The seventy-seventh anniversary of India and Pakistan’s Independence from Great Britain recently took place, ending a nearly 200 year reign dating back to the British victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. But one territory of India has known a very different type of independence for much longer than that.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

Maurice Vidal Portman with Andamanese chiefs.

Only six weeks away from Indigenous People’s Day, and tucked away in the Andaman archipelago, is a small island known as North Sentinel. It’s not only one of the most dangerous places on earth, it’s also one of the most important. Unlike the other islands in the Andaman Chain including South Sentinel Island, this island is quite different.

It is home to one of the last isolated tribes on earth, the Sentinelese. It’s been nearly 1200 years since Marco Polo explored the Andaman Islands and first described what we believe were the Sentinelese mistakenly as cannibals.

After the British claimed dominion over the India in 1757 — an East India Company shipped first noticed fires on its beaches in 1771. The first colonial, Holmfray (a British surveyor) landed on the Island in 1867. That same year, the MV Ninevah ran aground on North Sentinel’s reef. The 106 passengers and crew fended off attacks by the Sentinelese until a British ship rescued them.

 

Maurice Vidal Portman

When Maurice Vidal Portman became British Government Administrator to the Andaman’s — he may multiple trips to the Island starting in January 1880. In one such trip, taking an elderly Sentinelese couple and their grandchildren back to Port Blair. After the elderly grandparents died of disease shortly after arriving at Port Blair, the children were returned to the island with gifts.

In 1896, a convict who escaped from a nearby penal colony drifted his way onto the shores of North Sentinel. His body was found days later full of arrows. And then there was the MV Primrose ran aground on the reefs of North Sentinel Island in 1981. After several harrowing days where the Sentinelese attempted to use boats to board the ship — the shaken crew was rescued. In 2006 — a boat with two fisherman drifted onto the beaches of the island and were killed by the Sentinelese. Most recently in 2018, American Missionary John Allen Chau landed on the island was killed by the tribe. In 1975, they even fired arrows at King Leopold III of Belgium.

Thankfully, recent history shows us that not all encounters ended in hostility. North Sentinel isn’t just a forbidden, largely unexplored island. In the 1990s, multiple trips to the island from local anthropologists even saw the tribe accepting coconuts as gifts. Sanctioned trips to the island ceased in 1997.

Although the isolated land of wonderment continues to be a magnet for encounters between one of the world’s last uncontacted tribes and modern civilization, we cannot allow it to be for many reasons, and a few of those should serve as dire warnings.

 

Lack of immunity

Just like those two elderly Sentinelese that Maurice Vidal Portman abducted, the Sentinelese have no immunity to modern diseases which are prevalent in our society today. Whether the tribe’s population is 50 or 400, contact with us — which they clearly don’t want — could wipe them out completely. Contact from a single American missionary could be catastrophic to the entire tribe.

Since the dawn of man, we’ve made choices about our planet. Whether because of tribal belief, invaders who abduct their elders and children, or some history that we don’t know like the Japanese occupation of the Andaman Islands, the Sentinelese want nothing to do with us. Successful trips to the island and periods of contact have frequently ended with Sentinelese standing on their haunches and brandishing weapons. We should honor their wishes.

 

Gateway to the past

North Sentinel Island isn’t just a forbidden, unexplored Island. It’s a gateway into our past. Around 60,000 years ago, it’s believed that the Sentinelese walked from the nearby continents and became trapped on the Island as sea levels rose. They are a window into our past, a rare look back at where we’ve come from. One that should not be disturbed.

With a world population of approximately 8,091,734,930 and a population of less than 500 on North Sentinel — the responsibility is ours to protect them. Not the other way around. The tribe preserves the lifestyle that they choose each and every day by being independently sustainable on that remote island. Even though they are technically part of India — they don’t know it.

It could be argued that we need to study their way of life and make every attempt to see North Sentinel Island. But with the dangers that it posses to the people of North Sentinel from both disease and from the unfortunate violence when outsiders are encounters, makes the status quo that has withstood for thousands of years most appropriate.

In 2004, after a tsunami had crashed into the Andaman Islands, the Indian Navy dispatched a helicopter to fly over North Sentinel to offer assistance. A lone tribesman emerged pointing a bow and arrow at the helicopter and so communicated the Sentinelese view of us — please leave well enough alone.

