Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy

In Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War, Jeb Smith argues that the winner writes the history. This is evident in many ways and categories. The North propped itself up and vilified its enemy, the South. Today, we will take a look at Abraham Lincoln and race.

This is part 1 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War.

A U.S. Postage stamp issued in 1958. It commemorates the 1858 Lincoln and Douglas debates.

People are taught that Lincoln was a strong abolitionist, a champion of racial equality, and a great emancipator. They portray Lincoln as going to war to free the slaves; Lincoln advocated freedom and liberty for all; he is the savior of the Union and Constitution to boot. Lincoln was a kind, warmhearted, caring person, who never told a lie, and a great leader who united and led America to renown. This image comes perhaps from a desire for who they want him to be rather than who he was. Just as Southerners idolize their heroes, modern statists do the same with theirs, such as Lincoln. What most people think they know about Lincoln is well off the mark. We will look at his views on race below.[1]

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

 -Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debate Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

I understood Lincoln as someone who desired equality for all. Instead, I found Lincoln was a white supremacist who viewed blacks as inferior beings. During a debate with Stephen A. Douglas on August 21, 1858 in Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln stated, "Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this…We cannot then make them equals." In response to the Dred Scott ruling, Lincoln said, "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." At the eulogy of Henry Clay in 1852, Lincoln gave a speech in which he called the declaration of independence the "The white man's charter of freedom."

Fear

Lincoln often used the N-word, and was known for his racist jokes. Abolitionist John Hume described Lincoln as "strongly prejudiced against the black man." According to Bennett's calculations, Lincoln stated publicly, at least twenty-one times, that he was opposed to equal rights for Blacks. Bennett writes, "Lincoln never pretended to be a racial liberal or a social innovator. He repeatedly said, in public and in private, that he believed in white supremacy." Lincolns close friend and biographer Ward Lamon said Lincoln had an "abhorrence of negro suffrage and negro equality." According to Lincoln, God has "Made us separate." Lincoln feared whites and blacks interbreeding. A former slave turned influential abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, spoke of Lincoln as "The white man's president." 

"Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.…he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers… he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered." 

-Frederick Douglass Oration in memory of Abraham Lincoln April 14, 1876 

"If Mr. Lincoln were really an Abolition President, which he is not; if he were a friend to the Abolition movement, instead of being, as he is, its most powerful enemy...Whoever lives through the next four years will see Mr. Lincoln and his Administration attacked more bitterly for their pro-slavery truckling, than for doing any anti-slavery work. He and his party will become the best protectors of slavery where it now is...Slavery will be as safe, and safer, in the Union under such a President, than it can be under any President of a Southern Confederacy. This is our impression, and we deeply regret the facts from which it is derived." 

-Fredrick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, December 1860

According to Bennett, for over two decades in Illinois as a lawyer and politician, Lincoln never supported abolitionists, rights for blacks, or their progress in that direction. Lincoln never spoke out against the state laws that did not allow blacks to gather in large numbers, learn to read, or play percussion instruments. In 1848 Lincoln supported the Illinois state law of not allowing blacks to migrate to the state and not allowing blacks citizenship. In 1836 Lincoln voted in support of denying blacks the right to vote, and he also voted for an Illinois state law that taxed blacks without representation. In 1858 Lincoln refused to sign a bill that would allow them to testify against whites in court. In Charleston, Lincoln declared, "I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." and "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes"

As a lawyer, Lincoln helped defend the fugitive slave law, publicly supported the fugitive slave law, and spoke out against its repeal. Nathaniel Stephens said Lincoln had a "wholehearted, one might say, serene, support of the fugitive slave law." Ward Lamon said Lincoln was the "steady though quiet opponent of abolitionist Owen Lovejoy." Donald Riddle said: "He did not make any attempt to advocate or support anti-slavery or abolitionist messages." In 1858 Lincoln declared, "I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all." 

When asked what he thought of having abolitionists in his party, Lincoln said: "As long as I'm not tarred with the Abolitionist brush." Bennett quotes multiple sources, such as Lincoln's close friend General James Wadsworth saying the welfare of Blacks "didn't enter into his policy at all." Donn Piatt said Lincoln "Laughed at the abolitionist as a disturbing element easily controlled." Eli Thayer said Lincoln spoke of abolitionism "In terms of contempt and derision." Abolitionist Sumner said Lincoln "does not know how to help or is not moved to help" and "I do not remember that I have had any help from him... he has no instinct or inspiration." Abolitionist John Hume stated, "The president was in constant opposition" to abolitionism. The abolitionist Journal The Liberator editorial on July 13, 1860, called Lincoln "The slave hound of Illinois" for his support of the fugitive slave law. Lincoln scholar David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered states plainly, "Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist."    

Bennett argues Lincoln has received the glory that the white and black abolitionists, citizens, newspaper editors, churches, members of Congress, and pastors had worked decades for. The most prominent abolitionists in the political sphere were men like Senator Sumner, Senator Lyman Trumbull, Salmon Chase, Wendell Phillips, etc. They deserve the glory that Lincoln was falsely given. Congress were the ones that abolished slavery in the territories and authorized black troops. And the people of the states, both North and South, passed the amendment to outlaw slavery after Lincoln's death.

Forever Free From African Americans

"I wish to make and to keep the distinction between the existing institution, and the extension of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me." 

-Abraham Lincoln Peoria, Illinois: October 16, 1854

Lincoln never intended to end slavery where it already existed, only the extension out into the West. In December 1860, Fredrick Douglass said, "With the single exception of the question of slavery extension, Mr. Lincoln proposes no measure which can bring him into antagonistic collision with the traffickers in human flesh, either in the States or in the District of Columbia." Lincoln did not want the West to become "An asylum for slaves and n******." On October 16, 1854, Lincoln stated, "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new western] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." 

The West was to be kept for whites to be segregated from blacks' presence, live off Republican federal land grants, and become industrial. Southern agrarians were to be fenced into the South; otherwise, they would bring their despised black slaves along. Robert Fogel summarizes the abolitionist stance by quoting William Seward and Owen Lovejoy, among others, as "They were quite sincere when they assured voters that as "True republicans" they "Cared nothing for the N*****" and that the republican party aimed to make white labor respectable and honorable by keeping negroes, free and slave, out of the West." In Lincoln Unmasked, Professor Thomas DiLorenzo quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson saying, "It is the black man whom the abolitionist wishes to abolish, not slavery."

Western expansion

Ward Lamon said that originally Lincoln was not against slavery in all the western territories, only those north of the 36°30′ degrees line. However, abolitionists threatened to pull support for his election unless he stood against all western expansion. Lamon also tells us that Lincoln would rather see slavery expanded than "See the union dissolved." Lamon said of Lincoln, "It was therefore as a white man, and in the interest of white men, that he threw himself into the struggle to keep blacks out of the Territories. He did not want them there either as slaves or freemen…" Bennett quotes Lincoln warning whites that if slavery was allowed in the territories, "Negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n******." According to DiLorenzo, Indiana (which voted for Lincoln) despised blacks so much that they gave out a $500 fine to anyone who encouraged blacks to come within their state. And ten years of prison for marrying a black. Illinois senator Lyman Trumbull, quoted by DiLorenzo, said, "Our people want nothing to do with the negro." It seems Republicans believed in a form of secession based on race rather than states.

"We, the Republican Party, are the white man's party. We are for the free white man, and for making white labor acceptable and honorable, which it can never be when Negro slave labor is brought into competition with it." 

-Lyman Trumbull Illinois Republican, United States Senator Quoted in The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War by Kenneth M. Stampp Oxford U Press 1981

Republicans did not care for equality with blacks, and they wanted separation from them. The Northern whites worked hardest to be segregated from the presence of blacks, while southerners worked with, ate with, lived with, played with,  and went to church with blacks.

"Many of those attaching themselves to the Republican party...were not in sympathy with Abolitionism. They were utterly opposed to immediate emancipation, or for that matter, to emancipation of any kind. They wanted slavery to remain where it was, and were perfectly willing that is should be undisturbed. They disliked the blacks, and did not want to have them freed, fearing that if set at liberty they would overrun what was then free soil."        

-John F Hume The Abolitionists 1830-1864 G.P Putnam's Sons NY London Knickerbocker Press 1905 

The fight over the extension of slavery was political. Northern industrialists needed the West free of blacks and agricultural interests. Dr. Charles Pace wrote in Lincoln As He Really Was, "Lincoln was an abolitionist when it suited him." And "Abolitionist activity was rising fast, fueled by northern capitalist and political interests needing an issue to neutralize the agrarian south." Lincoln and northern whites would fight against its extension into the West when it was politically helpful. Secretary of  State William Seward said: "The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been a concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." They had less concern with slaves in the South; as John Hume wrote of Lincoln, "He was opposed to slavery more because it was a public nuisance than because of its injustice to the oppressed black man."

"To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration."                                   

-Frederick Douglass Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln April 14, 1876

Before military defeats and public opinion began to change, abolitionists were condemned by the President. When Union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in federal occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relieved Fremont of his command. When Union general David Hunter issued general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be "Forever free," Lincoln revoked the proclamation. Hunter was then pressured into disbanding the regiment made up of freed slaves he had begun to form. Late in 1862, Lincoln supported slavery continuing in Union-held territory in V.A and L.A and encouraging the slave owners to peacefully come back into the Union. Mark Neely JR wrote that in 1861, "He more than once actually forced others who were trying to free slaves to cease doing so." Not surprising when Lincolns' wife, Mary, was from a slave-owning family in Kentucky. In August 1862, Adam Gurowski summer up Lincoln's actions writing in his diary, "The president is indefatigable in his efforts to save slavery." 

Even after the war, Lincoln, the North, and the Republicans maintained slavery in states like Delaware and Kentucky. Lincoln had no problem calling on men from the slave states of the Upper South to suppress the rebellion in the Cotton States. 

"The Republican party does not propose to abolish slavery anywhere and is decidedly opposed to Abolition agitation. It is not even, by the confession of its President-elect, in favor of the repeal of that thrice-accursed and flagrantly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850." 

-Frederick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, December 1860

In his book Battle Hymns; the Power and Popularity of Music in the Civil War, Christian McWhirter quotes Federal general Phillip Kearny who said, "I think as much of a rebel as I do of an abolitionist." Today we have presented to us the idea of Northern tolerance and southern bigotry, but the reality was something else entirely. 

Abraham Lincoln the Great Emancipator? 

"If Mr. Lincoln had been told, when he entered on the Presidency, that before his term of office would expire he would be hailed as "The Great Emancipator," he would have treated the statement as equal to one of his own best jokes."

 -John Hume The Abolitionists 1830-1864 G.P Putnam's Sons NY London Knickerbocker Press 1905 

"Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do and for what he never intended to do," writes Bennett. Today we are brought up to believe the Emancipation Proclamation (E.P.) was part of the desired agenda to end slavery by Abraham Lincoln. Or worse, we are told with this presidential Proclamation; that all slaves were made forever free. Thus Lincoln was the great emancipator who ended slavery. But that story is far from the truth. 

The E.P. did not apply to slavery within the United States, and it did not free a single slave. According to Hume, Missouri abolitionists wanted the Proclamation applied to their state, and Lincoln refused the request. Instead, the E.P. applied only to Confederate-controlled areas and not to the Northern slave states still in the Union. A Confederate state only had to rejoin the Union, and slavery would be protected. Hume writes, "It was not ...intended to help the slave but to chastise the master. It was to be in  punishment of treason…The proclamation, it will be recollected, was issued in two parts separated by one hundred days. The first part gave the Rebels warning that the second would follow if, in the meanwhile, they did not give up their rebellion. All they had to do to save slavery was cease their treasonable practices." William Seward said of Lincoln's proclamation, "Where he could, he didn't. Where he did, he couldn't." The London Spectator, on October 11, 1862, read, "The Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." 

The Proclamation would end with the war, and any slave freed by it would become subject to local state laws. The document did not apply to the legality of slavery. Lincoln wrote, it was "Merely a war measure" and "Have effect only from its being an exercise of war power." Lincoln stated, "It would have no effect upon the children of the slaves born hereafter."

The Proclamation was given at the end of 1862 after the North suffered multiple setbacks. Some viewed it as an act of desperation. Lincoln gave the Proclamation as a war measure, "As a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion." The war lasted longer than anticipated, and abolitionists put pressure on Lincoln; states threatened to withhold men and their support unless Lincoln helped the Northern war effort by going after slavery to weaken the South. Lincoln and his cabinet were concerned that a rebellion would start in the North if they did not begin emancipation and certainly did not want to lose some of their most ardent supporters.

Others said its purpose was to encourage slave revolts in the South. To encourage slaves to arise and kill women, children, and masters in a revolution while the men fought at the front. The Harrisonburg Patriot and Union newspaper called it a "Cold-blooded invitation to insurrection and butchery." Of course, many slaves, innocent women, and children would be killed if an uprising happened, but it was endorsed so long as it helped bring traitors under the master's authority in D.C.

The Emancipation Proclamation

The E.P. was not Lincoln’s desire, but he was "forced into glory," as Bennett would say. Bennet quotes Lincoln, "I am driven to it." And he said he had great "reluctance" about beginning emancipation. Abolitionists set up a meeting for September 24 with a plan to withhold support for the war and to call on Lincoln to resign. Knowing this meeting and the growing feeling amongst various state governors and the people, Lincoln issued the preliminary Proclamation just two days before the meeting. Lincoln said on July 12, "The pressure in this direction [immediate emancipation] is still upon me and is increasing." Lincoln said, "For a length of time, it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a military measure." Lincoln scholar David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered quotes Lincoln writing an admirer, saying, "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess that events have controlled me." In his diary, Adam Gurowski wrote, "The patriots of both houses... the American people whipped Mr. Lincoln into the glory of having issued the emancipation proclamation." Bennett described the E.P in complete contradiction to how many school children understand it when he wrote, “The high point of a brilliant campaign in favor of slavery not freedom, and was designed not to emancipate all slaves immediately but to protect the emancipation of all slaves." 

As Bennett shows in his book, the E.P. was a conservative pushback against the radicals. On July 17, 1862, congress passed the second confiscation act. This act declared all rebel slaves in the confederacy "Forever free." On September 22, 1862, Lincoln signed the preliminary emancipation nullifying the emancipation act of congress, re-enslaving slaves. The emancipation proclamation did not free slaves in the United States, and it did not free any slave that the confiscation act would not have. It was a reaction to the radical abolitionists in congress. As Bennett writes, "The proclamation had as its purpose and effect the checking of the radical [abolitionist] program." 

Both DiLorenzo's Lincoln Unmasked and Bennett correct multiple false quotes attributed to Lincoln or those taken out of context to claim he was an abolitionist or desired equality among the races. I would recommend both authors to those interested. I will let Lincoln's close friend and admirer Ward Lamon sum up Lincoln's opinions on the emancipation proclamation.

