navigate complex political terrain and build consensus across ideological divides could have paved the way for a more stable and harmonious transition from war to peace.

Race relations

One of the most intriguing questions surrounding a hypothetical continuation of Lincoln's presidency is its impact on the trajectory of race relations in America. As a staunch advocate for the abolition of slavery, Lincoln recognized the need for fundamental changes in the status of African Americans in society. While his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 marked a significant step forward, Lincoln understood that true equality would require sustained effort and political will.

Had Lincoln lived to see the fruition of reconstruction, it's conceivable that his administration would have prioritized the advancement of civil rights for African Americans. He may have championed policies aimed at ensuring their full participation in the social, economic, and political life of the nation, laying the groundwork for a more equitable society.

Furthermore, Lincoln's continued presence on the national stage could have influenced the course of American politics in subsequent decades. His leadership and moral authority might have shaped the direction of the Republican Party, steering it towards a more progressive stance on issues of racial justice and equality.

Post-war Period

However, it's essential to acknowledge the challenges and obstacles that Lincoln would have faced had he survived. The post-Civil War period was fraught with complexities and tensions, and the path to reconciliation was far from straightforward. Lincoln's ability to navigate these challenges would have been tested, and the outcome remains uncertain.

Moreover, the specter of assassination would have loomed large over Lincoln's presidency, casting a shadow of fear and uncertainty over the nation. The five earlier failed attempts on his life served as a stark reminder of the continued dangers inherent in political leadership, therefore, Lincoln would have to contend with the constant threat of violence.

In considering the hypothetical scenario of Lincoln's continued presidency, it's impossible to predict with certainty the course of history. Countless variables and contingencies would have influenced the trajectory of events, and the outcomes could have been vastly different from those we know today.

However, what remains clear is the enduring legacy of Abraham Lincoln and the profound impact of his presidency on the course of American history. Whether through his leadership during the Civil War, his commitment to the abolition of slavery, or his vision for a more perfect union, Lincoln's contributions to the fabric of American democracy are indelible.

In the final analysis, the question of what if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated invites the reflection of not only on the past but also on the present and future of the United States. It prompts the consideration of pivotal moments and decisions that shape the course of history and contemplate the enduring legacy of leadership, courage, and conviction. While it is impossible to ever know with certainty what might have been, it is possible to draw inspiration from Lincoln's example and strive to uphold the values that he held dear: freedom, equality, and the pursuit of a more perfect union.

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

How did a British Ship with Soviet Gold Sink During World War 2?

The lend-lease program established between the Allies and the Soviet Union involved the provision of allied equipment to bolster the Soviet war effort during World War II. This aid played a crucial role in supporting the Soviets during the initial stages of the conflict because the Soviet Union’s production capability was relatively low earlier in the war. As a gesture of gratitude, the Soviets agreed to repay this assistance by sending £1.5 million sterling worth of gold to the Allies. However, tragedy struck with the sinking of the HMS Edinburgh, the vessel tasked with transporting this gold to Britain, resulting in the loss of the precious cargo.

Kyle Brett explains.

Before you read on, you can join us for free by clicking here.

The severely damaged stern of the HMS Edinburgh's after being torpedoed by U-456.

HMS Edinburgh’s service

Edinburgh was a town-class light cruiser that was launched on March 31, 1938. She would spend the beginning years of the war protecting convoys in the North Sea. At one point she was sent to hunt down the German Battleship Scharnhorst but was unable to locate the ship. After this Edinburgh was sent to protect convoys heading to North Africa and the Middle East.

In the middle of this term, she was sent to the Bay of Biscay to intercept the German Battleship Bismark, but the Bismark never made it to Edinburgh, meeting her fate far west of the Bay. After her travels to the Mediterranean, Edinburgh would be sent to the North Sea once again protecting convoys bound for the Soviet Union with aid from the Western allies.  She would also spend some time patrolling Iceland for German vessels. She would not see too much action here as Germans would only be hunting convoys and not patrols.

The Soviet gold

The lend-lease act was a major part of Allied cooperation during the war. Many of the pieces of equipment that the Allies would send to the Soviet Union would be put to good use. US and British planes fought at the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, the mighty Katyusha rocket launchers would be loaded onto Studebaker US6 trucks and would be utilized by the Soviets throughout the war. The allied equipment made a large impact on the war and played a part in the success of the Soviets.

The Soviets would seek to send some sort of repayment to the allies, and this would be through gold. The war had kicked the Soviet industrial machine into high gear and thus their mining operations grew substantially from this. The Soviets would use gold, and other precious metals like platinum to help the allies and to pay them for the support that they had given the Soviet Union during the early part of the war. 4.5 tons of this gold would be loaded onto the HMS Edinburgh in Murmansk and sent to Britain around the top of the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Departure and first sighting

Edinburgh was the commanding escort of Convoy QP: 11, which consisted of 13 Merchant ships of various allied nationalities and 18 warships. The composition of the convoy was one cruiser: Edinburgh, six destroyers, four minesweepers, and one armed trawler. The convoy had just dropped off supplies to the Soviet Union and was making a return trip to Britain. 

On April 28, 1942, the convoy would depart the port of Murmansk headed for Britain. The next day as the convoy was traversing the North Sea they would be spotted by a German spotter plane. This plane would relay its position to the German command. They would then order all nearby U-boats to attack the convoy, as well as sending a nearby task force of 3 destroyers to intercept the convoy.

April 30, 1942

As the day progressed the calmness of the last two days was broken by two U-boats who started making attacks on the convoy. The two U-boats, U-88 and U-456, had not found any success in their attacks earlier in the day. Later in the day U-456 would make another pass on the convoy and found success with this attack. U-456 launched a spread of torpedoes at HMS Edinburgh and scored 2 hits on her. One torpedo hit the forward boiler room, crippling Edinburgh’s speed. The second torpedo smashed into the stern, blasting the entire stern of the ship off. This stern hit also destroyed the rudder and took 2 of the 4 propellers off Edinburgh. The crew closed all the bulkheads immediately which saved her from sinking after the second impact.

This concluded U-88 and U-456’s attacks on the convoy. Edinburgh would be forced to turn back to Murmansk as she was unable to make the journey back to Britain with the immense damage she had sustained. Edinburgh would be escorted by two destroyers Foresight and Forester on her journey back to port. Murmansk also had sent 8 ships to help protect and help return Edinburgh to port so she could repair.

May 1, 1942

The 3 German destroyers dispatched to intercept the convoy were Z7 Hermann Schoemann, Z24, and Z25 of destroyer group Arkits. They had orders to attack the ships of the convoy and after hearing the success of U-456’s attacks they also had orders to sink Edinburgh. There was limited visibility as there was on-and-off rain and snow. The destroyer group opened up with their guns on the convoy at 14:05.

The remaining 4 destroyers protecting the convoy raced to screen the convoy from the attacking German destroyers. They started off the engagement with each other at around 10,000 yd. They traded fire with the Germans as the convoy tried to retreat to safety. The British destroyer Amazon was hit twice by German guns and received moderate damage. A spread of torpedoes was fired at the convoy and found a target at 14:30 sinking the only Soviet merchant ship in the convoy the Tsiolkovski. At 17:50 the German destroyers retired their convoy pursuit and turned to hunt down Edinburgh.