 

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

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Hugh Judson Kilpatrick was a Union cavalry commander who was notorious for sending his men into difficult situations but continued to be promoted despite his lack of military sense or personal integrity. It turned out that this was precisely the sort of leader the Union army needed in its cavalry arm. He was a determined and fierce fighter, which were good and necessary qualities in a cavalry leader. Still, he also had a propensity for shady dealings. Moreover, he often ordered suicidal cavalry charges against infantry. The rifled musket had rendered the cavalry charge outdated and dangerous. By the Civil War, the value of cavalry was essentially limited to screening, raiding, and reconnaissance, a lesson that Kilpatrick never seemed to grasp.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.

Early Years

Kilpatrick graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1861, shortly after the war began, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the 1st U.S. Artillery. In just three days he was a captain in the 5th New York Infantry On June 10, 1861, Kilpatrick gained notoriety by becoming the initial US Army officer injured in the Civil War when he was hit in the thigh by canister fire while commanding a company in the Battle of Big Bethel.

He was promoted to Lt Col of the 2ns New York Cavalry Regiment. For months he was relegated to staff jobs and minor skirmishes. That changed at Second Manassas when he was sent on a raid that culminated in a cavalry charge with consequences that became all too familiar to Kilpatrick’s leadership. He raided the Virginia Central Railroad early in the campaign and ordered a twilight cavalry charge the first evening of the battle, losing a full squadron of troopers.

His men despised him due to his arrogant attitude and disregard for their safety. He earned the unflattering nickname "Kill Cavalry" due to his reckless and impulsive style in the beginning. His camps lacked sanitary facilities and were not very comfortable, often visited by prostitutes who came to see him. He was first arrested for profiting from selling confiscated Confederate goods. The second occasion involved accepting bribes in exchange for obtaining low-quality horses for his soldiers. He was imprisoned in 1862 for corrupt activities, and later for a night of drinking. His soldiers noticed that despite his many failures and misconducts, and the fact that his official dealings were often ethically challenged, he continued to be promoted primarily due to his skill in political maneuvering, but also because he was a West Point graduate who was fearless under fire.

 

Promotion to Brigade Command

In February 1863, Major General Joseph Hooker established a Cavalry Corps led by Maj Gen George Stoneman, with Kilpatrick in charge of its 1st brigade, 2nd division.

 

In April of 1863, General Hooker began moving his troops to compel General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to vacate their positions at Fredericksburg. He dispatched a 10,000-strong cavalry led by Major General George Stoneman to maneuver between Lee and the Confederate capital, Richmond. At the same time, he was aiming to maneuver past Lee's defenses, a plan that led to the Battle of Chancellorsville. Stoneman's expedition shares some intriguing similarities with Stuart's raid in the month prior to Gettysburg.

Hooker's intention in sending the Union cavalry to raid instead of serving as a screen for Lee was to disrupt Lee's supply lines, sabotage railroads, and divert attention away from Hooker's main operation across the Rappahannock. Hooker anticipated that Stoneman would cut off Lee's supply route by destroying the crucial Orange and Alexandria Railroad in Gordonsville. Hooker hoped that this action would force Lee to pull out of Fredericksburg, isolating him from supply and transport.

The main cavalry brigadier of this raid was Brig Gen John Buford, a popular and effective officer. He sought out a field command and joined the Reserve Brigade in battle, where most of the Regular Army cavalry units in the east were stationed. Buford's Brigade, consisting of the First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth U.S. Cavalry, departed from their base at Falmouth, Virginia, to start their bold and ambitious raid. The very next day, they found themselves in battle with the enemy at Kelly's Ford.

However, the weather shifted and heavy rain fell for 16 days, causing the river to swell to the point where the ford was impassable. Some of his horses had broken down by the time he was able to cross. Stoneman found himself trapped in the enemy territory and was unable to cause as much chaos as expected, resulting in Hooker being unaware of Lee's movements due to Stoneman's absence.

Despite these setbacks, Kilpatrick stood out as the star of the raid. While the cavalry overall did not succeed in diverting Lee as planned, Kilpatrick gained renown for boldly seizing wagons, destroying bridges, and circling Lee, nearly reaching the outskirts of Richmond.

 

Promotion to Brigadier General

Kilpatrick also was conspicuous at Brandy Station, where he led one of Gregg’s brigades in a charge up Fleetwood Hill. He was promoted to Brig Gen on June 13, 1863 just 2 years after graduating from West Point.