"He did so with avowed reluctance...he never at any time favored the admission of negroes into the body of electors...he claimed that those who were incidentally liberated by the federal arms were poor-spirited, lazy and slothful...he longed to see them transported to Hayti, central America, Africa, or anywhere so that they might in no event, and in no way, participate in the government of his country...he was no Abolitionist in the popular sense."

-Ward Lamon The Life Of Abraham Lincoln From His Birth To His Inauguration As President James R. Osgood And Company, 1872

The Corwin Amendment

As Professor DiLorenzo points out, the previously proposed 13th amendment was called the Corwin Amendment; and it was something Lincoln supported. The amendment would forever allow slavery in the United States and make it unconstitutional to abolish it. It reads:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he supported the amendment saying, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln then sent a letter to the governors of the states transmitting the approved amendment. He told New York Senator William Seward to advocate for it in the Senate. He also instructed Seward to pass a federal law that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some Northern states used to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act. DiLorenzo sees Lincoln's inaugural address as the most pro-slavery speech given by a president. 

"Lincoln's first inaugural address...is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery." 

-Thomas DiLorenzo The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire LewRockwell.com 

Lincoln the Ultimate Segregationist

"Horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once---a thousand times agreed... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation...Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; ... Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

-Abraham Lincoln Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2 Speech at Springfield, Illinois June 26, 1857

Lincoln never wanted slaves freed and made equal. Instead, he wanted to make America white from "Sea to shining sea," as Bennett stated. He promoted the removal of slaves from America back to Africa. In his July 17th 1858 speech in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln stated, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." The same year at Ottawa, he declared, "If all earthly power were given  me...my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia."

It is true that Lincoln disliked slavery, but not as much as white and blacks living together. So Lincoln spent many thousands of tax dollars on his colonization plan to send the future freed slaves back to Africa. He either wanted them deported or in their all-black state. While in the White House, he held a meeting with free blacks; he asked them to lead by example for future freed slaves. 

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side….It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated…You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country… an extremely selfish view of the case. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us."

-Abraham Lincoln Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes August 14, 1862, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5.Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865

Conclusion

According to our "greatest" president, for the good of humanity, free blacks should lead by example and go live in a foreign country. As a member of the Illinois legislature, Lincoln urged the legislature "To appropriate money for colonization in order to remove Negroes from the state and prevent miscegenation." In 1853 Lincoln gave a speech to the Springfield colonization society; his colonization plan would "Free slave holders from the troublesome presence of free Negroes." When pushing for his colonization plan, he said, "Where there is a will, there is a way." 

He promoted three aspects of his agenda. Gradual emancipation, compensation to slave owners, and colonization in Africa or Central America. His friend Henry Whitney said there was nothing besides preserving the Union that Lincoln felt more important. Ward Lamon said Lincoln "Zealously and persistently devised plans for the deportation of the negro." In the diary of Gideon Welles, we read, "Following the preliminary Proclamation, and as part of the plan…was the deportation and colonization of the colored race."

In Lincoln’s first state of the Union address, he suggested free blacks be included in his colonization plan when he said: "It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization." Lincoln called for three constitutional amendments for gradual emancipation, compensation, and colonization in his second inaugural address. He stated, "I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." On December 31, 1862, Lincoln signed a contract to send 500 American-born Negroes to an island off the coast of Haiti; many died, and the survivors were brought back to America. Until his death, Lincoln negotiated with European nations to deport blacks to Africa. 

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery...showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negroes and his canting hypocrisy…Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base."

 -Frederick Douglass The Life and Writings of Fredrick Douglass International Publishers Co 1950

In short, Lincoln was the ultimate segregationist. He didn't just want blacks removed from schools, restaurants, and work areas; he wanted them removed from the country. 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

The Collapse of the Bison Population in the US: Evaluating the Legislation of HR. 921

Over the course of the 19th century a significant environmental cataclysm befell the United States’ Great Plains. The bison which roamed the plains for millennia went from a population ranging between 30-50 million in the early 1800s to less than 1,000 at the turn of the century. Multiple historiographical traditions exist in attempting to discern what occurred and what ultimately spelled the death knell for the great buffalo herds, however, the importance of consulting primary sources can still elucidate greater understanding in comprehending the complexity of the rapid downfall of the bison.

Roy Williams explains.

Indians hunting the bison by Karl Bodmer.

For the last century, images of bison carcasses and skeletons piled high have haunted the memories of American conservationists. Artistic renderings such as American Progress by John Gast which shows the steady retreat of the bison and the Native Americans who depended upon it at the march of civilization as a hallmark of the ideology of manifest destiny. Artistic renderings also show the wanton mass killing of bison from settlers shooting the animals from trains for cheap thrills. What then caused this massive collapse of the bison populations? The answer, like most of is buried within a labyrinth of complex interactions.

Popular mythology has created a narrative built upon the legacy of the Indian Wars and the genocidal heritage of United States policy towards Native Americans in arguing that the Reconstruction era United States government willfully and intentionally sought to destroy the bison as a form of ecocide and biological warfare against Great Plains Native Americans tribes in attempting to cut off their primary form of subsistence and force them into state sponsored subservience in reservations. While Native Americans of the Great Plains had always depended on the bison as a supplemental source of food, before the introduction of European horses and diseases, they primarily depended upon agriculture. The addition of European diseases such as smallpox forced Great Plains Native Americans to adapt and reconfigure their way of life to nomadic sole dependence upon the bison for subsistence, trade, and political autonomy. This change put additional stress on an animal population which already had to contend with the dynamic and volatile nature of the Great Plains environment. Each year natural factors such as wolf predation, disease, and drought significantly reduced bison numbers. The introduction of European horses also dramatically increased hunting efficiency leading to greater harvests and additional pressure on herd populations. These numbers could rebound with steady levels of human predation but could not endure multiple upheavals which would ultimately lead to their near extinction.

Phillip Sheridan

One of the most frequently cited primary source examples of United States government complicity in destroying the bison is the 1875 speech of Phillip Sheridan before the Texas legislature. Supposedly, the Texas legislature was considering conservation measures and protections for bison to reduce the number of market hunters who were driving the southern herd to near extinction. Phillip Sheridan is cited as appearing before the legislature to oppose these protections arguing that,

 “These men [buffalo hunters] have done more in the last two years, and will do in the next year, more to settle the vexed Indian question than the entire regular Army has done in the last thirty years. They are destroying the Indians' commissary; it is well known that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. For the sake of lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle and festive cowboy, who follows the hunter as a second forerunner of an advanced civilization.”

The only problem with this primary source rests in the reality that Phillip Sheridan never appeared before the Texas Legislature in 1875 because there never was any consideration by the Texas legislature to protect the southern bison herd. No archival data supports this primary source as being legitimate, the only appearance of this source rests in the memoirs of a hide hunter named John Cooke, with The Border and the Buffalo multiple years after the supposed encounter. More troubling however, is the reality of another primary source which flies directly in the face of historiographical traditions claiming a conspiratorial link between United States government’s policy against the bison.

Legislation

The legislation of HR. 921 stands as one of the most important primary sources in reconsidering the collapse of the bison populations. If the United States government intentionally committed a conspiracy of destroying the bison to force Great Plains into subservience on the reservation system, why did both the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States of America in 1874 introduce a bill to regulate the hunting of bison only to Native Americans? Congressman Fort of Illinois introduced the bill with the goal of stopping the early extermination of the bison, recognizing that bison were “killed every year in utter wantonness without any object whatever except to destroy them.”  The fact that H.R. 921 passed in the House with a tally of 132 ayes and the nays remaining uncounted, shows that there was ample interest in protecting the bison from the onslaught of illegal hide hunters. H.R. 921 was designed to protect bison and give favorable hunting rights to Native Americans, stating, “That it shall hereafter be unlawful for any person who is not an Indian to kill, wound, or in any manner destroy any female buffalo, of any age.”

H.R. 921 ultimately failed to pass, dying at President Grant’s desk due to a pocket veto, however the significance of its passage in both the house of Representatives and Senate cannot be understated. The most likely culprit of the collapse of the bison of the Great Plains rests in the ascendancy of market hunting. For a time, it was profitable to hunt bison on a vast industrial scale. These hunts prioritized female bison for their tongues and robes providing the best meat and the best quality leather for production. The industrial revolution occurring in the east fueled the need for more leather products putting unsustainable strain on the bison populations. For a time, bison boomtowns popped up overnight in the northwest territories trading goods at extortionate rates to Native Americans who had honed and perfected their hunting techniques and could trade bison materials for these goods. This interaction in addition to the larger share of market hunting by white hide hunters ultimately spelled doom for the bison populations. The reason for this conclusion is not revolutionary in nature, the bison followed the same trends as any other animal in the United States that experienced the pressures of market hunting. The beaver of the northeast and northwestern United States was reduced to virtual extinction from market hunting. The whitetail deer and alligator of the southeast were also led to near extinction from the combined forces of deforestation and market hunting which prioritized meat and leather over the preservation of animal species. The collapse of the bison provides a cautionary tale of the dangers that unregulated capitalism can inflict upon the natural environment. Without the presence of clear and strict conservation measures, environmental cataclysm can and will occur again. Rather than being a story of intentional and willful political malevolence, the tale of the bison represents the dangers that unregulated capitalism can inflict upon nature.

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

References

Dodge, Richard Irving. The Hunting Grounds of the Great West. 1877. The Newberry Library. Accessed July 2, 2024. https://www.americanwest.amdigital.co.uk/Documents/Detail/the-hunting-grounds-of-the-great-west.-a-description-of-the-plains-game-and-indians-of-the-great-north-american-desert/4455563?item=4455597.

Flores, Dan. The Natural West. University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.

Gast, John. American Progress. Oil on canvas. Brooklyn, New York: Autry Museum of the American West, 1872.

Geist, Valerius. Buffalo Nation. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press, 1996.

Isenberg, Andrew C. The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Kindy, Dave. “How Buffalo Bill and a Civil War General saved Yellowstone National Park.” The Washington Post, March, 6, 2022.

Krech, Shepard. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York, New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.

Library of Congress. The Far West-Shooting Buffalo on the Line of the Kansas-Pacific Railroad. 1871. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington D.C. Accessed July 2, 2024. https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3c33890/?st=image.

Meriwether, Lewis, and William Clark, Jonathan Carver, and Alexander Mackenzie. The Travels of Capts. Lewis & Clarke. Philadelphia: Hubbard Lester, 1809.

Protection of Buffalo. HR 921. 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., Congressional Record, Pt.3: 2104-2109.

Ramsay, Crooks. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1849, 31sr Cong., 1st sess. (Serial 550), 1022.

Sandoz, Mari. The Buffalo Hunters. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1978.

Wade, Mason. The Journals of Francis Parkman. vol 2 New York: Harper, 1947.

The Clash of Power - 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands

In the remote waters of the South Atlantic, the Battle of the Falkland Islands 1914 stands as a pivotal naval confrontation during the early stages of the First World War. The engagement, fought on December 8, 1914, between the Royal Navy and the German Imperial Navy, was marked by strategic maneuvers, notable naval commanders, and a decisive outcome that had lasting repercussions in that region.

Terry Bailey explains.

Battle of the Falkland Islands, 1914. By William Lionel Wyllie.

Prelude to Battle

The roots of the Battle of the Falkland Islands can be traced to the earlier defeat of the British squadron under Rear-Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock at the Battle of Coronel on the 1st of November, 1914. The German East Asia Squadron, commanded by Vice-Admiral Graf Maximilian Von Spee, had inflicted a severe blow to British naval prestige by sinking the two lesser armed British cruisers, HMS Good Hope and HMS Monmouth, with all hands lost. This victory granted the Germans temporary control over the South Pacific and South Atlantic regions, threatening Allied merchant shipping routes and colonial interests.

In response, the British Admiralty, under the First Sea Lord Winston Churchill, resolved to avenge this defeat and reassert naval dominance. Reinforcements were dispatched under the command of Vice-Admiral Sir Frederick Sturdee, a seasoned officer known for his strategic acumen. His task was clear: hunt down and destroy Von Spee's squadron.

The Combatants

On the German side, Vice-Admiral Maximilian Von Spee commanded a formidable force comprising the armored cruisers SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau, supported by the light cruisers SMS Nürnberg, SMS Dresden, and SMS Leipzig. Von Spee, an experienced and respected commander, had led his squadron on a daring voyage from the Pacific across the Indian Ocean, evading Allied patrols and posing a persistent threat to British maritime interests.

The British forces, under Admiral of the Fleet Sir Frederick Charles Doveton Sturdee, 1st Baronet GCB, KCMG, CVO, (Vice-Admiral at the time of the battle), included the battlecruisers HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible, alongside the cruisers HMS Carnarvon, HMS Cornwall, HMS Kent, HMS Glasgow, and the auxiliary cruiser HMS Macedonia. Sturdee's battlecruisers, heavily armed and faster than their German counterparts, were crucial to the British strategy of leveraging superior firepower and speed.

The Battle Unfolds

On the morning of the 8th of December, 1914, Von Spee's squadron approached the Falkland Islands, aiming to raid the British coaling station at Port Stanley. Unbeknownst to Von Spee, Sturdee's powerful battlecruisers had arrived the previous day and were concealed within the harbor. As the Germans neared, they were spotted by British lookouts, prompting Sturdee to order an immediate sortie.

Von Spee, realizing the presence of superior British forces, attempted to withdraw. However, the battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible, supported by the faster light cruisers, pursued the retreating German ships. The ensuing engagement was characterized by the overwhelming firepower and superior speed of the British battlecruisers.

The Scharnhorst, Von Spee's flagship, bore the brunt of the initial assault. Despite valiant resistance, it was overwhelmed by the combined fire of the British ships and eventually sank, taking Von Spee and much of his crew with it. The Gneisenau continued to fight fiercely but met a similar fate, succumbing to relentless British bombardment. The remaining German light cruisers attempted to flee but were relentlessly pursued. The Nürnberg and Leipzig were caught and destroyed by British cruisers, while the Dresden managed to evade capture for a few more months before being scuttled by her crew off the coast of Chile.

Commanders in the Spotlight

Vice-Admiral Sir Frederick Sturdee's leadership was instrumental in the British victory. His strategic decision to quickly sortie his ships from Port Stanley and his effective coordination of the British squadron showcased his naval prowess. Sturdee's emphasis on using the battlecruisers' superior speed and firepower played a decisive role in overwhelming the German squadron.

Vice-Admiral Maximilian Von Spee, despite his eventual defeat, was widely respected for his daring and strategic insight. His audacious operations across the Pacific and his success at Coronel demonstrated his capability as a naval commander. The 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands, however, proved that even the most skillful commanders could be outmatched by superior resources and firepower.