May 2, 1942

Edinburgh was spotted east of the convoy at 6:17 limping along at two knots. The Foresight and Forester were escorting her along with 4 British minesweepers and a Soviet guard ship the Rubin that met up with the group from Murmansk. Edinburgh was being towed because she could not sail in a straight line, only in circles due to the damage to her propellers and rudder. The lead German destroyer Z7 Hermann Schoemann had been separated from her other two destroyers and decided to close the distance to Edinburgh to launch torpedoes at the group. As the German group was spotted the tow lines that were used to keep Edinburgh sailing in a straight line were cut, causing her to sail in circles as the escorts went to screen the cruiser from the incoming destroyers.

Edinburgh, with no fire control systems due to the damage from the earlier day, sent two salvos toward Hermann Schoemann. The first salvo had missed its target, the second salvo hit Hermann Schoemann in both of her engine rooms. This forced her to turn away from the engagement and to create a smoke screen for her to slip away from the fight.

At 6:45 Z24 and Z25 arrived at the engagement hitting and disabling Forrester. They moved onto Foresight badly damaging her and afterwards launching torpedoes at the two British destroyers. One of these torpedoes had missed its original target and at 6:52 crashed into Edinburgh. The torpedo had hit directly on the opposite side of the first torpedo hit from U-456, which meant only the deck and keel plating were holding the ship from breaking in two.

Aftermath of the Battle

Z24 and Z25 saw the 4 British minesweepers and were scared off by their presence, most likely misjudging the ships' classes and thinking they were a bigger threat than they were. They turned to rejoin their ally who had fled. They reached Hermann Schoemann at 8:15 and Z24 rescued the remaining crew that she could fit. The Herman Schoemann was scuttled and the remaining crew in life rafts were picked up by U-88 and the Germans retreated from the battle.

The decision to abandon ship was given on Edinburgh and she had her crew evacuated to the nearby British minesweepers Harrier and Gossamer who each took around 400 sailors. After Edinburgh was evacuated Harrier tried to scuttle her with her 4-inch guns, but after 20 shots she was still afloat. There were even attempts to drop depth charges near her to no avail. Finally, Foresight launched her last torpedo into her, sending her to the bottom. This sent all 4.5 tons of gold straight to the bottom of the North Sea.

The British destroyers and minesweepers made a safe return to Murmansk and the original convoy would be unsuccessfully attacked by two more U-boats to no success finally making it to Iceland. The only casualties were the Edinburgh, her gold, and the Tsiolkovski merchant vessel.

What happened to the gold?

The gold aboard Edinburgh was of great importance to the British government after the war and they were keen on recovering that gold from the sea floor. In 1954 the British government awarded the salvage rights to Risdon Beazley Ltd. This salvage operation was halted due to rising tensions between the Soviet Union and the West.

However, in the 1970s, the price of gold spiked, renewing the desire to recover the gold. So, the British returned to the wreck to recover the gold. Utilizing state-of-the-art equipment, the divers descended to the wreck, which was 800 ft deep, and were able to locate 431 of the 465 gold ingots aboard the vessel. The haul, valued at forty million pounds at the time of recovery, served as the primary motivation for the British to find this gold in the Edinburgh. In 1985, a further 29 bars were recovered, leaving 5 unaccounted for.

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

Reference

Tucker, Spencer. World War II at sea an encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2012.

Could the 1941 Pearl Harbor Attack have been Averted?

The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 was a very complex operation that required precise information about the movement and disposition of the US Pacific Fleet, based at Hawaii. This information was gathered on the ground by a spy named Takeo Yoshikawa, who cabled regular reports to Tokyo. These reports proved to be invaluable to the success of the Japanese attack. However, this constant supply of information almost gave the game away.

Here, Alan Bardos, author of a related novel: Amazon US | Amazon UK, considers whether the attack on Pearl Harbor could have been avoided.

During the attack on Pearl Harbor, the West Virginia was sunk by six torpedoes and two bombs.

Our Man in Hawaii

The US Pacific Fleet moved from its bases on the West Coast of America to Pearl Harbor in 1940, so the Japanese consequently had very little information about it. The sailing of their fleet over 3,500 miles from home waters to Hawaii was a massive undertaking that required their ships to be refueled numerous times en route. Before taking such a risk they therefore needed to know what was waiting for them when they arrived and the best time to attack.

Bureau 3 (Intelligence) of the Imperial Japanese Navy’s General Staff attached Takeo Yoshikawa to the Japanese Consulate-General in Honolulu. His mission was to gather news about Pearl Harbor. His orders were vague and were constantly refined by further instructions from his superiors in Tokyo.

Yoshikawa meticulously gathered vital intelligence on the movements of the US Pacific Fleet and Hawaii’s defenses. He spent his days travelling between various observation points around Hawaii, reconnoitering airfields and the US Fleet. Changing his clothes several times through the course of the day, he would blend in as anyone from a tourist to a Filipino-American laborer. Yoshikawa even took geisha girls as cover on sightseeing flights over Pearl Harbor. Postcards he supplied were found in the cockpits of Japanese aircraft shot down over Pearl Harbor. Crucially, Yoshikawa was said to have discovered that Sunday mornings were the best time to attack, when the Fleet was home from maneuvers.

Yoshikawa communicated this information regularly to Tokyo through commercial American telegraph companies. In the run up to the attack Tokyo’s need for information increased steadily, to the extent that Yoshikawa was reporting the US Fleet’s movements on a daily basis, leaving a large paper trail of his activities.

The number of cables sent by the Japanese Consulate hadn’t gone unnoticed and Robert L. Shivers, the FBI’s Special Agent In Charge in Hawaii tried to persuade the cable companies to share the coded messages with him but they refused, not wishing to break Federal Law.

Magic intercepts

American Intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic codes and were regularly intercepting and decrypting Japanese diplomatic traffic, as part of a program code named Magic. This used a machine code named Purple to decode these messages, which were then translated manually. The Americans were therefore aware that war was coming in the Pacific, but only knew as much as Japan’s diplomats, who were not informed in any detail of their Military’s plans. The US Army and Navy Departments in Washington did issue war warnings to their Pacific commanders, but the warnings were consequently vague and did not suggest that Hawaii would be a target.

Faced with an overwhelming amount of decrypted information, American Intelligence focused their efforts on translating the high level communications between Tokyo and the Japanese Embassy in Washington, which was conducting peace talks with the American government. This did eventually provide a warning of a coming attack, but it did not say where it would be.

Dorothy Edgers and the deferred intercepts

Yoshikawa’s telegram’s to Tokyo gave precisely this information, but as Hawaii was considered a diplomatic backwater, they were left untranslated in the “deferred” pile until one bored newbie in the Naval Cryptographic Section decided to look at them.

Mrs. Dorothy Edgers, a former school teacher in Japan, had been working as a translator for two weeks when she found herself in the office on a Saturday morning. She had nothing to do, but was eager to be involved in this strange new world of signals intelligence and started to translate the Hawaii decrypts.