In the middle of June 1863, General Lee was maneuvering his troops towards the west before heading north through the Shenandoah Valley, utilizing the Blue Ridge Mountains as cover. Hooker was receiving a barrage of messages from Lincoln and Stanton, instructing him to locate Lee and launch an attack. To achieve this, he needed to find a way to penetrate the strategic cavalry defense established by Jeb Stuart and Wade Hampton. Despite having fewer soldiers, the Confederate cavalry understood the importance of securing the mountain passes due to the significant consequences.

After Chancellorsville and before Gettysburg, there were major changes made in the cavalry command structure. Stoneman was sent west, and General Alfred Pleasanton took command of the Cavalry Corps. Brig Gen John Buford and his brigade were transferred to the 1st Cavalry, and he took command of the Division. Brig Gen Wesley Merritt took command of the Reserve brigade. Grimes Davis had been killed at Brandy Station, and Col. Gamble was assigned command of Buford's 1st brigade. Kilpatrick is promoted to Division command, with George Armstrong Custer promoted to brigade command.

The Union's nearest approach was during the Battle of Aldie on June 17, 1863, just 2 weeks before Gettysburg. Aldie was a town where a road passed through that connected Ashby's Gap and Snicker's Gap. Following four hours of fierce combat, the Confederate troops retreated but maintained control of the mountain passes. Kilpatrick was in charge of the advance, following the lead of division commander Brig Gen David McM. Gregg. The Confederate officer Thomas Mumford led a brigade that successfully halted the Union forces. The initial skirmish at Aldie marked the beginning of a sequence of minor battles on Ashby's Gap Turnpike, during which Stuart's troops effectively stalled Pleasanton’s advance through Loudoun Valley, preventing him from discovering Lee's army. Hooker got dismissed, but Pleasonton was the one who didn't succeed.

 

Gettysburg

In the Gettysburg Campaign, Judson Kilpatrick participated in several cavalry clashes against Confederate Major General J. E. B. Stuart's cavalry, such as the Battle of Aldie (June 17, 1863), the Battle of Middleburg (June 11–June 19, 1863), and the Battle of Upperville (June 21, 1863). Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major in the regular army for his "Gallant and Meritorious Services" at the Battle of Aldie.

During his time at Upperville, he was briefly taken prisoner but managed to escape. On June 29, 1863, Major General George G. Meade appointed Judson Kilpatrick as the leader of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Potomac. He battled Stuart in Hanover on June 30. On July 2nd, he was still in the midst of a struggle with Wade Hampton at Hunterstown. On July 3rd, he eventually arrived at the Gettysburg battlefield. George Armstrong Custer's brigade was told to go to East Cavalry Field to join Gregg's division, while Kilpatrick and his single brigade were sent to the west side of the field.

It was clear that the end of the battle was near after Pickett’s Charge failed. Undoubtedly, Kilpatrick believed that he had been absent from the major fight. However, he then commanded a cavalry attack on the infantry positions of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's Corps on the Confederate right flank, located just to the west of Little Round Top. Trying to outmaneuver the retreating Confederates at Big Round Top and disrupt their withdrawal, Kilpatrick asked one of his commanders to attack the enemy skirmish line between Big Round Top and the Emmetsburg Road. Following the unsuccessful attempt by the 1st West Virginia Regiment to break the line, Kilpatrick insisted that another regiment, the 1st Vermont which had already suffered casualties, be brought into the fight.

But a cavalry charge against massed infantry was well known at that time to be futile.

This was truly a pointless, self-destructive assault that went against all the principles of war during that era. Kilpatrick's lone brigade commander, Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth protested against the futility of such a move. Kilpatrick essentially challenged his courage and supposedly provoked him to attack. Farnsworth replied, “General, do you mean it? Shall I throw my handful of men over rough ground, through timber, against a brigade of infantry. The 1st Vermont has already been fought half to pieces. These are too good men to kill.”

 

“Do you refuse my order?” snapped an angry Kilpatrick.” If you are afraid to lead this charge, I will lead it.” Demanding a retraction, the equally furious Farnsworth turned in the saddle. “General, if you order the charge, I will lead it,” he said, “but you must take the responsibility.”

The following assault unfolded exactly as Farnsworth had predicted - a complete disaster. Confederate riflemen took cover behind rocks, trees, and fences and dismounted numerous Union riders, including Farnsworth, who was struck by at least five fatal wounds. The rebellious Farnsworth, when asked to give up, decided to end his own life, as reported by Confederate Colonel William C. Oates. However, this version has been challenged by other witnesses and dismissed by the majority of historians.