Immediate Outcome and Tactical Aftermath

The Battle of the Falkland Islands in 1914 was a resounding victory for the Royal Navy. The destruction of the German East Asia Squadron eliminated a significant threat to Allied maritime operations and restored British naval supremacy in the South Atlantic. The victory was celebrated in Britain and provided a much-needed boost to British morale after the earlier defeat at Coronel.

The battle also underscored the importance of naval intelligence and the element of surprise. Sturdee's ability to position his battlecruisers at the Falklands without Von Spee's knowledge was crucial to the British success. Additionally, the engagement highlighted the effectiveness of battlecruisers in hunting down and destroying slower, less heavily armed ships.

Long-Term Repercussions

The long-term aftermath of the Battle of the Falkland Islands had significant implications for the naval war and the broader strategic context of the First World War in general. Firstly, the destruction of Von Spee's squadron marked the end of Germany's naval presence outside European waters, ensuring Allied control of global sea lanes. This allowed the Allies to secure vital supply routes and maintain the economic blockade against Germany, which would gradually erode German war capabilities.

Secondly, the battle reinforced the strategic doctrine of using battlecruisers for their speed and firepower. The success of Sturdee's battlecruisers in swiftly closing the distance and delivering devastating firepower influenced future naval tactics and ship design, emphasizing the need for fast, heavily armed vessels capable of operating independently or in conjunction with a larger fleet.

Lastly, the battle had a profound impact on German naval strategy. The loss of the East Asia Squadron forced the German Navy to concentrate its efforts in European waters, focusing on submarine warfare and attempts to break the British blockade or lure the British Home Fleet into an ambush where submarines would be waiting. The shift to unrestricted submarine warfare would eventually draw the United States of America into the conflict.

Conclusion

The 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands illustrates the strategic significance of naval power in the First World War. The confrontation between the Royal Navy and the German Imperial Navy off the remote Falkland Islands demonstrated the importance of intelligence, speed, and firepower in naval engagements. The victory restored British naval supremacy in the South Atlantic, secured crucial maritime routes, and influenced naval tactics and strategy for the remainder of the war. Reflecting on this naval battle serves as a reminder of the critical role naval operations played in shaping the outcomes of global conflicts and the enduring legacy of those who commanded and fought in these engagements.

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

Getting Jewish Children Out of Nazi Territory: Unsung Heroes of the Kindertransport

The Kindertransport was the rescue of Jewish children from Nazi-controlled territory from 1938 to 1939. Here, author Mike Levy looks at some of the unsung heroes of this movement.

Mike’s book, Get the Children Out! : Unsung Heroes of the Kindertransport, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Jewish children arriving in London in February 1939. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S69279 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

When the word ‘Kindertransport’ is heard, one name often comes to the fore: Sir Nicholas Winton. Made famous by British TV’s ‘That’s Life’ programme in the late 1980s and the recent film ‘One Life’ starring Anthony Hopkins. Winton’s name has become synonymous with the rescue of unaccompanied Jewish children from Nazi-controlled Europe in the late 1930s. But Winton did not, could not have, acted alone. The rescue of nearly 10,000 young Jews from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia involved hundreds if not thousands of people. I once asked Sir Nicholas, when he was 103 years of age, why his name is so well known and the others forgotten. Ever humble and self-deprecating, he replied, ‘That’s easy to explain, I’ve outlived the others’.

So let’s go back a bit here and look again at the history. On December 2, 1938, just 86 years ago, a group of 200 young people descended a ship’s gangplank in the Essex port of Harwich. They came from Germany without their parents, siblings, family, friends; they came alone. These 200 were the vanguard of one of the largest acts of rescue in the Holocaust era. They were Jewish children from orphanages and homes that had been torched, battered or smashed by Nazi thugs on the night of November 9/10, 1938 – so called ‘Kristallnacht’, the Night of Broken Glass, now more accurately dubbed ‘November Pogroms’. The children had witnessed SS and Hitler Youth beating up their parents, wrecking their homes and businesses, arresting men and carting them off to be brutalised in concentration camps. It was after this terrible night that parents in Germany decided to send their children to  safety. The British government had decided to waive visas for fleeing children under the age of 17.

Arrival

The children had no one in Britain to look after them; homes and support had to be found for them. Their arrival was entirely in the hands of volunteers – the British government took no part in their rescue from persecution. Enter an army of British helpers among whom, very prominently, were the Rotarians.

The children who arrived on that sunny December day had come on a train that left Germany the day before, travelled across the border into the Netherlands, on to the Hook of Holland and the night ferry to Harwich. This was the preferred route of most of the 10,000 children who came to Britain on the ‘Kindertransport’. The last such transport arrived in Harwich on September 2, 1939, one day before war was declared, all borders were closed, the fate sealed for the Jewish children, and their families, left at the mercy of the murderous Nazi state.

The nerve centre of this massive rescue operation was at Bloomsbury House in central London. Here committees were hurriedly set up by Jewish, Quaker, Church of England, Methodist and many other relief bodies. The building (now the HQ of Arts Council England) was packed with desks, telephones, filing cabinets and queues of anxious relatives or refugees already in Britain, desperate for help, news, financial support and more. The central committees in London totally relied on the goodwill of voluntary bodies throughout the length and breadth of the UK. This was after all, years before the Welfare State came into being. Voluntarism was key to the success of the Kindertransport rescue – the largest of its kind in the whole of the Holocaust era.

Many unsung heroes

The landscape of care in Britain involved a wide spectrum of ‘unsung heroes’. Winton and his team rescued 669 Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Prague in the spring of 1939.

But who helped rescue the other 9,300 young refugees who fled persecution from Germany and Austria? Winton had no dealing whatsoever with the children from the German Reich.

The answer is a whole raft of forgotten figures. There were German Jews who played a key role in organising the emigration of the children from Berlin, Vienna, Frankfurt and Cologne. Wilfred Israel, British by birth but German by nationality was in 1938, de facto head of the benighted Jewish community under Hitler’s cosh. After the November Pogroms, Israel and his team worked round the clock to secure the paperwork and finances to help get the children out. He was aided by a group of formidable German Jewish women including Hannah Karminsky who often acted as a chaperone for the smallest children travelling alone on the fateful trains to safety. Despite pleas for her to stay in Britain at her journey’s end, she insisted on returning to Nazi Germany to bring out more children. After war broke out her fate was sealed and Karminsky was eventually murdered in Auschwitz.

Care

Once in Britain, who cared for the 10,000 children? Up and down the country, local refugee committees were hurriedly set up to seek out foster families, raise money or secure places in hurriedly created hostels. My ongoing work on the UK Holocaust Map (created by the Association for Jewish Refugees) shows at least 50 such refugee hostels from Glasgow to Cornwall. Many more are being uncovered by research.

Foster families were urged in national and regional newspapers, in the pulpits of local churches and synagogues, in local clubs and societies such as the Rotarians, and by word of mouth, to offer a bed or two to a needy German, Czech or Polish-speaking Kindertransport child. Thousands came forward. Some were genuinely touched by the plight of the Jewish children and the fracture of their family life under the Nazis. Aubrey and Winifred Chadwick, both young teachers in Cambridge, offered a bed to five-year-old Suzi Spitzer who had been put on a Winton train in Prague. She was never to see her natural parents again. To Suzi, the Chadwicks, including foster sister Ann, became her new family.

Some foster families offered their homes with less creditable motives. Some wanted to treat older children as unpaid servants; some wanted to show off to their neighbours that they were doing a good turn – others neglected or even abused the children. Yet it seems that the majority of the Kindertransport children were well treated and taken into the open arms of strangers.

Among the host families was Alfred Roberts, father of future prime minister Margaret Thatcher. He was urged to take in a Jewish German girl by dint of his leading role in the local Rotarians. Similarly, the parents of David and Richard Attenborough warmly welcomed the sisters into their home in Leicester. They too became lifelong members of the family. Among other well-known names was the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams who chaired his local Jewish Refugee Committee in Dorking, Surrey, and aided dozens of Jewish children to find homes in the area.

These famous names are the exception. As I say in my book, most of the people who helped the children were ordinary Britons who neither sought nor achieved fame. In my small way, my book helps, I hope, to sing the praises of some of these forgotten heroes.

Mike Levy is the author of the book Get the Children Out! : Unsung Heroes of the Kindertransport published by Lemon Soul and available as a book, audiobook, or e-book on Amazon US | Amazon UK or via lemonsoul.com.

Mike is also lead researcher for the UK Holocaust Map https://ajr.humap.site/map

He is also currently researching British families who took in Kindertransport refugees. If your family, or someone you know, did host a Jewish refugee from 1938, please contact Mike on kindertransport4@gmail.com

Spy Mania and Conspiracy in Russia During World War One

Paranoia and conspiracy lurks around society, and this amplifies in times of great uncertainty and war. Here, Jamie Bryson looks at conspiracies, paranoia, and spy mania in the Russian Empire during World War One.

Vladimir Sukhomlinov, Minister of War for the Russian Empire from March 1909 to June 1915. He was later tried for crimes including high treason.

The relatively recent Kingsmen film (The King’s Man) had Ralph Fiennes and his co-star combatting an international conspiracy based around the First World War. A secret cabal, known as ‘the Shepherd’s Flock’, involving Grigorii Rasputin, Mata Hari and Gavrilo Princip (the killer of Franz Ferdinand), is the driving force of this story. The group is headed by a Scotsman who wishes to bring down the European Empires (by pitting them against each other) and achieve an independent Scotland. While most of this is nonsense, a vein of historical accuracy runs through the whole caper, perhaps unbeknownst to audiences. Many contemporaries did believe in fantastic conspiracies, intrigue, assassinations and espionage during the First World War. Rasputin, for example, was thought to have been the cause of the death of one of the war's most recognizable faces. Lord Kitchener’s demise at sea in June 1916 after the HMS Hampshire struck a mine was attributed to Rasputin, who was accused of giving advance warning  of the voyage to the German Kaiser.[1]

Tsarist Russia

Indeed, such fantasies flourished in Tsarist Russia during the First World War. The imposition of censorship in 1914 encouraged ordinary Russians to believe that the newspapers only reported half-truths. Some sections in newspapers were left blanked out which caused people to use their imagination to fill in the rest. The unstable political atmosphere provided fertile ground for fantasies of conspiracy to take root. The departure of Tsar Nicholas II to the front lines in August 1915 left Empress Alexandra Fedorovna seemingly in charge of the Russian government. Alexandra was born in Hesse-Darmstadt and her German origins encouraged many to believe that she was actively working against the Allied war effort. Though innocent in nature, her correspondence with relatives back home in Germany appeared intensely suspicious to the war-weary masses. By 1917, many came to believe she was actively working toward a German victory as part of a conspiracy involving court personnel and ministers who also had German heritage.

The ethnically diverse nature of the Russian Empire further fanned the flames of spy mania. Within Russia’s borders were high concentrations of Germans, many of whom arrived in the nineteenth century to escape their overpopulated homeland for the great open expanses of Russia. With the arrival of the war, they were the cause of intense suspicion. German surnames and family connections, viewed through the prism of war, were no longer innocent. Baltic Germans who had a close association with the Tsarist state, having served for centuries as Generals and functionaries, were cast as potential enemies. But it was not just Germans who fell under suspicion; Jews, Hungarians, Poles and Turks also found themselves in a similar category of ‘suspect’ populations. These fears were compounded when refugees from the western provinces arrived in the heart of European Russia, where they were treated with distrust. As fears increased, any eccentric who happened to be bilingual risked being detained for espionage.

Worry

Foreign commercial enterprises also aroused a similar level of worry. Russian military intelligence scrutinized foreign-owned companies and began a xenophobic, anti-commercial campaign against them driven at its core by fear of espionage. Early forms of ‘market research’ by such companies were interpreted by security officers as the gathering of intelligence for military purposes.[2]

According to an official of the tsarist secret police, known as the Okhrana, ‘spy fever ran through the whole of the Russian population like a plague’.[3] The same official recalled that even in the first few days of the war, a man came to his office believing he could hear a typewriter through the wall of his flat, convinced he had discovered a nest of spies.[4] This incident turned out to be nothing more than the work of a feverish imagination, but it was symptomatic of a growing paranoia about hidden enemies. In the Baltic states, a Lithuanian peasant claimed he had seen German biplanes coming and going to the estates of local German barons – one of which allegedly carried off a cow – important war materiel.[5] Another report suggested that a secret alliance of German Barons was supposedly waiting to take over the government in Estonia once the Kaiser’s armies arrived. In Poland, a ‘Singing and Gymnastics Society’ was allegedly a disguised Corps of 50,000 German soldiers ready to be deployed onto the battlefield. One official believed that a specific condition was afflicting the masses as early as 1914, which he described as ‘wartime psychosis’.[6]

Obsession with spies and traitors worsened in the second year of the war because of battlefield defeat. Both elites and the masses refused to accept that losses on the front were the result of strategic and tactical failures rather than the result of traitors behind the lines. A gendarme Colonel named Sergei Myasoedov became the target of recriminations because he had once hunted with Kaiser Wilhelm II before the war and had served on the border with the German Empire for a time. His contacts amongst German officers, which would have been unremarkable before 1914, took on conspiratorial undertones. Myasoedov and his associate, the War Minister Vladimir Sukhomlinov, were also associated with Jewish businessmen, which added further suspicion, implying connections with politically ‘unreliable’ groups. Myasoedov was hanged in Warsaw in 1915, but this did not put an end to the search for spies.

In fact, military intelligence officers unleashed a determined search for more traitors who were supposedly working behind the lines to the Russian Empire’s detriment.  One military intelligence officer came to believe that German spies had enjoyed ten years of uninterrupted practice in the Russian Empire, developing vast networks of human intelligence.[7] Military intelligence activities bordered on absurd, confiscating German notice boards and restaurant menus.[8] This was all symptomatic of intense paranoia. Part of this belief was rooted in the changing nature of war and intelligence gathering; most of Germany’s successes had come from signals intelligence rather than spies behind Russian lies, a fact that many contemporaries failed to appreciate.[9] In reality, there was very little basis for genuine spy mania, as the wartime German head of intelligence later recorded in his memoirs the very modest value of German intelligence within Russia.[10]

War progresses

As the war progressed, Russian society became enmeshed in ideas of conspiracy at the highest levels. Many ordinary people, as well as military intelligence officials, believed that Myasoedov was only the tip of the iceberg and that the trail of treason led all the way to the Empress and, of course, her infamous confidante Rasputin. Even the British ambassador to Russia, George Buchanan, believed in the potential of a pro-German conspiracy. At the same time, German propagandists argued that Britain was plotting a revolution in order to install a pro-British liberal government which would continue the war.[11]

The 1917 revolution, which saw the collapse of the tsarist regime, can therefore be interpreted in the light of these ideas of treason, espionage and conspiracy, which were very real parts of life in Russia and the other combatant nations; these ideas may have been fantastical, but took on historical significance because contemporaries believed them.