She struck gold immediately realizing the importance of the correspondence between Yoshikawa and Tokyo. Enwrapped, Mrs. Edgers translated telegram after telegram that gave away the military secrets of her country, from real time movements of its battleships, to the lack of torpedo nets protecting them, to the position of the airfields tasked with defending them. This was clearly more than the routine reports of a sidelined diplomat in a backwater, but information for a full-scale attack.

Mrs. Edgers reported her findings to her immediate supervisor Chief Ship’s Clerk Bryant. He saw their significance, but it was Saturday and they were finishing at 12:00pm so he told her it would wait until next week.

Not put off, Dorothy Edgers continued to translate the decrypted messages, waiting in the office for the return of the Translation Branch chief, Captain Alvin Kramer, who had been making his rounds delivering the latest high priority Magic Intercepts. Mrs. Edgers briefed Kramer on what she’d found and was reprimanded for her trouble.

Tired and with a number of other conflicting priorities, Kramer was annoyed that she worked late after the office had closed and was unhappy about the quality of her translation. He dismissed her in no uncertain terms and she was told once again that it would wait until next week.

Ordinarily, Bryant and Kramer would have been right, but on this occasion it was the day before the Pearl Harbor attack.

December 7th 1941 - A date that will live in infamy

The next day, on reviewing the priority daily intercepts between Tokyo and their Embassy in Washington, Kramer saw things were clearly coming to a head. Tokyo had instructed its delegation to end their negotiations at 1pm precisely.

Kramer had been stationed in Hawaii and knew that 1pm in Washington was dawn in Hawaii, and worked out what time 1pm would be at all the US bases in the Pacific, with it being a few hours before dawn in the Philippines.

He passed his findings onto Commander McCollum and Captain Wilkinson, his superiors in the Office of Naval Intelligence. They took them to Admiral Stark the Chief of Naval Operations, who was not overly impressed, but after further discussion and consulting with General Marshall, his opposite number in the Army, Stark agreed to issue an alert to his bases in the Pacific. However, due to atmospheric conditions, they were unable to send the warning to Hawaii and it was sent as a low priority telegram and arrived just after the attack had finished.

They believed that the main threat they were facing was an amphibious landing in the Philippines, where it would be the optimum time for that type of attack and there were also reports of Japanese ships moving in that direction. Had Yoshikawa’s reports been more widely distributed, a very different conclusion might have been reached.

Admiral Kimmel, the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet and the man blamed for the attack categorically argued that had he been aware of the Hawaiian decrypts, he would have been better prepared to counter the surprise attack. That was certainly the findings of a subsequent congressional investigation.

Many of the events depicted in this article inspired my novel ‘Rising Tide’, which can be purchased here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Book full name: Rising Tide (Daniel Nichols Spy Thrillers Book 1) eBook : Bardos, Alan : Kindle Store

References

Japan's Spy at Pearl Harbor: Memoir of an Imperial Navy Secret Agent, Takeo Yoshikawa, McFarland (2 Mar. 2020).

The Broken Seal: "Operation Magic" and the Secret Road to Pearl Harbor, Ladislas Farago, Westholme Publishing; Reprint edition (25 Oct. 2012).

A Matter of Honor: Pearl Harbor: Betrayal, Blame, and a Family's Quest for Justice, by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, Harper; Reprint edition (15 Nov. 2016).

Countdown to Pearl Harbor: The Twelve Days to the Attack, by Steve Twomey, Simon & Schuster; Illustrated edition (1 Nov. 2016).

Pearl Harbor: From Infamy to Greatness, by Craig Nelson, Weidenfeld & Nicolson; 1st Edition (10 Nov. 2016).

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1960/december/top-secret-assignment

The Battle of Gettysburg - Part 3: July 2, Day 2

When the fighting ended on the evening of July 1, Gen. Robert E. Lee was uncertain of the position of the Army of the Potomac. It was ambiguous how far south along Cemetery Ridge the Union line extended. Brig. Gen. William N. Pendleton had conducted a reconnaissance on the evening of July 1 to locate artillery positions on the northern part of Seminary Ridge but did not observe infantry positions. Meanwhile, General George Meade arrived at midnight, received reports, and agreed to defend the position the next day rather than retreat.

Here, Lloyd W Klein explains what happened on day 2.

If you missed it, part 1 on General Lee’s advance to Pennsylvania is here, and part 2 on day 1 of the battle is here.

A depiction of Jubal Early's attack on East Cemetery Hill on July 2, 1863. From The Century Magazine, 1884.

The Reconnaissance Mission

In the early hours of July 2nd, General Lee determined that before he could devise a battle strategy for the day, he needed accurate intelligence as to the left flank of the Union line. Longstreet’s Chief Engineer, Maj. John C. Clarke joined Captain Samuel R. Johnston, one of Lee’s aides, on a nighttime mission. They set out at 4 am to locate the Union left. Johnston claimed he took a route very close to Longstreet’s countermarch later that day and made it to the top of Little Round Top (LRT), and saw no Union troops there at all.

Although the exact route taken by Johnston remains a matter of speculation, determining it precisely holds significant importance in comprehending the events that unfolded during the battle on July 2. It is likely that he departed from Lee's headquarters near the Lutheran Theological Seminary and proceeded south along the western slope of Seminary Ridge, eventually entering the Willoughby Run valley. Along this path, he would have passed by the Samuel Pitzer farm and the Pitzer Schoolhouse. Subsequently, he probably turned east, ascending the western slope of Warfield Ridge, near the location where McLaws later positioned his troops that afternoon. Johnston himself mentioned that he continued along the ridge towards the round top, crossing the Emmitsburg road, until he reached the slope of LRT, providing him with a commanding view. This sequence of movements would have placed him on LRT around 5:30 a.m.

Following his reconnaissance, Johnston reported to General Lee that there existed a concealed route that could not be detected from the Union lines. Crucially, he noted that the large hill in the distance, “with a commanding view”, which was LRT, was unoccupied. General Lee formulated his attack plan for July 2 based on the intelligence provided by Johnston's mission.

The problem with his information is that historical records indicate the presence of numerous Union troops on the hill that night. Buford's cavalry and Geary's division were encamped in front of LRT, with two regiments stationed there along with skirmishers. At 7 a.m., Major General David B. Birney of the Third Corps relieved General Geary, who had spent the entire night at that location. It has been estimated that approximately 18,000 Union troops were positioned between the Emmitsburg Road and the Taneytown Road, as well as between LRT and the George Weikert Farm, precisely when Johnston claimed to have been on Little Roundtop. Given these circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that Johnston could have conducted his scouting mission without being detected. Additionally, Captain Lemuel B. Norton, the Chief Signal Officer of the Army of the Potomac, reported the establishment of a signal station on Little Roundtop by 11 P.M. on July 1.

So what could have transpired? One possibility is that Johnston may have been on Big Round Top, as during that period, there was no clear distinction between the two peaks. Another hypothesis put forth by Wittenberg suggests that Johnston might have been disoriented in the darkness and mistakenly believed he was on Bushman's Hill. Others have suggested that he got as far as Houck’s Ridge. Johnston had previously carried out similar successful services at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, so the reason behind the inaccurate information he provided to General Lee before 8 a.m. remains unresolved. Nevertheless, based on this intelligence, General Lee formulated a plan.