Kilpatrick received much criticism for ordering the charge, but no official action was taken against him. There were no consequences for his outrageous order, and actually, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the regular army effective July 3, 1863, for “Gallant and Meritorious Services at the Battle of Gettysburg.”

Farnsworth was a rising star, one of the 3 “boy generals” who had just been promoted to his generalship despite his young age with 2 others  -- Custer and Wesley Merrtit – both of whom would go on to illustrious military careers. Famously, Merritt had engaged in a fistfight with Kilpatrick while they were undergraduates at West Point, and despised his vainglorious superior.

Kilpatrick, having lived up to his nickname all too well, showed no remorse. He pointed out that the Union infantry had not capitalized on the distraction created by the mounted diversion he had offered them. As for Farnsworth, he gushed sentimentally: “We can say of him, in the language of another, ‘Good soldier, faithful friend, great heart, hail and farewell.”

 

The Retreat From Gettysburg

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry harassed Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s retreating Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Williamsport (July 6–16, 1863) and the Battle of Boonsboro (July 8, 1863).

Upon reaching Williamsport, Confederate cavalry Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden, leading the operation, discovered that the pontoon bridge had been destroyed, and the wagon train carrying wounded soldiers was attacked by Federal cavalry. The Potomac River overflowed at Williamsport, Maryland on July 6, 1863, causing Imboden's wagon train to get stuck. He assembled a defensive unit comprising of an artillery battery and as many injured soldiers as possible who were able to handle muskets. In the afternoon of July 6, 1863, Buford led Union cavalry to the east of Williamsport, surrounding the town. Kilpatrick chose an alternative path that led him along the main thoroughfare. At sunset, Custer and his Michigan "Wolverines" came to battle but were promptly withdrawn.

There were insufficient healthy soldiers around to man the defenses. Imboden asked his wagoners (wagon drivers) to join the fight with walking wounded, and over 600 readily volunteered. This hastily organized force turned back attacks from Union cavalry generals  Buford and Kilpatrick, saving the wagon train. Imboden, with the river at his back, put on a stubborn defense until General Fitz Lee's cavalry arrived and the Federals were driven off

Imboden fooled the enemy by advancing a line of infantry about 100 yards beyond the crest of the ridge and then slowly pulling the men back out of sight.

 

On July 6, Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick's cavalry division drove two Confederate cavalry brigades through Hagerstown before being forced to retire by the arrival of the rest of Stuart's command.

By July 7, Imboden stopped Buford's Union cavalry from occupying Williamsport and destroying Confederate trains.

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

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

 

The Richmond Raid

In the spring of 1864, Judson Kilpatrick led a failed cavalry raid against Richmond, Virginia. This event is likely the most intriguing military initiative Kilpatrick participated in, and to this day, its true purpose remains a mystery.

Early in February 1864, Kilpatrick consulted with President Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton. He received permission for a raid that, in conjunction with an infantry feint and another cavalry raid near Charlottesville, would approach Richmond from the north, destroying rails, canals, and Confederate infrastructure along the way. There may also have been a plan to free prisoners of war from Belle Isle.

At a social gathering on February 23, Kilpatrick encountered Ulric Dahlgren and asked him to participate in the mission. Dahlgren was the son of noted Union rear admiral John A. Dahlgren. Ulric was prepared to return to the battlefield despite losing his right leg at Gettysburg the summer before. The idea was for him to command a smaller group, circle around Richmond, and attack the capital from the southern direction.

The Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid (February 28–March 3, 1864) lived up to the “Kill-Cavalry” legend. Kilpatrick and Dahlgren set out from Stevensburg, Virginia, on the evening of February 28. The following afternoon, Kilpatrick and his detachment of 3,500 men reached Beaver Dam Station and began ripping up rails and destroying Confederate property. They failed, however, to prevent an approaching train from reaching Richmond and spreading the alarm. Confederate home guard units mobilized around the capital, and late that evening Confederate cavalrymen under Major General Wade Hampton set off in pursuit of the raiders.

By March 2, after slow progress through sleet, snow, and rain, Kilpatrick reached the inner defensive lines of Richmond. But there was no sign of Dahlgren inside the city, so Kilpatrick waited. On the night of March 2, Kilpatrick considered another attack on Richmond, but the arrival of Hampton’s troopers foiled these plans. Kilpatrick finally reached the safety of Union lines at Yorktown on March 4.