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

[1] Douglas Smith, Rasputin, (London, 2016), pp. 526-7

[2] Alex Marshall, ‘Russian Military Intelligence 1905-1914’, War in History, Vol. 11 No. 4, (2004),  411-13

[3]  Alexei Vasiliev, The Ochrana: The Russian Secret Police, ed. Rene Fulop Miller, (London, 1930),

114

[4] Vasiliev, The Ochrana, p. 115

[5] Vasiliev, The Ochrana, p.

[6] Iain Lauchlan, Russian Hide and Seek: The Tsarist Secret Police in St Petersburg 1906-1914, (Helsinki, 2002), 363

[7] A. S. Rezanov, Nemetskoe Shpionstvo, (Petrograd, 1915), 140

[8] William Fuller, The Foe Within: Fantasies of Treason and the End of the Russian Empire, (Cornell NY, 2006)

[9] Andrew, The Secret World: A History of Intelligence, (New Haven CT, 2018), 502

[10] Walter Nicolai, The German Secret Service, (London, 1924), 121-3

[11] Boris Kolonitskii, ‘Politischeskie funktsii Anglofobii v gody pervoi mirovoi voiny’ in Nikolai Smirnov ed., Rossiia i pervaia mirovaia voina: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo nauchnogo kollokviuma (St. Petersburg, 1999), 276-77

Rescuing Mussolini: The Fallschirmjäger Gran Sasso Raid

Few operations are shrouded in intrigue and myth as the raid on the Gran Sasso mountain-top location where Benito Mussolini was being held. At the heart of this mission were the German Fallschirmjäger, the German elite paratroopers, whose planning and execution were pivotal. However, history often credits the mission's success to Otto Johann Anton Skorzeny, a charismatic SS officer who played a small role in the rescue. The mission was meticulously planned and executed by the Fallschirmjäger, however, Skorzeny ensured he was remembered as the mission's mastermind.

Terry Bailey explains.

Mussolini with German forces. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-567-1503A-07 / Toni Schneiders / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

By 1943, the tide of the Second World War was turning against the Axis powers. In Italy, internal dissent reached a crescendo with the overthrow of Benito Mussolini, (Duce). Several of his colleagues were close to revolt, and Mussolini was forced to summon the Grand Council on the July 24, 1943. This was the first time the body had met since the start of the war. When he announced that the Germans were thinking of evacuating the south, Grandi launched a blistering attack on him. Grandi moved a resolution asking the king to resume his full constitutional powers—in effect, a vote of no confidence in Mussolini.

Thus on July 25, 1943, by order of King Victor Emmanuel III, Mussolini was arrested, he was moved to various locations to prevent any rescue attempts by his German allies. His final and most secure prison was the Hotel Campo Imperatore, situated high on the Gran Sasso massif in the Apennine Mountains.

Adolf Hitler was determined to rescue Mussolini, the task was assigned to the Luftwaffe's elite Fallschirmjäger under the command of General Kurt Student. Concurrently, Hitler ordered the SS, represented by the ambitious Otto Skorzeny, to get involved in the operation to track and identify the location where Mussolini was being held. This dual-command structure sowed the seeds for future credit disputes, a situation that plagued many German operations throughout the war, not only concerning credit but in some cases detrimental to a number Nazi operations.

The planning of Operation Gran Sasso began with exhaustive intelligence gathering. The Fallschirmjäger, known for their meticulous preparations, used reconnaissance flights to gather aerial photographs and detailed maps of the hotel and surrounding terrain that Otto Skorzeny had identified. They analyzed weather conditions, altitude challenges, and potential escape routes.

Key Elements of the Plan:

1.   Aerial Assault: The only feasible approach to the heavily guarded hotel was from the air. The Fallschirmjäger, experienced in airborne operations, planned a glider-borne assault. Gliders, being silent and capable of landing in confined space in a concentration of force, were ideal for the mission.

2.   Surprise and Speed: The element of surprise was paramount. The plan was to land gliders on the narrow plateau near the hotel, overpower the guards, and secure Mussolini swiftly before any reinforcements could arrive.

3.   Command Structure: While the Fallschirmjäger were responsible for the operational details, Otto Skorzeny, with no prior experience in airborne operations, was included in the planning due to his SS ties and Hitler's directives. His role was ostensibly to assist and ensure SS involvement.

However, due to his personality, Skorzeny aimed to use the mission as an opportunity to promote his ideas of unconventional warfare, as he had studied the successes of British special operations.

On September 12, 1943, the meticulously planned operation was put into action. The operation, codenamed Unternehmen Eiche (Operation Oak), commenced with a formation of ten DFS 230 gliders, towed by Heinkel He 111 aircraft, departing from Pratica di Mare near Rome, carrying the elite Fallschirmjäger troops, and Otto Skorzeny with 16 SS assault troops.

Key Phases of the Execution:

1.   Aerial Approach: The gliders, piloted by experienced Fallschirmjäger, detached from their tow planes at the precise moment and began their silent descent towards the Gran Sasso plateau. The challenging mountainous terrain required expert navigation to avoid detection and ensure a safe landing.

2.   Landing and Assault: Despite the difficult terrain, the gliders landed with remarkable precision near the hotel. The operational commander, (Oberleutnant Georg Freiherr), led the Fallschirmjäger in a swift assault. They quickly overwhelmed the Italian guards, who were caught off guard by the sudden appearance of German troops. (It is argued later that a number of the guards were pro-Mussolini and some welcomed the German's arrival).

3.   Securing Mussolini: Skorzeny, eager to assert his presence, was among the first to reach Mussolini. Ensuring he was visibly at the forefront, Skorzeny famously declared to Mussolini, "Duce, the Führer has sent me to set you free!" This moment, captured in photographs, was crucial for Skorzeny's later claims of leadership.

4.   Evacuation: With Mussolini secured, the team signaled for the waiting Fieseler Fi 156 Storch aircraft. The rugged terrain made the takeoff challenging, especially since Skorzeny had insisted on accompanying Mussolini even though the plane was only suitable for the Duce and the pilot. However, with great skill Captain Gerlach, managed to lift off with Mussolini and Skorzeny onboard.

The operation was a resounding success, achieved with only two Italians killed and two slightly wounded. Mussolini was flown to Vienna and then to Germany, where he was greeted as a hero. However, the real battle was just beginning – the battle for credit.

Skorzeny, with his flair for drama and self-promotion, was quick to present himself as the mastermind of the operation. His SS connections and personal rapport with Hitler gave him a significant advantage. The iconic photographs of him with Mussolini bolstered his narrative. He was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, and his fame soared.

In contrast, the contributions of the Fallschirmjäger, who had meticulously planned and executed the mission, were overshadowed, despite their pivotal role, and received comparatively little recognition. The post-war narratives, influenced by Skorzeny's memoirs and his relentless self-promotion, further cemented his legend.

While Otto Skorzeny's role in Operation Gran Sasso cannot be entirely dismissed, simply because Skorzeny not only identified Mussolini's location, in addition to, the fact that he was present with his men but also because he had suggested the exact landing zone for the gliders. However, it is essential to recognize the contributions of the Fallschirmjäger. The success of the mission was a true testament to their planning, skill, and bravery. Skorzeny's presence, though significant, was more of a political maneuver to ensure SS involvement and claim the glory.

Recent historical analyses have sought to rectify this imbalance. Military historians emphasize the Fallschirmjäger's expertise in airborne operations and highlight the comprehensive planning by General Kurt Student's elite Fallschirmjäger. These reassessments underscore the collaborative nature of the mission, with the Fallschirmjäger's groundwork being crucial to its success.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Operation Gran Sasso remains one of the Second World War's most dramatic and daring missions. The successful rescue of Mussolini was a remarkable feat of military precision, courage and flying ability. While Otto Skorzeny emerged as the public face of the mission, it was the meticulous planning and execution by the German Fallschirmjäger that ensured the success of the mission.

In the broader context of military history, Operation Gran Sasso serves as a reminder of the complexities of war, where deeds on the battlefield often become intertwined with political machinations and personal ambitions. The Fallschirmjäger, though overshadowed in popular narratives, remain the true heroes of this audacious operation, exemplifying the skill and bravery that defined Germany's elite paratroopers. These characteristics were true for all airborne operations of the Second World War for both Axis and Allied airborne forces and still are of airborne forces today.

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

The 1864 Battle of Spotsylvania Court House in the US Civil War

The 1864 Battle of Spotsylvania Court House was the second major battle in the Overland Campaign during the US Civil War. Following the inconclusive Battle of the Wilderness, Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant's army disengaged and strategically shifted to the southeast, to lure Lee into battle under more favorable conditions. Grant was committed to advancing after the Wilderness, recognizing that Lincoln’s presidency depended on the outcome. Given Spotsylvania's location at the southernmost point of the Wilderness, it was unsurprising that this town became the next target. The timing of Grant's move, however, remained the solitary uncertainty.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

The 1864 Battle of Spottsylvania. By Kurz & Allison.

The Union forces consisted of approximately 100,000 troops from the Army of the Potomac (AoP), led by General George Meade, and an additional 15,000 soldiers from the independent IX Corps, commanded by General Ambrose Burnside. Both Meade and Burnside reported to General Grant, who oversaw the entire operation. On the opposing side, General Robert E Lee's Army of Northern Virginia (ANV) was estimated to have around 55,000 men, having suffered approximately 11,000 casualties during the Wilderness battle. Notably, two of the three corps within Lee's army had temporary commanders due to illness and injury: Second Corps under Maj  Gen AP Hill would be led by Maj Gen Jubal Early due to Hill’s illness, and Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson would replace Lt. Gen. James Longstreet in command of the First Corps following his wounding on May 6. Third Corps remained under Gen Richard Ewell’s command. Lee visited A.P. Hill's headquarters and found him very ill in bed. He had considered Early to replace the wounded Longstreet but decided to promote R H. Anderson who had previously been in the I Corps before Jackson's death. With Hill sick Lee assigned Early temporary command of the III Corps. Gordon was promoted to command Early's division.

All these arrangements were temporary. Hill returned to command the III Corps and Early returned to his division and Gordon was assigned Johnson's division. When Ewell was sent to command the Richmond district, Early was promoted to command the II Corps and Ramseur took Early's division.

General Lee found himself uncertain about Grant's intentions after the Wilderness. Reconnaissance revealed that the river crossing equipment at Germanna Ford across the Rappahannock River was removed, indicating that Grant did not plan to withdraw as his predecessors had done. This left Lee contemplating whether the Union Army was heading east toward Fredericksburg or moving south. Lee recognized the significance of the crossroads at Spotsylvania Court House, which served as the intersection between Brock Road and the road leading to Fredericksburg, and hence was a central point for either destination.

Lee instructed his artillery chief to construct a road through the woods, connecting the Confederate position at the Wilderness to the Catharpin Road leading south. Although Lee did not emphasize the need for urgency, General Anderson and his troops were eager to leave behind the devastation of the burning forest and corpses in the Wilderness, prompting them to commence their march around 10 pm on May 7th. The arrival of the ANV at the critical crossroads of Spotsylvania Court House just moments before the AoP was a result of a delay in the Union movement and the construction of the road by the Confederates.

May 7

On the evening of May 7th, Grant issued orders for the AoP to commence their march towards Spotsylvania Court House. The overarching strategy devised by General Grant aimed to interpose his forces between the ANV and Richmond and to engage Lee in an open region so he could take advantage of his numerical superiority.

Grant ordered an advance along two separate routes to reach Spotsylvania Court House, which lay approximately 10 miles to the southeast. One of these routes, the more direct path, was assigned to Warren's V Corps, who would proceed along the Brock Road. Following closely behind them was Maj Gen Winfield Scott Hancock's II Corps. Maj Gen John Sedgwick's VI Corps was directed to head towards Chancellorsville via the Orange Plank Road, before eventually turning south. Burnside's IX Corps was bringing up the rear, following the same route as Sedgwick's forces.

May 8

Confederate Gen. J.E.B. Stuart was ordered to prevent the Federals from reaching Spotsylvania. Fitzhugh Lee led a division of Stuart's cavalry in a fierce battle against the Union cavalry for control of the Brock Road that lasted 2 days. The Union troopers faced additional difficulties in clearing the road due to obstacles. Meanwhile, Wade Hampton and Rooney Lee's cavalrymen halted the progress of Colonel J. Irvin Gregg's brigade at Corbin's Bridge on the Catharpin Road. Another confrontation unfolded between Wesley Merritt's Union division and Fitzhugh Lee's cavalry, who had taken positions behind barricades on Brock Road, approximately a mile south of Todd's Tavern. Intense fighting ensued, leading to a stalemate by late afternoon. Todd’s Tavern was at the crossroads of Brock Road and Catharpin Road. This was the finish line of the race; for the army with control of this junction, Spotsylvania was just a bit down the road. That is why the indirect route Burnside & Sedgwick took was so critical: that route takes them beyond Todd’s Tavern without going through the intersection there, or to take an eastern or southern flanking. It means that Todd’s Tavern is an inherently unholdable base.

As darkness fell, General Sheridan decided to halt the advance and ordered his men to set up camp at Todd's Tavern. The first Union infantry began moving at 8 pm, but their advance was plagued by traffic jams. When Meade reached Todd's Tavern after midnight he was infuriated to see Sheridan's sleeping cavalrymen and ordered them to resume their road-clearing operation.

General Lee's forces were compelled to retreat from Todd's Tavern and regrouped at a strategically advantageous position called Laurel Hill, located on the south side of the Brock Road. This hill was the last defensible position north of Spotsylvania, and losing it would also mean surrendering control of the crucial crossroads at the courthouse. Fortunately for the Confederates, Anderson arrived at Spotsylvania on the morning of May 8, positioning his troops within two miles of Laurel Hill, which was a low ridge just south of the Spindle farm clearing.

Meade ordered the infantry to attack the cavalry positions. Fitzhugh Lee's horse artillery valiantly defended the Alsop farm, causing a delay in the Union's advancement. Meanwhile, the cavalrymen established a defensive line on Laurel Hill. Recognizing the need for reinforcements, Lee called upon Anderson's infantry, who had already reached the Block House Bridge on the Po River and were having breakfast. Anderson promptly dispatched two infantry brigades and an artillery battalion.

Laurel Hill was the Confederate center of gravity; if they could push their way beyond, it would put Lee on the defensive with fewer and less bloodshed would be loss.  The Union high command did not know how many soldiers had filtered through to Laurel Hill when they originally arrived. The Confederates beat them there by a matter of minutes. If there was not a delaying action by the Confederates the Union would have easily beat them to it because the Confederates had a head start to Spotsylvania due to their interior lines and had unintentionally began withdrawing after the fire in the forest at the Wilderness.

Union Major General Gouverneur K. Warren was under the impression that Spotsylvania was within his reach, and led his Fifth Corps up the hill. To his surprise, he encountered Anderson's corps opposing him, which had arrived at Laurel Hill just as Warren's troops approached from the north, coming within 100 yards. Warren's attempts to push back the Confederates were met with significant casualties, leading both sides to begin fortifying their positions.