Lee’s Plan

Lee initiated preparations assuming that the Union left was positioned on Cemetery Ridge, and he instructed Longstreet to make the necessary arrangements. Lee desired this assault to catch the enemy off guard, so Longstreet was tasked with taking a concealed route along Seminary Ridge, descending to the Emmitsburg Pike without attracting attention, and then launching the attack. However, the First Corps had not yet fully arrived. They had been delayed during their movement behind South Mountain, and to reach the battlefield, they had to pass through Cashtown and cover a distance of 10 miles to Gettysburg. Longstreet insisted on having all his men present for the attack. Unfortunately, when they finally set off, they were led on a roundabout path that exposed their presence, resulting in a significant delay to their assault, which occurred well into the afternoon.

The Myth of the Sunrise Attack

July 2, 1863, was the true High Water Mark of the Confederacy. The narrative that Longstreet could have launched an attack that morning, altering the course of history, was a notion perpetuated by Jubal Early in the post-war era. General Pendleton's insistence on this theory only added to the tension between him and Longstreet.

Glenn Tucker's thorough examination in the 1960s discredited the myth of the sunrise attack, further supported by Longstreet's memoirs. The reality was that only a fraction of Longstreet's forces were in position at 7 am, with the majority still miles away. The impracticality of organizing such an attack, coupled with the overwhelming Union presence, makes it clear that Longstreet's alleged failure to act at that specific time did not determine the outcome of the battle or the war. Only McLaws, the artillery, and a part of Hood’s division were even up at 7 am, about 10,000 men, and that was after an all-night march. Had they attacked, they might have been met by 60,000 Union troops. The rest of the Corps were at Chambersburg and south of Cashtown. He moved up as quickly as possible, but most of his men were miles from Seminary Ridge at 7 am.

Even an 11 am start was not feasible due to various delays faced by his corps reaching the battlefield, resulting in a later arrival time. Alexander and his artillery didn’t even arrive until 9 am. Lee's vision of simultaneous flank offensives was hindered by Longstreet's need to wait for Law's brigade to arrive; the delay in Law's arrival further postponed the attack, with three brigades still in march columns when Longstreet finally began his movement at noon. Witness reports of Lee's frustration at 11 am that the attack had not started highlight the challenges faced in coordinating the attack, with delays caused by traffic jams. But Longstreet's attack was delayed because he first had to wait for his final brigade (Evander M. Law's & Hood's division) to arrive, and then he was forced to march on a long, circuitous route that could not be seen by Union Army Signal Corps observers on LRT. Longstreet received permission from Lee to wait for Law's brigade to reach the field before advancing. Law marched his men quickly, covering 28 miles in 11 hours, but did not arrive until noon. Three of Longstreet's brigades were still in march columns when he set off. In retrospect, Lee & Longstreet should have kept these men closer to the front, not at the tail end of the order of march.

Longstreet intended to place his men across from the Emmitsburg Pike facing east, toward the enemy lines directly facing them. Lee's strategic vision called for a different approach - he wanted the troops to face north and advance towards Cemetery Ridge and Hill. This shift in direction was crucial, as Lee aimed for a concentrated attack on the Union center on both Day 2 and Day 3 of the battle.

As Longstreet's men approached the area near Blackhorse Tavern, the presence of Union signalmen on LRT posed a risk of detection. In response, the decision was made to countermarch back to the starting point, to keep the lines in the correct order for the attack. This resulted in a delay of at least one hour, and Longstreet did not reach the appropriate zone until 4 pm.  Whether the countermarch was necessary or not is a matter of contention. However, the countermarch took longer than expected, and by the time Longstreet's troops were ready to launch their attack, valuable time had been lost. The delay allowed the Union Army to reinforce their position, and for additional troops to march toward the battlefield.

Maj Gen Daniel Sickles and III Corps

At this moment, arguably the most crucial hour of the entire war, an unauthorized troop movement changed the course of the battle and history. Ordered to hold the line on the ground between LRT and Cemetery Ridge, Maj Gen Sickles instead, on his own initiative, decided that this was a poor position for his III Corps, and instead moved them forward (west) about a half mile to the Sherfy Peach Orchard, on the Emmitsburg Pike. The consequences of this unauthorized movement reverberate through the ages

Sickles perceived, correctly, that the ground in his front was about 10 to 15 feet higher than the ground he was supposed to defend. He believed therefore that his line was in a vulnerable position for enemy artillery to destroy him. A very similar situation had happened at Chancellorsville when he was ordered by General Hooker to give up Hazel Crest, which then became the key to Confederate artillery destroying the army on day 2 of that battle. Sickles hadn’t forgotten that experience, so he asked Meade for permission to move up at least twice. Meade thought that the area was not in a good position and was in a no-man’s land. Famously when General Meade saw this right before the battle opened, he told Sickles that he was out of position and knew a disaster was in store. Hancock made a similar famous observation.

General Sickles decided at 11 AM to not defend the line General Meade assigned him between   Top and Cemetery Ridge but rather to advance to the Peach Orchard. This unauthorized move must count as one of the most fateful decisions of the entire war. Certainly, it led to the destruction of his III Corps, and it threatened the entire left flank of the Union defense, but paradoxically, it might have saved the battle. By leaving uncovered both of his flanks, leaving   (LRT) Top uncovered, and not telling anyone what he was up to, he put Meade at a serious disadvantage.

The decision to defend the Sherfy Peach Orchard, adjacent to the Emmitsburg Pike, rather than the assigned position on the descending limb of LRT attached to Cemetery Ridge, not only resulted in a vulnerable and easily attacked position but also left the flanks exposed. The left flank, consisting of LRT, Devil’s Den, and the Wheatfield, had to be hastily covered as troops entered the battle. As units arrived on the field, they were immediately dispatched to critical locations to save Sickles' III Corps and the entire front. The success of Day 2 of Gettysburg relied heavily on the bravery and valor displayed by numerous men and their regiments, who are now remembered as heroes. It is important to acknowledge that Sickles' unconventional decision does not absolve him of the fact that he acted without proper knowledge, displayed insubordination, endangered the Union line, and caused the loss of many lives. However, it should also be noted that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions and was regarded as a great hero during his time.

Longstreet Attacks

At 4 pm, Longstreet finally prepared to launch his attack, only to realize that circumstances had changed in the interim. His original battle plan involved a left wheel followed by an en echelon attack. However, it became immediately apparent that this plan was no longer feasible due to the III Corps' position at the eastern edge of the Emmitsburg Pike, specifically at the Peach Orchard. Upon seeing Sickles' chosen position, it became clear that Lee's intended plan was no longer viable. Attacking northwards while the Peach Orchard remained under Union control was no longer an option. Instead, Longstreet's attack had to be redirected eastward, crossing the turnpike and landing further south than initially intended by Lee. The original objective of attacking the Union center had now shifted to targeting its left flank.

Hood repeatedly questioned Longstreet about whether the attack should be called off or if the plan needed to be altered due to the changed position of the Union line. Despite these inquiries, Longstreet insisted on proceeding with the attack as ordered. When told to attack as ordered, he reportedly told the colonel of a TX regiment something along the lines of "When we get under fire, I will have a digression." We don’t know if he said this, but the digression is often assumed to be the attack on LRT. His pep talk to the troops before the attack stepped off included a reference to taking those heights, also widely assumed to refer to LRT.