The raid turned into a fiasco when Kilpatrick’s men were stopped northwest of the city. The supporting group was routed when it could not cross the James River. Dahlgren and his detachment of about five hundred men had made it to the James River at Dover Mills but were unable to cross because of recent rains. After turning to approach Richmond from the east, Dahlgren encountered stiff resistance at the Battle of Walkerton. He retreated toward Union lines on the Peninsula, but Confederate cavalrymen and bushwhackers ambushed and killed him.

The raid accomplished nothing except minor damage to railroads and buildings. The death of Dahlgren, however, led to one of the most controversial episodes of the war when documents were found on his body and were subsequently published by the Richmond press. The papers detailed plans to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Public opinion in both the North and the South was aggravated, and only a disavowal by General Meade to General Lee settled the incident.

It is still unclear under whose authority the Dahlgren Papers were generated or if they were authentic. A thirteen-year-old member of Richmond’s home guard, William Littlepage, searching for valuables, instead discovered on the Union colonel’s body handwritten orders to free Union prisoners from Belle Isle, supply them with flammable material, torch the city of Richmond and capture and kill Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. The papers were eventually forwarded to Fitzhugh Lee, who brought them to Mr. Davis and Mr. Benjamin.

Outraged Confederate authorities published them in the press. Dahlgren’s father, among many others in the North, insisted they were fabrications, while the Richmond Examiner waxed indignant: “The depredations of the last Yankee raiders, and the wantonness of their devastation equal anything heretofore committed during the war.”

It has been suggested that Booth’s assassination plot was motivated by this event. It has never been determined if the papers were forged or if they written by Dahlgren, Kilpatrick, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton or President Lincoln.Some have suggested that the papers were forged and intended to justify the numerous plots by the Confederate Secret Service to kidnap Lincoln or to blow up the White House. Nevertheless, a handwriting study performed on the papers by the Smithsonian Channel seemed to confirm that the documents are authentic and that Edwin Stanton was the originator of the assassination order.

 

The Western Theater – Atlanta Campaign

During his tenure as a cavalry commander in the East, Judson Kilpatrick developed an unsavory reputation as a braggart, womanizer, and reckless leader who tolerated lax discipline amongst his troops. He had been arrested for bribery at least twice. You’d expect that his military career would soon be over. Following Judson Kilpatrick’s failed raid against Richmond, Virginia in 1864, Union General-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant demoted Kilpatrick from divisional to brigade command.

But on April 26, 1864, Kilpatrick was sent west and placed in command of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Cumberland. He participated as a division commander throughout the Atlanta campaign against Joseph E Johnston.

General Sherman was “mistrustful of cavalry.” Yet as one of the finest military thinkers of the Civil War, he knew only too well how critically important that arm of the service was to any large-scale campaign. He was a “nervous and somewhat careless rider,” which may have colored his opinion of his cavalry. David Evans has written that Sherman “had no affinity for horse soldiers, no grasp of their capabilities, and no patience with their limitations.”

All this became painfully obvious during Sherman’s Atlanta campaign (May-September 1864). While his infantry columns eventually triumphed and captured Atlanta after a series of hard-fought battles, his cavalry fumbled most of its strategic assignments. Some of the blame lay with Sherman, who persisted in sending his riders against the Rebel railroads that converged on the Gate City, operations for which they were ill-prepared. Wrecking iron track is not easy for lightly equipped riders, and most of the damage they inflicted was quickly repaired. Sherman’s inability to choke off Atlanta using only his cavalry was one of the great frustrations he experienced during that campaign.

On May 13, 1864, Judson Kilpatrick suffered a severe bullet wound to the thigh fighting in the Battle of Resaca. He was brevetted to colonel in the regular army for “Gallant and Meritorious Services”. Kilpatrick assisted in the capture of Atlanta in 1864.

Kilpatrick had the good fortune to receive this minor wound early in the Atlanta campaign. He was absent during many of the underachieving cavalry expeditions that so annoyed Sherman, though soon after his return in late July he undertook his own railroad wrecking operation, which delivered much less than expected.

On August 13, 1864, General Sherman issued directives for the XX Corps to retreat to the railroad bridge at the Chattahoochee River. Their primary responsibilities included fortifying the crossing, safeguarding the trains, hospitals, and artillery reserves, while the remainder of the Army was to advance collectively towards the Macon railroad situated south of East Point. In the subsequent days, Sherman's admiration for Cavalry Division Commander Judson Kilpatrick grew due to Kilpatrick's enthusiasm, initiative, and confidence, which stood in stark contrast to his other cavalry leaders. Consequently, Sherman tasked Kilpatrick with a mission to disrupt the Macon railroad near Jonesboro. After a four-day reconnaissance around Atlanta, Kilpatrick returned to report that repairs to the Macon road would require approximately ten days.