Later in the day, Sedgwick's VI Corps arrived near Laurel Hill and extended Warren's line to the east. At 7 pm both corps launched a coordinated assault, but they were met with heavy enemy fire and were unable to make significant progress. They tried to maneuver around Anderson's right flank, only to be caught off guard by the arrival of divisions from Ewell's Second Corps, who were there to repel them once again. Meade had lost the race despite having the inside track, based on the existing roads.

The ensuing disagreement between Meade and Sheridan regarding the effectiveness of the cavalry arm and its role in the movement sparked a quarrel. Sheridan firmly believed that he could defeat Stuart if given the opportunity. When this was reported to Grant, he responded, "Well, he generally knows what he is talking about. Let him start right out and do it." This sequence of events led to the Battle of Yellow Tavern, but was also responsible for the absence of Union cavalry for the remainder of the battle at Spotsylvania, which would delay a full comprehension of the battlefield.

While Warren's unsuccessful attack on Laurel Hill was taking place on the morning of May 8, Hancock's II Corps had reached Todd's Tavern and established defensive positions on the Catharpin Road, protecting the rear of the Union army.

May 9

Grant made several attempts to break the Confederate line over the next few days, employing various strategies. The Union troops also began entrenching themselves as they prepared for the ongoing battle. On the night of May 8, the outnumbered Confederate forces entrenched along a 4-mile stretch, adopting a defensive strategy that would become a hallmark of this battle and continue to be utilized well into the 20th century. The Confederate line extended from the Po River, encompassing the Laurel Hill line, crossing the Brock Road, forming a horseshoe shape, and extending south beyond the courthouse intersection. However, the exposed salient known as the "Mule Shoe," which extended over a mile in front of the main line, posed a vulnerability in this arrangement. Despite this, it was deemed necessary to incorporate the high ground to Anderson's right.

Tragically, during the inspection of his VI Corps line, Sedgwick was fatally shot by a Confederate sharpshooter using a Whitworth rifle from a distance of approximately 1000 feet. Sedgwick's death was instantaneous, occurring shortly after he famously remarked, "... they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."

Grant ordered Maj. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock's Second Corps to cross the Po River and locate Lee's left flank. However, upon noticing Hancock's movement, Lee swiftly shifted two divisions to counter the Union forces at Block House Bridge, successfully forcing them to retreat across the river. When Hancock advanced, he saw that the Confederates were heavily entrenched and did not attack. This delay led to the kind of set-piece battle Lee was expert in.

Burnside, positioned on the far left, made an advance along the Fredericksburg Road. However, the Union command was unaware of the fact that Lee had left only Wilcox's division to defend the eastern flank when he moved to cover the Po. This lack of information was a direct consequence of the decision to send all of Sheridan's cavalry away from the battlefield. As a result, there was a significant gap between Wilcox and Ewell. When Burnside encountered resistance from Wilcox, he hesitated and decided to entrench, despite successfully turning Lee's right flank. Grant, realizing that Burnside was too isolated from the rest of the line, ordered him to pull back behind the Ni. That evening Grant decided that Burnside was too isolated from the rest of the line and ordered him to pull back behind the Ni. It is evident from his Memoirs that Grant realized only too late the potential opportunity he had lost.

May 10

Grant conducted a series of probing assaults along the entire length of the Confederate line in an attempt to identify weaknesses. He observed that Lee had concentrated his forces in front of Hancock's position, effectively controlling both Block House Bridge and the southern area of the Po. Jubal Early launched an attack on General Barlow's position, which forced Hancock to shift his corps westward for support. Consequently, Warren found himself alone facing Laurel Hill and was eager to launch an immediate attack. However, the presence of a grove of dead pine trees obstructed the assault, diminishing its impact.

Upton’s Attack

On the Union left Colonel Emory Upton’s brigade faced the Mule Shoe, with Burnside positioned on his flank. The Mule Shoe, located on the right side of the Confederate line, protruded beyond the rest of the trenches, making it a vulnerable point in Lee's defenses at Spotsylvania. The Mule Shoe's western edge later became infamous as the "Bloody Angle."

Colonel Emory Upton gained recognition for his successful leadership in attacking entrenched positions during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. He introduced a novel tactic for assaulting Confederate entrenchments, which foreshadowed the trench warfare strategies employed in World War I. Instead of the traditional method of advancing slowly in wide battle lines and firing at the enemy, Upton devised a novel strategy. Instead of adhering to the traditional formation, he organized his regiments into a three-by-four-column arrangement, opting not to halt and fire while crossing the field, but rather to charge directly ahead.  Instead of having his troops fire as they advanced, Upton organized his brigade to charge the enemy's position in columns, without pausing to engage in gunfire. The primary objective was to swiftly reach the enemy's fortifications, aiming to overpower them before they could mount a strong defense. The objective was to overwhelm the defenders in a specific sector by rapidly advancing with a large number of troops, without pausing to reload and fire. Referred to as the "stacking method of attack," this approach involved engaging the enemy in close combat using bayonets and rifle butts, rather than wasting time on firing shots.

Emory Upton’s improvised charge at Spottsylvania had a profound impact on the course of the Civil War and revolutionized the tactics employed in warfare. Recognizing the ineffectiveness of the traditional infantry tactic of advancing in a long line, he opted for a different strategy. It was widely recognized that the conventional two-line attack, known as "Close Order," was highly vulnerable to artillery fire when executed across an exposed field. The high casualties sustained during such attacks resulted in diminished effectiveness at the focal point of the assault. Not only did this approach result in a significantly reduced number of soldiers reaching the enemy's fortifications, but even if the entrenchments were breached, there were insufficient forces to break the line or hold it against a counterattack.

Upton's innovative approach was inspired during a reconnaissance mission alongside Lieutenant Ranald MacKenzie, a young engineer. MacKenzie had been assigned the task of identifying a suitable location for Upton's regiments to strike the Confederate line. Earlier in the day, Union infantrymen had successfully pushed back a portion of the Confederate skirmish line, which was defended by Brigadier General George Doles' Georgia brigade. Doles, however, failed to reestablish the line, granting MacKenzie and Upton an unobstructed view of the enemy's position. Upon observation, they noticed a sharp swale on their right, partially shielding them from a battery of Richmond Howitzers positioned within Doles' line. Additionally, the presence of a ridge directly ahead provided ample cover for the advancing Union forces as they traversed the open field.

Upton devised a brilliant strategy that set his plan apart from previous military tactics employed during the Civil War. Rather than send all of his men in one large charge (e.g., Pickett’s Charge), or en echelon (e.g., Hood and Longstreet on day 2 at Gettysburg), or in waves (e.g., Fredericksburg), Upton opted for a more calculated approach. He intended to provide substantial support for the attack by moving his column forward, breaking through the Rebel line, and holding the ground long enough for additional troops to exploit the breach. To ensure the success of his assault, Upton ordered an artillery bombardment on the targeted line and prepared his men to charge across an open field. One might question the efficacy of this compact formation, as it seemingly remained susceptible to artillery fire, particularly from the flank. Yet, the specific topography of the Mule Shoe battlefield played a crucial role in making this alignment the right choice.

However, despite his meticulous planning, an unforeseen event occurred that disrupted his strategy. Prior to Upton's planned attack, Major General Governeur Warren, commander of the V Corps, made an appeal to George Meade, urging him to initiate the assault ahead of schedule at 4 p.m. Unfortunately, Warren's attack was repelled, causing a delay in Upton's scheduled attack time. This delay was a result of a lack of communication, as no one informed Gershom Mott, who was supposed to provide support for Upton's assault. Consequently, Mott advanced against the tip of the Mule Shoe Salient, assuming he was coordinating with Upton, only to face defeat like Warren. Regrettably, Upton remained unaware of Mott's failed attempt.

Finally, at 6:10 p.m. on May 10, 1864, Upton's men commenced their assault. Upton led a force of twelve regiments against the salient. His men advanced in a line of columns, with rifles unloaded, bayonets fixed, and marching at a rapid pace. Initially, their attack successfully penetrated the center of the Mule Shoe, but the intense fighting that ensued made it difficult to hold the ground. The success of the assault relied heavily on the supporting regiments also launching their attacks to secure the salient. However, due to the allocation of all available troops to other fronts, Upton's supporting regiments were unable to join the assault. As a result, Upton was compelled to withdraw his forces due to the enemy's artillery fire and the increasing arrival of Confederate reinforcements.

Upton ordered the artillery bombardment of the line he was going to attack. He readied his men to charge 200 yards across an open field. Realizing that advances in musketry had made obsolete the centuries-old infantry tactic of having troops attack in a long line, firing—and being slaughtered—as they went, he chose a different approach. Upton decided that his brigade would rush the enemy fortifications in columns, without slowing to stop and fire. The idea was to reach the enemy as quickly as possible.

Upton's forces managed to breach the first two lines of advanced rifle pits, successfully overpowering the defenders. Upton's attack carried the first two lines of advanced rifle pits but became bogged down within the main Confederate position. Engaging in intense hand-to-hand combat, the attacking units resorted to bayonets and rifle butts as they struggled to unleash volleys of fire. The lack of command and coordination within the attacking units made it difficult to sustain the assault. While waiting for reinforcements, it became evident that the timing of Mott's support attack was premature, resulting in a disjointed and piecemeal offensive. Ultimately, they were overpowered and had to retreat.. It was clear that had his support group charged with him, he would have held the position.

Despite the ultimate failure of the assault, Upton's innovative approach to advancing against entrenched positions garnered recognition and praise. His promotion to brigadier general on the same evening highlighted the significance of his strategic breakthrough. The linear infantry attack, a centuries-old tactic, was rendered obsolete by Upton's successful demonstration of a more effective method. Grant, observing the battle, gained valuable insights from Upton's assault, which influenced his subsequent plans 2 days later. Building upon Upton's concept, Hancock modified and implemented the columnar assault strategy.

Burnside, positioned on the far left, made an advance along the Fredericksburg Road. However, the Union command was unaware of the fact that Lee had left only Wilcox's division to defend the eastern flank when he moved to cover the Po. This lack of information was a direct consequence of the decision to send all of Sheridan's cavalry away from the battlefield. As a result, there was a significant gap between Wilcox and Ewell. When Burnside encountered resistance from Wilcox, he hesitated and decided to entrench, despite successfully turning Lee's right flank. Grant, realizing that Burnside was too isolated from the rest of the line, ordered him to pull back behind the Ni. That evening Grant decided that Burnside was too isolated from the rest of the line and ordered him to pull back behind the Ni. It is evident from his Memoirs that Grant realized only too late the potential opportunity he had lost.

May 11

Although the previous day’s battle had not gone well, Grant now better understood the line that Lee was defending, and he was optimistic that Upton’s innovative concept would work if supported, and if accomplished with an entire corps. To move his line around to make such an attack, he spent much of May 11 moving Hancock closer to the Mule Shoe while having Burnside attack the eastern side of the salient.

Grant’s optimism is encapsulated in his often-cited report to Secretary Stanton that although his losses were high, so were the enemies, and that “…I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."

Meanwhile, Lee received reports suggesting that Grant was preparing to withdraw to Fredericksburg. In anticipation of a potential pursuit, Lee ordered the withdrawal of artillery from the Mule Shoe. Amidst a heavy downpour, General Allegheny Johnson's men could hear the noise created by Hancock's troops. Initially, this noise was interpreted as a sign of withdrawal, but suspicions arose, leading to the order for the artillery to return. Unfortunately, this order was not received until 3:30 am on May 12, a mere 12 hours before Hancock's assault.

Yellow Tavern

On May 11, General J.E.B. Stuart and the Confederate cavalry made a stand against the advancing Union cavalry near Yellow Tavern, which was located six miles north of Richmond. The Union troops, under the command of General Philip Sheridan, greatly outnumbered the Confederate forces, with a two-to-one advantage. The battle resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, but ultimately, Sheridan's men emerged victorious. The Confederacy suffered a significant blow as General Stuart was mortally wounded during the battle.

May 12

General Grant assembled a force of 20,000 soldiers from the Second Corps, positioning them opposite the tip of the salient. General Lee, recognizing the movement of the Federal troops, mistakenly believed that Grant was preparing to retreat. Consequently, he ordered the removal of his artillery from the area. The attack on May 12th involved nearly 24 hours of intense hand-to-hand combat, among the fiercest witnessed during the Civil War. The assault, based on the strategy developed by Upton, was executed by multiple corps against a better-prepared, albeit somewhat surprised, Army of Northern Virginia. Although the assault was scheduled to commence at 4 am, it was delayed by over half an hour due to heavy rain and thick mist.

Hancock's men serendipitously struck the Confederate line where mainly infantry remained. Now called the Bloody Angle, recent analysis has shown that if the attack had occurred on time, no artillery was in the salient at that time. Barlow’s division swung around to the eastern tip of the Mule Shoe, overpowering the brigade under the command of Brig. Gen. George "Maryland" Steuart. This successful maneuver resulted in the capture of both Steuart and his division commander, Allegheny Johnson. On the right side of Barlow's division, Brig. Gen. David B. Birney's division encountered stronger resistance from the brigades led by Col. William Monaghan and Brig. Gen. James A. Walker, famously known as the Stonewall Brigade. Despite the Confederates' gunpowder being compromised by the rain, they fiercely engaged in close combat. The Union troops continued their advance southward along the western edge of the Mule Shoe.

The attack had breached the lines again and took thousands of rebel prisoners. The Stonewall Brigade was crushed by the initial attack with many killed and captured. .  Only 200 men escaped the onslaught and the Brigade was dissolved into a single regiment for the rest of the war. The attack would have been devastating if it weren't for the quick thinking and reaction of Confederate Gen. John Gordon, who ordered his men to shore up the Stonewall brigades sector and to seal off the center to prevent a bigger breakthrough. Burnside was ordered to attack on the left side of Barlow's Division to pin down and expand the breakthrough, but as in previous assaults,  Burnside was halted by Confederate reinforcements; another attack around 2 PM resulted in a stalemate because both Burnside and the Confederate troops attacked each other at the same time.

Although the initial success in dismantling a significant portion of the Mule Shoe salient was achieved, a flaw in the Union plan became apparent: there had been no strategic consideration on how to capitalize on this breakthrough. The 15,000 infantrymen from Hancock's II Corps became concentrated within a narrow front, approximately half a mile wide, resulting in the loss of unit cohesion. Consequently, they devolved into little more than an armed mob. As Grant continued to deploy additional troops against the Confederate defenses, Lee swiftly shifted reinforcements into the salient.

General Lee personally observed the progress of his troops as they moved forward. Just like in the advance at the Widow Tapp farm during the Battle of the Wilderness, Lee tried to advance and lead his soldiers. However, he was prevented from exposing himself by Gordon and the soldiers' repeated chants of "Lee to the rear" defense, while Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Ramseur's brigade suffered significant losses as they valiantly fought to reclaim the entrenchments previously lost by the Stonewall Brigade. After approximately half an hour of intense combat, these brigades successfully secured a substantial portion of the eastern section of the Mule Shoe.