The assault on LRT occurred due to General Law's movement eastward, leading his 15th and 47th Alabama regiments to pursue US Sharpshooters up Big Round Top. As the Sharpshooters retreated down the slope, the Alabama regiments found themselves without a clear target, prompting them to be directed northward until they eventually reached LRT.

Following this, a crucial period unfolded where the fate of the battle, and potentially the entire war, teetered on the edge for several hours. Major General John Bell Hood launched an attack on LRT and Devil's Den, while Major General Lafayette McLaws attacked the Wheatfield and the Peach Orchard. Although neither side emerged victorious, the Union III Corps suffered significant losses.

The echelon attack strategy employed that day is often misconstrued, necessitating clarification on which plan is being referenced: the original strategy where McLaws' division would have taken the lead, or the revised plan and actual sequence of events after Union troops were spotted on Sickles' advanced line, resulting in Hood's division leading the charge. Under the initial plan, McLaws would have advanced alongside the Emmitsburg Road towards a Union flank presumed to be further north, with Hood's division providing support, likely by advancing to his rear or right rear. The ultimate goal was for the attack, with support from AP Hill’s Corps, to culminate on Cemetery Ridge and potentially Cemetery Hill.

Under the original plan, McLaws would have advanced astride the Emmitsburg Road, across the Peach Orchard, toward a Union flank believed to be located further north.  Hood's division would have supported McLaws.  Exactly how is unclear, but probably advancing to his rear or right rear.  At some point, McLaws would have probably shifted entirely east of the road, because continuing to advance astride it would have missed most of the Union position.  With support from AP Hill’s Corps, the idea was that ultimately the attack would end up on Cemetery Ridge and hopefully Cemetery Hill.

In the actual unfolding of events, Hood's division took the lead, but it underwent significant revisions on the spot. The plan was for the division to advance "up the Emmitsburg Road," but not directly on it. It's important to note that this was not meant to be an en echelon attack, where units are arranged diagonally. Instead, the division would advance in a column formation, with two brigades side by side in the first line (Law and Robertson), followed by Benning and Anderson in the same manner. The en echelon aspect would come later, but it never actually materialized. The plan was for Robertson to align his left flank with the Emmitsburg Road and his right flank with Law's position. However, Law veered to the east, making it impossible for Robertson to maintain both alignments. He chose to hold on to Law's left flank instead. As a result, Lee's original concept of advancing "up the Emmitsburg Road" was abandoned once the Peach Orchard and the Wheatfield turned into deadly battlegrounds.

The phrase "en echelon attack" often carries a sense of awe, as if it is an unstoppable and overwhelming force. An en echelon formation is a diagonal arrangement of units, with each unit positioned at an oblique angle to a specific direction. The name of this formation comes from the French word "échelon," which means a rung of a ladder, describing the ladder-like shape when viewed from above or below. This formation is favored due to the enhanced visibility it provides to each unit.

However, as the events of July 2 demonstrated, an en echelon attack can also become disjointed and ineffective. By launching attacks in a sequential manner, the initial attack draws the enemy's attention, potentially leaving subsequent parts of the formation under-defended. Timing is crucial, and any delay at the start can significantly impact the later stages. On the second day of the battle, Hood and McLaws deviated from their intended northward direction and instead moved east, as the enemy had shifted in that direction. This created a weak point at the top of the formation. Despite this setback, the attack almost succeeded due to Sickles' exposed position, but the change in direction ultimately diminished the impact of the latter stages, falling short of Lee's expectations.

Unlike Hood's division, McLaws division did attack en echelon in two lines, with Kershaw and Barksdale in the front line, followed by Semmes and Wofford in the second line. While Barksdale attempted to drive north along the road into Humphreys' left flank, most of McLaws' efforts were directed east, towards Wheatfield Road and Plum Run Swale. Wofford's brigade, for instance, ended up moving down Wheatfield Road instead of supporting Barksdale.

The idea of Hood turning right to flank the Union left was not a straightforward option due to various factors. No suitable roads were running east/west for Hood to take his division on a flanking attack. Additionally, the presence of the Union VI Corps in the area would have made any movement slow and risky. Lee already had an extended front line, making it challenging to shift the whole army to support Hood's potential maneuver. Without proper intelligence on the terrain and Federal positions, Hood's division would have been vulnerable without infantry or artillery support. The lack of such information is directly attributable to the reality that Stuart was nowhere to be seen. Finally, once Anderson's division is committed. any movement in that direction would have been too small to make a difference.

Laws made a tactical decision of immense consequence. Hood organized his division into two lines, with Jerome B. Robertson’s Brigade and Evander M. Law’s Brigade forming the first attacking line, followed by George T. Anderson’s Brigade and Henry L. Benning’s Brigade in support. Law’s Brigade held a significant position as the right brigade not only in Hood’s Division but also in the entire Army of Northern Virginia. As Law’s Brigade advanced, it faced artillery fire from Captain James Smith’s battery near Devil’s Den.

Law had several options to consider as his brigade moved forward: continue moving eastward; incline his entire brigade toward Devil’s Den; or send part of his brigade to attack Smith’s guns and continue forward with the remainder of his force. Law decided to direct the right two regiments, the 44th Alabama and the 48th Alabama, to flank left and attack north towards the Union battery. The 15th Alabama, which had been in the center, now found itself on the far right of the brigade, moving towards the valley between Big Round Top and LRT, with the 47th Alabama on its left. This decision led to unexpected fighting near LRT and Devil’s Den, deviating from Lee’s original plan, with Benning’s Brigade ultimately ending up in Devil’s Den instead of advancing north on Emmitsburg Road.

The Defense of LRT

There was a scarcity of Union troops along LRT during that period. Conversely, there was a significant presence of Union troops and artillery positioned on Houck's Ridge. The left flank of the Union forces was not situated on LRT by 4 pm, but rather at Devil's Den. The outcome of Day 2 at Gettysburg hinged upon the valor and bravery displayed by numerous men, who are now revered as heroes alongside their regiments. Additionally, credit must be attributed to Meade for effectively mobilizing over 20,000 reinforcements to secure the salient that had not been part of his initial plan.

The chief engineer of the Army of the Potomac, Brig. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren was considered the "Savior of Little Round Top" for his quick reaction to get troops to the summit before the approaching Confederates arrived on the afternoon of July 2.  His statue on what is now known as Warren Rock immortalizes the moment that he saw the long line of Rebel soldiers approaching from the south. It depicts the moment when he looked out with binoculars, saw the Rebels moving his way, and realized that he needed to get troops and batteries up there as soon as he could. General Warren recognized that LRT dominated the Union position and had been left undefended, and the tactical importance of the hill. He urgently sought Union troops to occupy it before the Confederates could,  but where would these troops come from? A New Yorker who had taught mathematics at West Point, he had no time to get authorization: he immediately, on his own initiative, constructed a defense of the Union left flank.

Warren encountered Strong Vincent's brigade nearby and asked for immediate assistance. Vincent, without consulting his superior officers, decided, "I will take the responsibility to take my brigade there." Vincent ordered one of his regiments to face southwards, positioned on the left flank of the brigade, while he handled the right flank, facing west. The regiment he so ordered was the 20th Maine and its commander was Colonel Joshua Chamberlain, who would become one of the greatest heroes of the war and governor of Maine. Vincent made it clear to Chamberlain that he was the far left flank regiment of the entire Union line, and that he must hold it no matter what. Vincent went back to his right flank, where the 16th Michigan was beginning to falter; at that moment he was mortally wounded. He would receive a battlefield promotion to general from Meade; that portion of LRT is called Vincent’s Spur.

Colonel Strong Vincent's brigade was discovered by a staff officer nearby. Recognizing the strategic advantage of his brigade's position, Vincent took it upon himself to deploy them where they would be most effective. Disregarding the need for approval from his superiors, he made the decision independently. Pvt. Oliver Willcox Norton, Vincent's brigade standard bearer and bugler, together with Vincent, made a reconnaissance of the Confederate forces as the brigade was moving into position, "While our line was forming on the hill at Gettysburg I came out with him in full view of the rebel lines. They opened two batteries on us instantly, firing at the colors. Colonel Vincent looked to see what was drawing the fire and yelled at me, "Down with the flag, Norton! Damn it, go behind the rocks with it."

Standing atop a large boulder, he brandished a riding crop and shouted for his troops to hold their ground. Tragically, he was struck by a bullet and fell. However, the resolute efforts of his brigades and the individual regiments within it, such as the 20th Maine, the 44th New York, the 83rd Pennsylvania, and the 16th Michigan Infantry, ultimately secured the position. Vincent was transported from the hill to a nearby farm, where he succumbed to his injuries five days later. Vincent received a promotion to brigadier general by General Meade before he died. LRT could not have been held without his leadership.

Vincent's 20th Maine regiment, under the command of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, gained significant renown for their defense of LRT. Upon their arrival in the late afternoon of July 2, Chamberlain's regiment was directed by Colonel Vincent to secure the far left position of the Union lines and to hold it at any cost. Recognizing the crucial importance of this position, Vincent emphasized its significance to Chamberlain while he attended to the right flank of the brigade. Chamberlain's regiment stood as the final line of defense on the left flank, understanding that if they were to falter, the entire Union position could collapse.

The 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry, commanded by Col. William C. Oates, charged up the hill multiple times attempting to flank the Union position. The line of the 20th Maine was doubled back upon itself, with a squad well off to the left. Despite multiple casualties and ammunition almost gone, Chamberlain recognized the dire circumstance and ordered his left wing to initiate a bayonet charge. The resulting action, with the left wing wheeling to make the charging line swing like a hinge, created a simultaneous frontal assault and flanking maneuver. Chamberlain's decisive action against Oates' Alabama brigade, risking their lives in a suicidal bayonet charge when they were nearly overwhelmed, successfully safeguarded the flank of the army on LRT.  101 of the Confederate soldiers were captured and the charge saved the flank. Chamberlain sustained one slight wound in the battle when a shot hit his sword scabbard and bruised his thigh. After initiating the maneuver, a Confederate officer wielding a revolver fired, narrowly missing his face. Chamberlain put his saber at the officer's throat and accepted the man's surrender. He received the Medal of Honor for this action.

Warren encountered Patrick “Paddy” O’Rorke, a former student and fellow New Yorker. Despite being ordered to follow his brigade commander, Steven Weed.. Warren knew O’Rorke from West Point, having been his Mathematics instructor.  Warren rode up to O’Rorke and ordered him to reinforce Little Round Top; “Never mind (your Brigade Orders), Paddy. Bring them up on the double-quick and don’t stop for aligning. I’ll take the responsibility.”

O’Rorke did not hesitate.  Warren’s aide was George Washington Roebling, who would later build the Brooklyn Bridge.  He guided O’Rorke and his men to the correct position on the hill. Reaching the top, O’Rorke saw the line of 16th Michigan holding tentatively. O’Rorke drew his sword shouting: “Down this way, boys!” The 140th “advanced, following their Colonel.  Despite a devastating volley in which men fell the men exhausted from their march nevertheless moved up. O’Rorke retrieved the regimental flag and urged his men forward.   Then a bullet hit him in the neck and he fell mortally wounded. This courageous action led to O’Rorke being killed, but he is remembered as one of the bravest American military figures, with his likeness being the focal point of the 140th NY monument on LRT today.

Weed then followed, and brought up his artillery commanded by Lt Charles Hazlett. Both were killed in a memorable moment, and the rock they were killed on remains a huge attraction.

General Sykes in his report on the action stated: “Vincent, Weed, and Hazlett, chiefs lamented throughout the corps and army, sealed with their lives the spot intrusted to their keeping, and on which so much depended.... General Weed and Colonel Vincent, officers of rare promise, gave their lives to their country.”

The Attack Continues

The unsuccessful assault by the Third Corps division of Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson against the Union center on Cemetery Ridge was the final chapter. Anderson's brigades attacked en echelon, or at least, most of them.  But unlike Hood and McLaws, Anderson's division had no support line.  It had not been intended to make a main effort.  Instead, its brigades were to advance in sequence, as McLaws moved north into its sector.  It would have supported what was already a success. Instead, with Hood's and McLaws' attacks going elsewhere, Anderson was essentially forced to make a primary effort, which his deployment was not suited to.  With no secondary lines, his brigades couldn't exploit any success they might attain.  Once they encountered resistance, they had to withdraw.

The fighting continued into the looming dusk. The sun was sinking, and with it, Confederate hopes of a breakthrough. Intense fighting raged on Culps Hill, Devil’s Den, the Wheatfield, and Cemetery Ridge. The killing fields were covered with soldiers, and horses, and burned and destroyed farms and artillery. The “lines” at this point were hypothetical in some places, as the enemy approached at unexpected angles and from above and below. The scenes were those of almost complete chaos. The bodies of the dead were everywhere.

Devil’s Den:

Devil's Den, located at the extreme left of the III Corps salient under Birney's Division, holds significant geological importance as it is a southern extension of Houck's Ridge and is characterized by its massive boulders. This area proved to be a strategic position for Confederate sharpshooters who took cover behind these boulders and engaged in long-range firing. The Union left flank faced a threat from two regiments of Law's brigade, followed by an attack from Benning and Anderson's brigades of Hood's Division, which exploited a gap in the defense. Despite reinforcements, the Confederate forces outnumbered the Union by a ratio of 5000 to 2500, resulting in a forced retreat. The casualties suffered by both sides amounted to approximately one-third of their respective forces.

Wheatfield:

The Wheatfield was a triangular-shaped field situated at the base of LRT. It was a crucial battleground with road connections spanning the entire fighting zone. Combatants from both sides entered this 20-acre field and launched attacks, only to face unexpected counterattacks from various angles. Owned by John Rose, the Wheatfield was bordered by Rose Woods to the west and Stony Hill, a slight elevation. Houck's Ridge lay to the southeast, while Devil's Den stood to the south. Although elements of the III Corps primarily defended this area, General Meade recognized the vulnerability of Sickles' salient and ordered Caldwell's division from the II Corps, under the command of Hancock, to assist. Notably, the leadership of Samuel Zook, Patrick Kelly (the Irish Brigade), and Edward Cross, who led three brigades, emerged as heroes. The Confederate brigades of Semmes, Anderson, and Kershaw confronted a total of six Federal brigades, resulting in casualties amounting to approximately 30% of all engaged forces.