The assault led by Warren at Laurel Hill commenced on a modest scale around 8:15 a.m. Unfortunately, for some of his soldiers, this marked their fourth or fifth attempt at capturing the same objective, resulting in a lack of enthusiasm. After thirty minutes, the attack gradually lost momentum. Meade, recognizing the urgency, commanded Warren to launch an immediate and all-out assault, even if it meant utilizing his entire force. However, the attack proved futile, as the Union corps encountered fierce resistance from a lone Confederate division. Not only did the V Corps fail to achieve its objective, but it also failed to divert Confederate troops from other areas of the front, contrary to Grant's intentions. Grant granted Meade the authority to relieve Warren of his duties, proposing that Meade's chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys, assume command. Nevertheless, Humphreys skillfully coordinated the withdrawal of the V Corps units without actually relieving Warren from his position.

At approximately 6:30 am, Grant issued orders for additional troops to launch an assault on the Bloody Angle, which was the northwestern section of the salient situated closest to Union lines. In response, Confederate forces dispatched more troops to counterattack, and the line was fortified with artillery. Consequently, the battle evolved into a gruesome deadlock, with the combat persisting relentlessly for nearly 24 hours. The engagement was characterized by intense close-quarter fighting. Meanwhile, both Warren and Burnside made renewed attempts to attack their respective sections of the line, but their efforts yielded minimal results.

As the fighting raged on at the Bloody Angle, Confederate engineers hastily worked to establish a fresh defensive line approximately 500 yards southward, positioned at the base of the Mule Shoe. The conflict at the Bloody Angle persisted incessantly day and night, with neither side gaining a decisive advantage, until the fighting eventually ceased around midnight on May 13. At 4 A.M., the fatigued Confederate infantrymen were informed that the newly constructed line was prepared, prompting them to withdraw gradually from the original earthworks, unit by unit.

May 13-16

From this point forward, the battle became an attempt on both sides to find an advantageous place to strike; neither found one. Grant shifted Warren and Wright to his left to find an attacking capability from the Fredericksburg and Massoponax Church Roads. With the diminished Mule Show now the de facto center of the line, Lee shifter Anderson from his left to meet the new threat from the east. It rained a great deal of the time which prevented any massing of troops to make a determined attack.

May 17-18

Lee having shifted his men back from the left to cover his right, Grant then waited for two days of dry weather to bring Wright and Hancock back to the area of the Mule Shoe, now anchoring the Confederate left. But Ewell’s men were still there and had entrenched further. No progress was made.

May 19-21

Having once again been stopped by Lee, Grant tried a deception. He ordered Hancock to move to the railroad line and move south hoping that Lee would follow, unentrenched. when Grant would attack the rear. Grant ordered Hancock to pull back toward the Fredericksburg Road. Observing the movement, Lee sent Richard S. Ewell’s Second Corps forward as a reconnaissance force to determine where the Federals were going. Ewell’s men run into stiff resistance by a brigade of new heavy artillery-turned-infantry regiments at the Harris family farm. But Lee didn’t fall into the trap and discerned that Grant was once again planning on a southeast movement to the  North Anna River.

Grant meeting with his staff during the Overland Campaign at Massaponax Church, May 21,1864 by Timothy O’Sullivan, Library of Congress

Summary

The fighting at Spotsylvania was perhaps the most brutal of the war, with hand-to-hand combat of vicious severity on both sides, especially at the Mule Shoe. Despite lasting for two weeks, the battle ended inconclusively from a tactical standpoint. Interestingly, both the Confederacy and the Union claimed victory. The Confederacy believed they had emerged victorious due to their ability to hold their defenses, while the Union saw it as their triumph because their offensive continued and General Lee's army suffered irreplaceable losses.

*****

Casualties

Union: 100,000-110,000 Total

Casualties and losses: Total: 18,399 (2,725 killed, 13,416 wounded, 2,258 captured or missing)

Confederates: 50,000–63,000 Total

Casualties and losses: Total: 12,687 (1,515 killed, 5,414 wounded, 5,758 captured or missing)

*****

In terms of percentages, the battle could be considered a draw, but when looking at absolute numbers, the Union paid a heavy price. The initial stages of the battle were unfavorable for the Union forces, with the disastrous outcome at Laurel Hill and the delayed and poorly supported attacks on May 9th. General Grant's army suffered substantial casualties during the battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Court House. Between May 5 and May 12, the Army of the Potomac experienced approximately 32,000 casualties, surpassing the combined casualties of all Union armies in any previous week of the war. Contributing to the carnage were advances in weaponry that by 1864 had outstripped the Napoleonic warfare of the day. The result was massive casualties: on May 12 alone, Lee lost eight thousand men; Grant, nine thousand.

However, it was the Mule Shoe attacks that inflicted significant damage on the Confederates, resulting in the capture of many soldiers. Due to the suspension of prisoner exchanges, these men would never return to the fight. After suffering severe casualties in the Wilderness, Lee had no choice but to curb his aggressive instincts and prepare for a defensive battle at Spotsylvania. Employing advanced fieldworks that foreshadowed the trench warfare of World War I, Lee skillfully organized his exhausted veterans to defend against Grant's relentless attacks.

Although there was no clear victor of the multi-day battle, many consider it a strategic victory for Grant. The battles inflicted proportionately higher casualties on Lee's numerically smaller army, driving his forces into a siege at Petersburg and eventually leading him to surrender his forces at Appomattox in April 1865.

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

Further Reading

·       Rhea, Gordon C. The Battles for Spotsylvania Court House and the Road to Yellow Tavern May 7–12, 1864. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997.

·       Stephen E Ambrose, Upton and the Army. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993.

·       https://emergingcivilwar.com/2015/05/10/a-grand-charge-emory-uptons-assault-on-the-mule-shoe-salient-may-10-1864-part-2/

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/spotsylvania-court-house

·       https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/battle-of-spotsylvania-court-house

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/emory-upton

Who is this Exceptional British Soldier that Hitler Dubbed a Dangerous ‘Dangerous Terrorist’ in World War 2?

The idea of the specialist military service was dreamt up and realized in World War Two. There are the stories of the German Mountain Troops, the German Fallschirmjager and of course there are the British equivalents that were formed in North Africa in haste because the nature of warfare was changing and there was now a requirement for “out of the box thinking” and the implementation of unconventional methods. From the British side most of the focus is given to David Stirling and his Special Air Service who operated alongside the Long Range Desert Group. Stirling’s work has been well documented. However, there was also David Stirling’s first cousin, Simon Fraser or most popularly known as Lord Lovat. He was also part of the special forces story and became one of the first founding and serving Commandos who would also be instrumental in establishing an elite, specialist force later known as the Special Services Brigade. His exploits would come to the attention of Adolf Hitler himself who dubbed Lovat and Stirling as dangerous terrorists and if they were by chance caught they were to be executed.

Stephen Prout explains.

Lord Lovat and Lady Lovat at Buckingham Palace, London in 1942.

Who was Simon Fraser?

Winston Churchill, in a letter to Stalin, referred to Lord Lovat aka Simon Fraser as “the handsomest man who ever cut a throat.” The Fifteenth Lord Lovat, Simon Fraser, was a professional soldier with a long running Scottish ancestry some of whom had also made their presence known in history. Those members had made their names in other battlefields in other areas, but Simon Fraser would earn his own prominence in the Second World War. He was truly an impressive individual. His reputation and achievements would see him featured in the film celebrating D-Day, The Longest Day. Actor Peter Lawford portrayed him in a scene re-enacting the reinforcement of Pegasus Bridge.

He was born in 1911 in his family home, Beaufort Castle, Inverness, Scotland. He was educated at Ampleforth College and Oxford University. In 1931 he joined the regular army and so began his military career and receive numerous decorations in his own right.

Fraser came from a long and established family line who also had served in the military. The outbreak of the war would present the opportunity for him to be awarded the DSO, the Military Cross for various acts of courage. His contribution to the war effort was impressive but some operations he and his men were assigned would be more successful and effective than others.

Lofoten Islands, Norway

One of his earlier operations happened on March 3, 1941 when Lovat led two new Commando groups, Nos 3 and 4 Commando, during what was called Operation Claymore. This was a specific raid on the German-occupied Lofoten Islands in Norway. The raid was successful with the Commandos clearly leaving their mark on enemy occupied territory. The commandos destroyed fish-oil factories, petrol dumps, and eleven ships.

They also seized encryption equipment and codebooks, which no doubt the infamous Bletchley Park found invaluable, and helped them gain the advantage in the growing Allied Intelligence Services. As well, over two hundred German troops were captured and over three hundred Norwegian army volunteers returned with the commandos back to Britain to join the Allied forces. Not all operations would be this successful but already the benefit and damage a small force could inflict on an enemy was very apparent as the British would also discover in North Africa fighting Rommel.

Hardelot - Operation Abercrombie

It was in April 1942 that Lovat would be awarded the Military Cross. He led one hundred and fifty men on a raid of the coastal town of Hardelot in Operation Abercrombie. One hundred of these were his own commandos. It was not all smooth running. It has been said that the gains from this operation were small if any and the effectiveness was in question. The raid was met by minimal opposition and due to a navigation error the fifty-man Canadian detachment lost their way and had to abort their part of the mission. Additionally, it was reported that the German defenses were not as difficult to assault or were abandoned. As the Allied detachment engaged they only encountered three Germans who withdrew immediately. The official report recorded, "no determined opposition". Separately a team of twelve men were sent to destroy the searchlights but failed to execute their objective due to lack of time. The Navy engaged and damaged an undetermined number of German E-Boats.

Nevertheless, six 150mm batteries were destroyed although they were not an immediate threat to the Allies. However, it would have irked the Germans and boosted the French Resistance that the Allies were still very much in the war. Despite the lack of enemy engagement Lovat earned a glowing citation that described his leadership as “speedy and clear headed,” “cool” and that he “exercised faultless control” with a “bold and skilful handling of his forces” and a “success without loss of troops.”  Two Bren Gunners were in fact lost due to a vehicle sinking but not in combat. His later operations would be more costly - in August of that year he would be involved in the tragic Dieppe debacle – Operation Jubilee. Hardelot at least readied his men for such an assault.

Dieppe – Operation Jubilee

Lovat would also receive recognition in Dieppe in August 1942 despite the fact the mission was a costly mission and a failure for the Allies. The whole operation cost the Allies over four thousand men dead, captured or injured in an early attempt to assault Nazi occupied Europe. The saving grace was that lessons were learned for Operation Overlord two years later.

No. 4 Commando under Lovat had captured their objectives which was the only successful part of the operation, with most of his men returning safely to Britain. They had also earned themselves their fearful reputation that reached German Military High Command.

According to Hilary Saunders, the official biographer, the men were to arouse such a passion of hate and fear in the hearts of their enemies that first Von Runstedt and then Hitler in 1942 ordered their slaughter when captured down to the last man. Lovat had 100,000 Reich marks placed on his head, dead or alive.

Dieppe was a mixture of combined assaults on the coast of France. The idea was twofold: firstly, to present to the public and more importantly the Soviet Union that the Western Allies were very much serious about opening a second front. The Soviets were under extreme pressure and felt the West had left them to face much of the Wehrmacht. It was hoped a western offensive would divert at least forty German divisions from the East. Secondly, it was to obtain experience in seizing enemy occupied harbors in readiness for a major invasion that was still uncertain. Dieppe was a disaster and Allied losses were considerable in not only men but in tanks, ships, and aircraft. German losses were minimal with less than six hundred personnel dead or injured and less that fifty mixed aircraft destroyed. It was hardly the good news story the British public needed to boost morale.

Lovat’s part of the operation was the only successful portion. He was to conduct two landings six miles west of Dieppe to eliminate the coastal battery at Blancmesnil-Sainte-Marguerite near Varengeville. The attack began at 04:50 and by 0730 they had withdrawn successfully destroying the artillery battery of six 150 mm guns. It was hailed such a success that it was a model for future amphibious Royal Marine Commando assaults as part of major landing operations. Lord Lovat was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his part in the raid. Elsewhere there was less to celebrate.

D-Day – Operation Overlord, Pegasus Bridge and Breville

Lovat would play his part on one of the most important days in twentieth century history. His part would be punctuated by an injury at Breville just six days into the invasion, bringing a distinguished active army career to end. It did not matter as much because by this time Lord Lovat had certainly contributed to the Allied war effort many times over.

Lovat’s part of Overlord started on Queen Red Beach, a specific part of Sword beach. He had by this time been made a brigadier and also appointed the Commander of the newly formed 1st Special Service Brigade. Lord Lovat's brigade was landed at Sword during the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Interestingly The Longest Day film portrays him in a white jumper and departing from standard Commando dress but in the standard battle dress.

Lovat's forces soon approached from Sword to reach Pegasus Bridge, around 1 p.m. to help Major John Howard establish defensive positions around Ranville, east of the River Orne to prevent German counter attacks from impairing the Allied invasion. It was also necessary for the Allies to take their next objective, the town of Caen, which was one of the D-Day objectives which was not achieved until much later.

During the Battle of Breville on June 12, he was seriously wounded whilst observing an artillery bombardment by the 51st Highland Division. Other officers alongside him died.

For his part in Overlord he was awarded the Legion of Honour and the Croix de Guerre by a grateful French Fourth Republic. A sculpture of him was commissioned by his family and stands on Sword beach to this day.

Injury and the end of the war

Lovat’s career in the British Military was impressive as he swiftly progressed up the ranks. His most senior promotion was given to him after his injuries at D-Day at Breville on June 12. 1944 which rendered him unable to return to the army six days after the historic Operation Overlord.

Lord Lovat made a full recovery from his injuries but could not return to the army. Winston Churchill offered him the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms in the House of Lords, which Lovat declined but entered politics as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1945. He later took on the role as Minister of Economic Warfare which he relinquished when Winston Churchill lost the post-war British election.

Lord Lovat's political career continued in both the House of Lords and Inverness County Council. He devoted much of his time to the family estates. For a man who survived numerous and perilous wartime operations he would be struck by tragedy in peacetime. In his final years, he suffered financial ruin and the death of two of his sons him in accidents within months of each other. A year before his death, in 1995, the family's traditional residence, Beaufort Castle, was sold. His D-Day regimental Piper Bill Millin, played at Lord Lovat's funeral. There ends the story but the sculpture of him on Sword beach stands to this day that reminds us of his exceptional and singular contribution to the allies’ ultimate victory during the Second World War.

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

Military Rankings of Lord Lovat’s Career

February 5th, 1930: 2nd Lieutenant
August 27th, 1934: Lieutenant
December 1st,1937: resigns regular commission
June 7th,1939: resigns reserve commission
July 8th, 1939: Captain
October 2nd, 1942: Major (war sub)
March 15th, 1944: Lieutenant-Colonel (war sub)
April 1946: Honorary Brigadier
June 16th, 1962: retirement.