Colonel Regis de Trobriand, commanding the 38th NY, played a pivotal role in the Wheatfield. His brigade displayed unwavering determination against the relentless assaults launched by Hood's division, particularly the Georgia brigade led by Brigadier General George T. Anderson and the South Carolina brigade commanded by Brigadier General Joseph B. Kershaw. Despite facing overwhelming odds, de Trobriand's brigade valiantly held their ground until they were relieved by units from Major General John C. Caldwell's division of the II Corps. But there was a terrible price—every third man in Trobriand's brigade was a casualty. Despite a personal commendation by his commander, General Birney, he was not promoted for two more years, nor given a medal, likely because he was French, older, and not from West Point. He had a distinguished military career after the war and was an artist and author.

Col. Edward E Cross, 2nd Corps, 1st Division brigade commander.  Positioned on the left of the division's battle line as it entered the Wheatfield, Cross led his brigade with valor and determination. During the fighting, Cross was mortally wounded while at the left of his line near the Rose Woods. He died the next day at a field hospital.  He normally wore a red bandana into battle but having had a premonition of his death wore a black one this day instead which he was wearing when he was cut down leading his brigade into the Wheatfield leading Caldwell's division to support the advanced position of the under attack 3rd Corps. Hancock told him he would be promoted to Brigadier General after that battle, which is when he announced his premonition. 

Samuel Zook: On July 2, 1863, the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Brig. Gen. John C. Caldwell's division, including Zook's brigade, was sent to reinforce the crumbling III Corps line that was being assaulted by the Confederate corps of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet. Zook was directed by one of the III Corps staff officers toward the Wheatfield to reinforce the brigade of Col. Régis de Trobriand and to fill a gap near Stony Hill. Zook, on horseback, led his men up the hill, which attracted the attention of men from the advancing 3rd and 7th South Carolina Infantry regiments, of Joseph B. Kershaw's brigade. He was struck by rifle fire in the shoulder, chest, and abdomen, and taken behind the lines for medical treatment at a toll house on the Baltimore Pike. He died from his wounds on July 3.

Cemetery Ridge:

At the top of the “ladder” was Richard Anderson's division of AP Hill's 3rd Corps, which along with Confederate brigades under Cadmus Wilcox, David Lang, and Ambrose Wright made a final attempt at Cemetery Ridge. The brigades of Carnot Posey and William Mahone did not attack, for reasons that remain obscure and controversial.

The Wilcox and Lang attacks drove Humphrey’s line, at the left of the Sickles salient, back toward Cemetery Ridge. Fighting an intense retreat, Humphreys’ resistance gave Meade and Hancock a chance to find reinforcements for the onslaught that was gathering, which was Lee’s idea all along. They had to bring XII Corps from Culps Hill, as we discussed previously.

William Colvill. During the intense fighting in the Wheatfield, AP Hill’s Corps made a move towards the Union center. He deployed the 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Division, led by Col. George Willard, to counter the advance of Confederate Brigadier General William Barksdale's Brigade. Meanwhile, as Hancock searched for reinforcements, he spotted Wilcox's brigade positioned near the base of the ridge, targeting a gap in the Union line. With time being of the essence, Hancock made a crucial decision to call upon the 1st Minnesota, Harrow's Brigade, of the 2nd Division of the II Corps, to confront Wilcox's division. Despite being vastly outnumbered, Hancock ordered the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment to engage in a desperate bayonet charge against the much larger Confederate brigade four times its size. 

Colonel Colville had been arrested on the way to the Gettysburg battlefield for allowing his men to ford a river on logs chasing the Confederate army into Maryland. His regiment arrived in Gettysburg on the morning of July 2 after traveling 14 miles every day for 11 days, finally resting on Cemetery Ridge.

Pointing towards a Confederate flag flying over the advancing enemy line, Hancock urged Col. William Colvill to lead his men in capturing the colors. He shouted to Col. William Colvill, "Advance, Colonel, and take those colors!" The 262 Minnesotans bravely charged the Alabama brigade with fixed bayonets, managing to halt their progress at Plum Run but suffering devastating losses in the process, with 215 casualties (82%), including 40 fatalities or severe injuries. Col. Colville, who had been detained on his way to the Gettysburg battlefield for allowing his troops to cross a river on logs while pursuing the Confederate forces into Maryland, eventually arrived at Gettysburg on July 2 after an arduous journey. The 1st Minnesota became an iconic regiment that survived more casualties percentage-wise than any other during any other single battle. Due to heroic action there, Colvilll was severely wounded, requiring a cane for the rest of his life.

Despite claims that Wright's brigade "pierced the Union line", the best it seems to have done was attain a brief lodgment on its right wing, which it could neither hold nor exploit, and had to relinquish.  The Union veterans of the action disputed even this interpretation. The only reason that part of Wright's Brigade managed to pass towards the top of Cemetery Ridge was that the 22nd Georgia (and part of the 3rd Georgia) struck a hole in Gibbon's line that had been created when part of Hall's Brigade was sent south to stabilize the line as the Third Corps retreated. On his left where he smacked into the face of the Philadelphia Brigade, Wright was stopped cold and never made it closer than 30 yards from the stone wall. Posey and Mahone would have been facing two of Hays' brigades and numerous guns on Cemetery Hill. They would have been running a gauntlet to approach the Union line. They may have seen something like what Pettigrew and Trimble faced on the afternoon of July 3.

Freeman McGilvery. McGilvery identified a vulnerable and unguarded gap in the Union's defensive line situated at the southern part of Cemetery Ridge, just north of LRT. In response to this critical finding, McGilvery skillfully assembled a makeshift artillery line by gathering cannons from different commands to fortify the gap. Although lacking infantry support initially, McGilvery's strategically positioned "Plum Run line" of fieldpieces played a crucial role in thwarting the Confederate forces' final push towards the heart of the Union's position.

Summary

As the battle neared its end, Longstreet's assault had been stopped despite the possibility of breakthroughs in different areas. The question arises: would the addition of more troops have changed the outcome? If Anderson had followed orders and deployed all five brigades instead of just three, in a coordinated and echelon formation, could Cemetery Ridge have been breached? The absence of 3,000 men between Posey and Mahone, as well as the lack of support from Wofford's Georgia Brigade for Barksdale's Mississippi Brigade, impeded the success of the attack. If Anderson's forces had been at full strength with all five brigades engaged, there might have been a chance to secure a foothold on a portion of Cemetery Ridge. However, similar to Pickett's Charge the next day, the lack of reinforcements to maintain the breakthrough would have posed a significant challenge against the inevitable counterattack. There were no reserves or supports prepared to exploit any breakthrough, and the dwindling daylight further complicated the situation.

Most importantly, by 6 pm, the tide had turned. The Union had gained the numerical advantage, with more reinforcements heading towards Cemetery Ridge. The presence of additional Union divisions, fresh brigades, and elements of other corps nearby solidified the Union's position. The remnants of Robinson's and Doubleday's Divisions (including Stannard's fresh brigade) and elements of the Sixth and Twelfth Corps were nearby. Despite the temporary advantage that Lee's forces had initially held, the overwhelming strength of the Union forces, combined with the fading daylight, worked against any potential breakthroughs. The brief advantage that fate had bestowed upon Lee was now gone.

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

Further Reading

·       Harry W Pfanz, Gettysburg: The Second Day. University of North Carolina Press, 1987.

·       Glenn Tucker, High Tide at Gettysburg. Bobbs-Merrill, 1958.

Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg. MacMillan Publishing Company. 1968.

·       Edwin B Coddington, The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command. Charles Scribner, 1968.

·       James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America. 2nd edition, Lippincott, 1912. Accessed at: http://www.wtj.com/archives/longstreet/

·       Richard Moe, The Last Full Measure: The Life and Death of the First Minnesota Volunteers. HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.

·       https://aoh.com/2019/03/25/patrick-ororke-a-forgotten-hero-of-gettysburg/

·       https://killedatgettysburg.org/patrick-ororke-140th-new-york/

·       Schmidt, Jim. "The Medical Department: A Thorn in the Lion of the Union", Civil War News, October 2000.

·       https://www.civilwarmed.org/chamberlain/

·       https://www.historynet.com/20-fateful-decisions-at-gettysburg/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hnt-hnn-theme

·       James M McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1988.

·       Shelby Foote, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volumes 1-3. Random House, 1963.

·       Stephen W Sears, Gettysburg. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

·       Carol Reardon and Tom Vossler, A Field Guide to Gettysburg, Second Edition: Experiencing the Battlefield through Its History, Places, and People. University of North Carolina Press, 2017.

·       J David Petruzzi, The Complete Gettysburg Guide. SavasBeattie, 2009.

What if Mohandas, “Mahatma” Gandhi had not been assassinated?

On January 30, 1948, the world mourned the loss of one of its greatest advocates for peace and nonviolence, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, affectionately known as Mahatma Gandhi. His assassination sent shockwaves through India and the rest of the world, leaving many to ponder the question: What if Gandhi had not been assassinated?

Terry Bailey considers this question.

Mahatma Gandhi in 1942.

Before delving into the hypothetical, it's crucial to understand the profound impact Gandhi had during his lifetime. His philosophy of nonviolent resistance, or Satyagraha, not only played a major role in India's independence movement but also inspired countless civil rights and freedom movements worldwide. Gandhi's teachings on ahimsa, (nonviolence) and his emphasis on social justice continue to resonate with people across generations.

If Gandhi had not been assassinated, his presence would have significantly influenced post-independence India's political landscape. At the time of his death, India was grappling with religious and political tensions, particularly between Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi's vision for a united, pluralistic India would have likely shaped policies and initiatives aimed at fostering harmony and inclusivity.

Gandhi was a staunch advocate for economic self-sufficiency and rural development. His promotion of khadi, (hand-spun cloth) and cottage industries was aimed to empower rural communities and reduce dependence on imported goods. Had Gandhi lived longer, he might have spearheaded initiatives to strengthen India's rural economy and bridge the urban-rural divide, emphasizing sustainable development practices.

Reforms

Another area where Gandhi's prolonged presence could have made a significant impact is in social reforms and equality. He championed the rights of marginalized communities, including Dalits, (formerly known as untouchables) and women. Gandhi's advocacy for social justice would likely have continued, influencing policies and societal norms to address caste discrimination, gender inequality, and other social injustices.

Beyond India's borders, Gandhi's influence on international relations and peace building would have been profound. His principles of nonviolence and dialogue could have played a crucial role in resolving conflicts and promoting peaceful coexistence among nations. Gandhi's leadership on global platforms would have amplified calls for disarmament, human rights, and environmental stewardship.

However, it's essential to acknowledge that Gandhi's continued presence would not have been without challenges and opposition. His ideologies faced criticism from various quarters, including radical factions and those advocating for more aggressive approaches to governance and conflict resolution. Navigating these differing viewpoints while staying true to his principles would have been a delicate balance for Gandhi.

Legacy

Even without the hypothetical scenario of Gandhi surviving beyond 1948, his legacy has endured, albeit in different ways. His teachings and philosophy continue to inspire movements for justice, equality, and peace worldwide. Gandhi's emphasis on individual and collective responsibility for social change still remains relevant in addressing contemporary challenges.

It cannot be more over stated that the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi robbed the world of a visionary leader whose influence extended far beyond his lifetime. Imagining a world where Gandhi had not been assassinated offers interesting insight into the potential trajectories of India's development, global peace efforts, and social justice movements. While we can only speculate on what might have been, Gandhi's teachings continue to guide and inspire people in their quests for a better world, reminding us of the enduring power of nonviolence, truth, and compassion.

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

Philadelphia’s Civil War Hero

George E. Stephens was a Civil War hero from Philadelphia. He was outraged at not initially being able to fight as he was an African America, so took other roles until free African Americans could join the war.

The 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regimentat the Second Battle of Fort Wagner in July 1863. By Kurz & Allison.

When It came to the cause of freedom, George E. Stephens was the first to step up.

It’s been 160 years since the last of George E. Stephens correspondence letters were sent to the New York Weekly Anglo-African, and 35 years since the Civil War movie Glory hit movie theaters around the country. The film depicts the formation of the 54th Massachusetts who bravery led the attack on the Confederate defenses at Fort Wagner in Charleston Harbor in July of 1863.

He is even loosely based on a character in the 1989 film.

Stephens was born in Philadelphia in 1832, the son of William Stephens, worked who would eventually become a lay preacher in the First African Baptist Church, which became extremely active in the abolitionist movement and ultimately in the Underground Railroad.

Although we don’t know much about Stephens’ education, it is probable that he received an education through the Quakers and possibly the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

Honoring African American Mathematician Benjamin Banneker, he joined a group of fifteen to form The Banneker Institute (a literary society.) Ironically, he was nearly enslaved between 1857–1858 around where the 54th Massachusetts would make their galant charge on Fort Wagner in 1863.

During the Civil War, he initially signed on as a cook and began sending war correspondences to the New York Weekly Anglo-African. 

Stephens was a driving force in enlisting men to join the 54th in Philadelphia and would himself signup with the regiment in April 1863 as a Sergeant.

During the brave attack on Fort Wagner on July 18, 1863 the 54th Massachusetts emerged after 7:30 P.M. and advanced up the sandy beach. By the time that the regiment’s charge arrived at the parapet of Wagner, they had withstood immense casualties. Among the 272 men killed from the regiment was commander Colonel Shaw, whose sword was taken from his body after the battle. 

Fellow Sergeant William H. Carney, upon seeing that the United States flag was faltering and about to drift into the sand, grabbed it and moved forward despite being wounded. After being pulled to safety, he refused to let go of the colours saying that he had not let them touch the ground.

Stephens was at the center of the 54th’s advance on Fort Wagner. He was wounded but managed to survive and escape without being captured.

After the Civil War, he spent time as a cabinet maker and upholsterer and also as a sailor and also educated newly freed slaves.

Stephens died in Brooklyn, New York in April 1888.

In 1997, editor Donald Yacovone released “A Voice of Thunder: The Civil War Letters of George E. Stephens.”

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

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington Township, Pennsylvania.