Sources

Beevor, Antony (2009). D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Viking 

Ian Rank-Broadly Sculpture

Ambrose, Stephen (1985) Pegasus Bridge 6 June 1944. Simon & Schuster

What Happened at World War 2’s Operation Roast at Lake Comacchio, Italy in 1945?

On April 1, 1945, in the final stages of the Second World War, the British Army launched Operation Roast at Lake Comacchio in Italy. This operation was part of the Italian Campaign, a critical offensive aimed at breaking the German defensive lines and paving the way for the Allies to advance towards the Po Valley. The operation is notable not only for its strategic significance but also for the exceptional bravery displayed by the troops, including actions that led to the awarding of two Victoria Crosses.

Terry Bailey explains.

German prisoners being transported through a flooded area besides Lake Comacchio. April 11, 1945.

Strategic Importance and Objectives

Lake Comacchio, a large lagoon in northern Italy, presented a formidable natural barrier. The area was heavily fortified by the Germans, who used the wetlands to their advantage, creating a series of defensive positions that were difficult to assault. The primary objective of Operation Roast was to outflank these defenses, secure the eastern bank of the lake, and facilitate the advance of the main Army towards Argenta, a crucial point in the German defensive line known as the Gothic Line.

Forces Involved

The operation was spearheaded by the British 56th (London) Infantry Division, supported by elements of the 2nd Commando Brigade and other supporting units.

Key units included:

·   56th (London) Infantry Division: Comprised of several infantry brigades, this division was tasked with the main assault across the terrain around Lake Comacchio.

·   2nd Commando Brigade: A specialist brigade trained in amphibious operations and close-quarters combat. Which was made up of No. 2 and 9 Army commandos and 40 and 43 Royal Marines commandos. The commando brigade played a crucial role in the initial assaults and in securing key objectives.

·   North Irish Horse: An armored regiment that provided crucial support with their tanks, aiding in breaking through German defensive positions.

·   Royal Artillery: Providing artillery support for different aspects of the assault.

·   Royal Engineers: Aiding in securing vital bridges by disabling and removal of demolition charges, in addition to, making blown-up bridges serviceable.

The Assault Begins

The operation commenced in the early hours of the 1st of April, 1945. Under the cover of darkness and with the support of heavy artillery bombardment, the 2nd Commando Brigade launched their assault across the lake's eastern shore. The commandos, using small boats and amphibious vehicles struggle for hours in mud and slime, however, once in the final assault position these units moved quickly to engage German positions.

Nos. 2, 40 and 43 Commandos all made their objectives relatively quickly, although the Germans succeeded in blowing up one bridge before it was captured by No.2 Commando. No. 9 Commando initially made good progress until No. 5 and No. 6 Troops (especially 5 Troop), became seriously pinned down across a killing ground while attempting to capture the enemy position.

1 and 2 Troops made good progress down the center of the Spit, on receiving information regarding the situation of 5 and 6 Troops, 1 and 2 troop bypassed their objective in order to turn about. Laying smoke, and carrying out a bayonet charge that overran the German positions with the German defenders fleeing into the waiting Bren guns of 6 Troop.

Despite facing fierce resistance, the commando established a solid foothold, allowing the infantry divisions to begin their advance. One of the key challenges of the operation was the terrain. The area around Lake Comacchio was a mix of wetlands, canals, and embankments, making movement and coordination difficult. The commandos, however, were well-prepared for such conditions, and their training and tenacity proved invaluable.

Decisive Actions

As the commandos secured the initial objectives, the 56th (London) Infantry Division moved in to consolidate and expand the gains. The infantry faced intense combat as they pushed through the German defenses. The North Irish Horse provided critical armored support, using their tanks to destroy fortified positions and clear the way for the advancing troops.

A notable action of Operation Roast occurred on the 8th / 9th of April, when Major Anders Lassen of the Special Boat Section, (SBS), a sub-unit of Special Air Service (SAS), attached to the 2nd Commando Brigade, led a daring assault on a series of German strongpoints. Despite being heavily outnumbered and facing intense fire, Lassen and his men managed to neutralize several enemy positions before he succumbed to a burst of German machine gun fire. For his extraordinary bravery and leadership, Major Lassen was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

The Role of the 2nd Commando Brigade

The 2nd Commando Brigade's role in Operation Roast was crucial. Their ability to execute swift and precise strikes against enemy positions disrupted German defenses allowing the infantry to advance was key to a successful operation. Commandos are trained to operate in challenging environments and their expertise in amphibious warfare was a significant advantage in the wetlands of Lake Comacchio.

Progress and Outcome

Operation Roast was a resounding success, achieving its objectives and significantly weakening the German defensive line around Lake Comacchio. The combined efforts of the British infantry, commandos, armored units and other supporting units forced the Germans to retreat, allowing the main Army to continue its advance towards the Po Valley.

The operation also demonstrated the effectiveness of combined arms tactics and the importance of specialized units like commandos in overcoming challenging terrain and well-fortified positions. The bravery and professionalism of the troops involved, particularly those who were awarded the Victoria Cross, played a vital role in the operation's success.

Aftermath and Legacy

The success of Operation Roast had a profound impact on the broader Italian Campaign. It paved the way for the final Allied push into northern Italy, leading to the eventual surrender of German forces in the region. The operation also highlighted the importance of coordination and adaptability in modern warfare, lessons that would be carried forward into post-war military doctrine.

The actions of Major Anders Lassen and Corporal Thomas Peck Hunter remain a testament to the extraordinary bravery and selflessness of those who served. Their stories continue to inspire future generations of soldiers and Marines and are a significant part of the legacy of the Second World War.

In conclusion, Operation Roast at Lake Comacchio stands as a pivotal moment in the final days of the Second World War, the strategic importance of the operation, the formidable challenges faced by the troops, and the exceptional acts of bravery that were recognized including the award of the two Victoria Cross all contribute to its lasting historical significance. The success of the operation not only facilitated the Allied advance into northern Italy but also exemplified the courage and determination of the soldiers and Royal Marines who fought in one of the most challenging theatres of the war.

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

The Award of Victoria Crosses

The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest military decoration awarded for valor "in the face of the enemy" to members of the British armed forces and various Commonwealth countries including previous British Empire territories.

During Operation Roast, one soldier and one Royal Marine commando were awarded the VC for their acts of gallantry and valor.

Major Anders Lassen: On the night of the 8th of April 1945, Major Lassen a Danish soldier of the SBS, a sub-unit of the SAS, led a patrol to conduct reconnaissance, cause confusion within the enemy lines and eliminate forward enemy positions. Coming under enemy fire he moved his men forward personally silencing 3 enemy positions housing 6 German MG 42 machine guns. Despite being wounded multiple times, he continued to lead and inspire his men, before succumbing to a burst of machine gun fire that mortally wounded Lassen. His actions exemplified the highest standards of bravery and leadership.

Lance Corporal, (Temporary Corporal), Thomas Peck Hunter 43 Commando Royal Marines: On the 2nd of April, 1945, Corporal Thomas Peak Hunter of the Royal Marines commando attached to the 2nd Commando Brigade, showed extraordinary courage during an assault on enemy positions.

Under heavy fire, he advanced alone across open ground, drawing enemy fire away from his comrades and allowing them to capture the objective. Hunter single-handedly cleared a farmstead housing three German MG 42s, after charging across 200 meters of open ground firing his Bren gun from the hip. He continued to provide encouragement to his men and asked for more Bren gun magazines before receiving a burst of enemy fire to his head.

His self-sacrifice and determination were crucial in overcoming the German defenses, and he was posthumously awarded the VC for his gallantry and valor.

Point of interest

The Special Boat Service (SBS) is a special forces unit of the United Kingdom under the control of the Royal Navy Admiralty and is part of the Royal Marine Commando.

The SBS traces its origins back to the Second World War when the Army Special Boat Section was formed in 1940 as a sub-unit of the Special Air Service, (SAS). However, after the Second World War, the Royal Navy through the Royal Marines commando formed the SBS special forces, initially as the Special Boat Company in 1951 then re-designated as the Special Boat Squadron in 1974—until on the 28th of July, 1987 the unit was formally renamed as the Special Boat Service, bringing it inline in respect to a designated name similar to the army special forces unit the Special Air Service, (SAS), warranting the SBS its own budget.

To this day the SAS still maintain a small boat section that works closely with the Royal Marines Commando SBS.

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages - Part 4: What was the Spanish Inquisition?

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were a series of judicial procedures led by the Roman Catholic Church in the later Middle Ages in response to movements that the Church considered heretical.  Here, Jeb Smith concludes his series by looking at the Spanish Inquisition, as well as witchcraft, Galileo, and Joan of Arc.

Part 1 on an introduction to the inquisitions is here, part 2 on who the inquisitors were is here, and part 3 on the inquisitions and freedom of speech here.

Witches' Sabbath by Francisco Goya, 1797-98.

The Spanish Inquisitions

The Spanish Inquisition was not a medieval institution. Before 1300, Inquisitions were virtually nonexistent in Spain.[1]The Spanish kingdom of Castile never had an inquisition, and Aragón’s was effectively defunct by around 1450.[2] It might surprise many readers to discover that, while the last person executed by the Inquisition died in 1826 (by hanging, though the Church authorities had demanded burning at the stake[3]), the institution’s power and activities had been steadily declining since the middle of the 18th century. Its foundation was near the end of 1478. However, in this country, the Inquisition’s image and reputed brutality would significantly impact the modern psyche. The Medieval Inquisition evolved into the even more severe Spanish Inquisition during the Renaissance.[4]

The Inquisition began to prevent and extinguish mob violence against the recent Jewish converts in Spain.[5] In 1478, Pope Sixtus IV granted permission to Isabella and Ferdinand to establish an inquisition in Spain. However, in 1482, the Spanish crown took over the Inquisition, despite objections from the Pope and papal inquisitors due to the Jews being denied due process in the proceedings. The Spanish Inquisition was established during the united reign of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, a much longer-lasting and more devastating form of the Inquisition than its medieval predecessor. Unlike the medieval version, this rendition integrated a political aspect that made everything more devastating, impassioned, and deadly to human life.[6] Religion, politics, culture and economics all played a role in igniting the Spanish Inquisition.

This was not a “true” Inquisition in that the government, not the Pope, controlled it. As the Spanish Inquisition separated from the church and papal control and came more under the domain of the crown, Pope Sixtus IV condemned it, writing that it “has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls, but by lust for wealth.”[7] Not surprisingly, it contained political aspects. It was not a Catholic but a “national” emergency.[8]Steve Weidenkopf stated the Spanish Inquisition was “Really politics, the crown of Spain wanted to consolidate power in the south where the people were a threat to Spain’s power.”[9] The power and influence of the Pope declined after the medieval period, leading monarchs across Europe to become the new authority. Lacking political influence, the medieval papal-directed Inquisition had less power than and a different motivation to the later secular ones, such as the Spanish Inquisition.[10]

The Inquisition was used to restore the “native” Christian rulers and reclaim those positions of power that ethnic Jews had earned.[11] During the time when Muslim armies were still fighting against the Spanish crown in southern Spain, many Muslims and Jews who lived in Spain converted to Catholicism. However, many Catholic citizens were worried that some of these converts were not true believers and might help the Muslim armies invade cities, open the gates to the cities, or provide information to the enemy.

In addition, during this time there was a plague outbreak and since Jews who followed the Old Testament sanitation and health guidelines in the Laws of Moses were rarely affected, many people blamed them for the epidemic. Moreover, there were large Jewish populations in Spain, and anti-Semitism increased due to the plague. Jews were also present in high positions in the government, and many had significant incomes and power. Since some converted Jews still continued to follow many of the customs of Judaism, conspiracy theories started to emerge about false converts seeking to take over the crown, and persecution increased. To stop the persecution of true Jewish converts, the inquisitions were sent mainly to these southern cities; most of the Spanish population did not encounter the Inquisition.[12]

So the Spanish Inquisition was triggered by the mass conversion of Jews to Catholicism, prompting questions about their sincerity that needed investigation. As early as 1391, persecution of Jews started, due to jealousy and other motivations. Thousands of Jews were killed during this time. To escape persecution, many more Jews converted and also obtained high positions, especially in the royal and financial sectors, though the legitimacy of their conversions was often questioned.

Many consider the year 1492, remembered chiefly now as the year of Columbus, to have also been the foundation year of modern and unified Spain. At the very beginning of that year Isabella and Ferdinand completed the Reconquista with the fall of Granada, the last remaining Muslim polity in the peninsula, and offered the Jewish population the choice to either convert to Christianity or depart the country within four months.[13]

Operation

Over the centuries, the Spanish Inquisitions included a variety of categories of investigation, such as heresy or Protestantism. A local priest would preach to the population to explain why heresy was wrong. Afterward, an inquisitor would preach and, prior to 1500, provide a grace period for any heretics seeking forgiveness through private confession. Evidence and witnesses would be presented after the grace period, and the accused would face trial. They were provided a lawyer and a chance to repent before the trial began.

During the period of royal control, inquisitors disregarded canon law on certain occasions and relied on mere accusations to condemn heretics. This led to the confiscation of the heretics’ lands, which were then, on occasion, handed over to the crown – a convenient motivator for inquisitors to declare guilty verdicts. Pope Sixtus IV condemned such practices, stating that the inquisitors were acting unlawfully and “moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls, but by lust for wealth” and “with no regard to law, have imprisoned many unjustly, have subjected them to dire torments and have unjustly declared them heretics and despoiled them, once dead, of their goods.” Leading to the criticism of the Spanish Inquisition that it was a government-led effort to seize property for financial gain. However, even the confiscated property was used to fund the project, barely keeping it financially stable.[14]

At times, accused heretics were unfairly imprisoned for months or even years before trial, simply on suspicion. The names of their accusers were not published or made known (out of concern for the accusers’ safety), leading to corruption and personal disputes between individuals utilizing the authority of the Inquisition for personal use. However, the accused were provided with legal representation, and the court deemed testimony from personal enemies inadmissible. They were also allowed to call witnesses on their behalf.[15]

The Inquisitor prisons were healthier, had more space, and the prisoners were better provided for compared to secular ones, so much so that prisoners made purposeful heretical claims in order to be transferred to them.[16] They had access to a variety of food and wine, and some even authored books while in prison; others were allowed to come and go as they wished.[17]

Imprisonment was not punishment in our modern sense. Historian Henry Kamen writes “The penitentiary system, in which the prison itself was the punishment, did not come into existence in Europe until the nineteenth century. By the Instructions of 1488 Inquisitors could at their discretion confine a man to his own house or to some other institution such as a convent or hospital, with the result that very many ‘prisoners‘ served their sentences in moderate comfort.”[18]

In the inquisitor jails, prisoners could purchase food, comforts, wine, paper, and ink, which some even used to write and publish books.[19] Prisoners received adequate nutrition and medical care and celebrated holidays such as Easter and Christmas.[20]

Torture and Death

If torture was used, the method and duration were recorded. It could not be used for more than 15 minutes, no blood or threat to life and limb could result.[21] The Spanish Inquisitors employed torture less frequently than secular courts did, in fact in only 2% of the cases was it used.[22] Torture could only be used when evidence indicated a guilty verdict but the accused refused to confess. Only a minority of cases, approximately one-third, resorted to torture even when the evidential circumstances permitted it. A confession would immediately stop torture and if a confession was made under torture, the accused was given a day of rest and asked once more without torture.

Helen Rawlings wrote of the Spanish Inquisition, “Inquisitors themselves were skeptical of the efficacy and validity of torture as a method.”[23] The techniques employed were identical to those utilized by secular Europe during that period. Professor Burman noted that it was not until the 17th and 18th centuries that “books inspired and elaborated a legend of violence and torture far worse than the reality of the Inquisition. Though it is undeniable that a good deal of torture took place during the long history of the Spanish tribunal, most serious contemporary historians present a fairer and more balanced interpretation of the Spanish Inquisition.”[24]

The death penalty was reserved only for relapsed heretics who remained unrepentant and defended their views.[25]And throughout his duty, the Inquisitor aimed to preserve a heretic’s life, rather than condemn them to death.[26]Professor Stark said that compared to secular courts of the day, “The Spanish Inquisition was a consistent force for justice, restraint, due process, and enlightenment.”[27] Repentance is what was desired, even from those about to be condemned to death.[28]

The Inquisition was not an all-encompassing force, but a small number of officials (bureaucracy did expand it over time), barely stayed financially afloat and scarcely came into contact with the majority of the population outside of larger towns. It had little to no impact on 90% of the population.[29] Scholar Henry Kamen wrote that outside of specific significant cities, “a town might see an inquisitor maybe once every ten years, or even once a century: many never saw one in their entire history.”[30] Critics have exaggerated the number of executions during the Spanish Inquisition. Professor Stark said that compared to secular courts of the day, "The Spanish Inquisition was a consistent force for justice, restraint, due process, and enlightenment."[31]For instance, only 15 people were executed from 1575-1610, and eight were executed from 1648-1694.[32] One hundred fifty thousand were put on trial during the Spanish Inquisition, but only 3,000 were executed.[33] A large enough number, but this still goes against the common perception of the Inquisition’s unceasing brutality.[34] Only 1.8% of those who stood trial were executed, usually repeat offenders who refused to repent.[35] According to Michael Warren Davis, the state of Texas executes twice as many people per year as the Spanish Inquisitions did.[36] More people in the United States die during certain months from car accidents than in the Spanish Inquisition over 250 years! Speaking of the Spanish Inquisition Professor Edward Peters wrote, “In spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, it acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kind of offenses.”[37]

Positives?

During the time when Europe was experiencing numerous revolutions, the Spanish Inquisition helped keep Catholic Spain unified. The Inquisition helped maintain Spanish religious unity and prevented the (far more deadly) wars that ravaged the rest of Europe during this period. If a major conflict had occurred the loss of life would have been significant, but the Spanish Inquisition indirectly prevented this from happening. More lives were likely saved than lost as a result.

Further, during the 16th and 17th centuries, the craze for witch hunts was almost nonexistent in Spain, in contrast to other parts of Europe where witch hunts were prevalent due to the lack of an Inquisition or a weaker influence of it.[38]Being accustomed to evaluating evidence as lawyers, Inquisitors were among the most vocal and prominent skeptics of the secular witch craze. The Spanish Inquisition made the witch craze almost nonexistent in Spain, whereas many suffered in places that lacked Inquisitors, such as England.[39]

Having a fair and impartial outsider who is trained and knowledgeable about conducting trials can make a significant difference in saving lives from enraged mobs. An excellent example of this is during the middle of the witch craze hysteria in 1612 when Spanish inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frías investigated 1,802 people accused of witchcraft and, after careful examination of their claimed magical powers and alleged sex with demons, declared, “I have not found even indications from which to infer that a single act of witchcraft has really occurred.”[40] Had these accused individuals been left to the mercy of an angry and fearful mob, it is unlikely that many would have survived.

The secular Spanish Inquisitions during the Renaissance (a movement away from Christendom) are often used to criticize Christians and warn against implementing a Christian-based society. The argument is that if we return to such a society, people will be burned at the stake again. However, it’s worth noting that more modern secular societies have also committed crimes that have been far more devastating to humanity based on their own worldviews and political systems. Comparatively, these crimes make the Inquisition seem peaceful and tolerant.[41] Further, the Spanish Inquisition was basically stopped in its tracks by Inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frías as regards witch executions.[42]

The consequences of allowing society to become secular have been devastating to human life, liberty, and happiness.[43] During the height of Spanish power and prestige, the Spanish Inquisition reached its peak. Clearly, it did not cause a backward result in the country or lead it into a “dark age.” Also, think of the destructive nature of many modern philosophies such as communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, nationalism, racism, and blind obedience to the state and how they have killed hundreds of millions of people. Ideas have consequences, and the medieval mind and the medieval Church sought to prevent such damaging ideas from spreading in the name of ‘free speech’.

However, especially in its early years, there was widespread opposition to the Inquisition at various times, especially from local authorities and “compact” towns as they often violated local laws and constitutions and customs, the thing was “new.”[44] Local priests and bishops objected because dealing with heretics and the like during the Middle Ages was left to local control, not a crown-endorsed centralized Inquisition. Further, locals, both lay and clergy, often stated that conversion should be done via “persuasion,” not force.[45] Holding to a more Medieval mindset, conversion is not made by fire but, as one author wrote, “by water” (baptism), which was more successful.[46]

Galileo and Joan of Arc

The trial of Galileo in 1633 is often viewed as an example of the overbearing nature of the Inquisition. However, many facts go unnoticed, and his trial remains, as Professor Burman wrote, “quite different from that often portrayed.”[47]

According to Burman, the belief that Galileo was condemned for his astronomical views is a widespread misconception. The main reason for his condemnation was his involvement in a philosophical dispute related to the Eucharist and his refusal to follow standard “protocol.”[48] Galileo was sentenced to house arrest not for supporting the Copernican system but for violating unrelated Inquisition terms. Galileo often made enemies, and he provoked the Inquisitors. It is worth noting that Inquisitors had previously approved other works by Galileo. His punishment was 22 days in “the handsome and commodious apartment of the official of the Inquisition.”[49] During his stay, he was allowed to hire servants and was required to recite seven Psalms once a week for three years. Additionally, he was put under house arrest but was not subjected to any form of torture.

Another famous post-medieval Inquisition trial was that of Joan of Arc. Her wrongful conviction was not a result of the Inquisition but rather a trial that was clearly and solely influenced by politics. After her death, she was eventually recognized as a saint.[50] She was subjected to a trial by her political adversaries, who handpicked the prosecutor. Those who opposed the unjust trial were incarcerated. Joan of Arc underwent a posthumous retrial conducted by Church authorities, which included supervision by the Inquisitor General, in 1455. She was found not guilty and was declared a saint in 1920.

Witchcraft

The Catholic Church is often held solely responsible and blamed for the witch hunts, but Protestants and secularists also carried out their persecution.[51] Further, witchcraft was subject to the authority of the Inquisitors only if it was linked, which was probably frequent, to heresy.[52] After investigating claims, the Inquisitors were among the first to be skeptical of the witch craze.[53] During the Middle Ages, witchcraft was believed to be aimed at causing harm or destruction to individuals or possessions. Additionally, the observance of witchcraft and pagan festivals was thought to involve making a pact with Satan or other evil entities. As I mentioned earlier, witchcraft persecution was not prevalent during the Middle Ages from 700-1300 A.D.  As with heresy, the Inquisitors could not carry out punishment for witchcraft. The civil courts judged them because they were guilty of harming others.[54] Also, like heresy, the accused should be fairly tried: “Judges do not deprive a prisoner of his legal rights without very good cause, for this cannot be but an offense to Almighty God.” And “the accused shall as far as possible be given the benefit of every doubt.”[55]

The mob tends to react quickly and irrationally when they are afraid.[56] During the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical professionals and authorities made claims about the virus, its symptoms, prevention, and more that were based on inadequate data and considerably exaggerated. Yet, despite the paucity of evidence, the mob believed them. Similarly, many authorities fueled the fire during the witch-hunt period by making similar claims about witches. Once the mob was incited, it became incredibly difficult to calm them down.

During times of extreme death rates among loved ones, family, friends, and even church officials, fear can take over people’s minds, cause delusions and inhibit rational thought. In the late 14th century, as Europe was hit by plagues, crop failures leading to famine, wars, increased governmental control and moral decay, people sought to assign blame for what appeared to be divine judgment on the nations. In this emotional and terrifying time, witches (who were both male and female) were widely believed to be in contact with the devil, who was thought to provide them with powers to commit unprecedented acts of evil, accusations based on first-hand testimonies of witches, former witches, and other witnesses.

According to such testimonies, witches engaged in horrifying acts of boiling children alive and consuming them.[57]They were also believed responsible for the numerous natural and other disasters that began during the 14th century.[58] Witches were believed to engage in everything from sexual perversion to child sacrifice during their rituals; even by modern standards, they would find themselves condemned. Witches were believed to have the power to harm people and animals, often by poisoning them. Authorities could only execute someone for practicing witchcraft if they could prove that their dark arts had caused harm to someone.[59] Witches were often accused of murdering children, yet they could not be sentenced unless the victims’ bodies were found.[60] Yet, even confessed witches could still find forgiveness in Jesus.[61]

According to Professor Rodney Stark in Bearing False Witness, the number of claimed witch deaths is often exaggerated. The accurate number is around 10,000, not upward of 100,000.

The infamous Salem Witch Trials are also used to attack a Christian society. Yet, they did not follow Biblical evidence and witness requirements, or trial guidelines. The judge and jury repented publicly, asked God for forgiveness for the mistake they had made and declared they were ignorant of how they violated the Bible’s judicial system, and the families of those who suffered were compensated.[62]

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

 

Bibliography

-Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. New York, London: J.M. Dent; E.P. Dutton, 1910.

-Burman, Edward. The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy. Dorset Press, 1992.

-Carroll, Warren H. 1993. The Glory of Christendom. N.p.: Christendom Press.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated. Crown Publishing Group, 1995.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001.

-Davis, Michael Warren. The Reactionary Mind: Why Conservative Isn't Enough. Regnery Gateway, 2021.

-Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4) (Story of Civilization). Simon & Schuster, 1980.

-Ferrara, Christopher A. 2012. Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. N.p.: Angelico Press.

-Hoffmann, Richard. An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

-Holmes, George, ed. 1988. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. N.p.: Oxford University Press.

-Jarrett, Bede. 2007. Social Theories of the Middle Ages, 1200-1500. N.p.: Archivum Press.

-Jones, Andrew W. 2017. Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX. N.p.: Emmaus Academic.

-Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press, 2014.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001

-L. PLUNKET, IERNE L. 1922. EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai, England: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

-Madden, Thomas, director. “The Modern Scholar: Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition.” 2008.

-Madden, Thomas. “The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture.” The Great Courses Series, 2019.

-The following citation were derived from Medieval Sourcebook Fordham University (“Confession of Arnaud Gélis, also called Botheler "The Drunkard" of Mas-Saint-Antonin”)(“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”) (GUI, BERNARD, and Translation by David Burr. “BERNARD GUI: INQUISITOR'S MANUAL.”.)(Schroeder, H. J., translator. The Disciplinary Decrees of the Ecumenical Counci,. St. Louis:, B. Herder Book Co., 1937).(Agobard of Lyons, and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);.Agobard of Lyons (9th Century): On Hail and Thunder.”)

-Pernoud, Regine. Glory of the Medieval World. Dobson Books Ltd, 1950.

-Peters, Edward. Inquisition. University of California Press, 1989.

-Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Wiley, 2006.

-Smith, Jeb. 2024. Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty.

-Smith, Jeb. 2023. The Road Goes Ever On and On. N.p.: Christian Faith Publishing, Incorporated.

-Stark, Rodney. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. Templeton Press, 2017.

-Thatcher, Oliver J. “The Library of Original Sources - Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp. 211-239.” Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co, 1901.

-Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300-1475: Formerly entitled a History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500. 4th ed., Knopf, 1983.

-Weidenkompf, Steve, director. The Real Story of the Inquisitions. Catholic Answers.

-Weidenkopf, Steve. The Real Story of Catholic History: Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths. Catholic Answers, Incorporated, 2017

-Wickham, Chris. Medieval Europe. Yale University Press, 2017.

[1] (Durant 1950, 783)

[2] (Burman 135)

[3] (Kamen 373)

[4] (Jarrett 2007, 210)

[5] (Stark 128)

[6] (Burman 136, 207)(Madden2008)(Smith 2024)

[7] (Kamen 58)

[8] (Burman 151)

[9] (Weidenkopf)

[10] (Peters 57)

[11] (Burman 137)

[12] (Weidenkopf 2017, 114)

[13] (Burman 138)

[14] (Burman 139)(Peters 91)

[15] (Burman 145)

[16] (Kamen 235)

[17] (Kamen 237)

[18] (Kamen 251)

[19] (Burman 145-146)

[20] (Burman 177)

[21] (Stark 122)

[22] (Stark 122)(Peters 92, 112) (Weidenkopf 2017, 122) (Kamen 239-240)

[23] (Rawlings)

[24] (Burman 150)

[25] (Burman 153)

[26] (Burman 153)

[27] (Stark 119)

[28] (Kamen 260-261)

[29] (Kamen 75, 348)

[30] (Kamen 225)

[31] (Stark 119)

[32] (Burman 152-153)

[33] (Peters 87) (Kamen 260-261)

[34] (Burman 156)

[35] (Stark 121-122) (Kamen 248, 254)

[36] (Davis 2021 54)

[37] (Peters 87)

[38] (Stark 124)

[39] (Kamen 293-300)

[40] (Burman 182)

[41] (Smith 2024)

[42] (Kors and Peters 408)

[43] Monarchy

[44] (Kamen 75-76)

[45] (Kamen 60)

[46] (Kamen 77-78)

[47] (Burman 172) “The Trial of Galileo” (Burman)

[48] (Burman 175)

[49] (Burman 174) (Peters 249)

[50] (Burman 105)

[51] (Burman 190)

[52] (Burman 119)

[53] (Peters 111)

[54] (Kors and Peters 204-205)

[55] (Kors and Peters 207-208 220-221)

[56] (Smith 2024)

[57] (Kors and Peters 192, 293)

[58] (Kors and Peters 236)

[59] (Peters 113)

[60] (Burman 186)

[61] (Kors and Peters 308)

[62] (Kors and Peters 436-437)