In his Memoirs, Sherman recounts a telegraphic communication sent to Halleck, stating, "Heavy fires in Atlanta, caused by our artillery. I will be all ready, and will commence the movement around Atlanta by the south, tomorrow night, and for some time you will hear little of us. I will keep open a courier line back to the Chattahoochee bridge by way of Sandtown. The XX Corps will hold the railroad-bridge, and I will move with the balance of the Army, provisioned for 20 days." This marked the initiation of Sherman's Great Left Wheel maneuver towards the railroads south of Atlanta, setting the stage for the Battle of Jonesboro and the subsequent evacuation of the city.

 

March to the Sea

Sherman's March, spanning approximately 300 miles across Georgia, was completed within a mere 36 days, with 25 of those days dedicated to actual marching. Despite common misconceptions, this remarkable feat was not achieved without opposition. Sherman encountered several skilled cavalry units along the way, resulting in skirmishes that required strategic camouflage of his movements and intentions.

 

To execute his plan, Sherman divided his army into two distinct "wings," each following separate but parallel routes that were spaced 20-60 miles apart. The southern column, known as the Army of the Tennessee, marched alongside the Georgia railroad and the Macon and Western railroad. Meanwhile, the northern column, led by the Army of Georgia, followed the Georgia railroad in a coordinated effort to advance through the region.

General Henry Slocum was in command of the left wing, composed of the newly created Army of Georgia, (XIV Corps and the XX Corps) The Army of the Cumberland. Gen. Oliver O. Howard commanded the right wing, consisting of the XV and XVII Corps of the Army of the Tennessee. Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick commanded the cavalry.  Under the leadership of General Henry Slocum and General Oliver O. Howard, the left and right wings of Sherman's army, respectively, made significant progress. Despite initial setbacks in the east, these generals proved their capabilities in the western theater, showcasing their strategic prowess. Additionally, Sherman's decision to detach armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to address Hood's threat in the Franklin-Nashville campaign further demonstrated his adept command of military operations. Sherman also detached two armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to deal with Hood in the Franklin–Nashville campaign.

Sherman faced a difficult decision when it came to selecting a cavalry leader for the March to the Sea campaign. He opted for a complete reorganization of the mounted corps under his command and brought in Major General James H. Wilson, an outsider, to take on the role. However, Wilson was needed in Tennessee to accomplish another task, leaving Sherman with the challenge of choosing a commander for the mounted force that would accompany his foot soldiers. After considering officers who had previously failed him, Sherman ultimately selected Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick, a choice that many would have considered unlikely.

Asked to describe Kilpatrick, Sherman said "He's seven kinds of damned fool, but he's a good cavalry commander". Sherman decided that for his march to Savannah, he would only take one cavalry division and he picked Kilpatrick to command it because he figured "a damned fool" would be perfect for the job. Another source reports this quote as Sherman saying, “I know that Kilpatrick is a hell of a damned fool, but I want just that sort of man to command my cavalry on this expedition.”

Kilpatrick's reputation as a cavalryman was far from favorable, with one of Sherman's staff officers describing him as vain, conceited, and ungraceful. Despite these negative perceptions, Kilpatrick performed well during the March to the Sea, a feat that may have been attributed to Sherman's close supervision. This decision to appoint Kilpatrick, despite his shortcomings, proved to be a strategic choice that contributed to the success of the campaign, probably because he was closely monitored by Sherman personally.

During the March to the Sea campaign, Kilpatrick led approximately five thousand troopers, who were divided into two brigades. In the initial phase, he was assigned to the Right Wing under Major General Oliver O. Howard, who was also a veteran of the Army of the Potomac, just like Kilpatrick. His primary responsibility was to protect Howard’s exposed right flank as his columns advanced from Atlanta towards Macon, which was to be bypassed. A trooper in the 9th Ohio Cavalry was well aware that the cavalry's role was to always be positioned between the infantry and the enemy. After Stoneman, who was now also part of Sherman’s army, was captured, Kilpatrick led a raid against Macon.

Reports of violence against southern citizens during the March have been exaggerated in modern times. However, Sherman was on the verge of ordering an increase in violence after receiving a specific report from General Kilpatrick. There were several reports of Union soldiers being killed and mutilated by Wheeler’s men. General Kilpatrick had included several of these reports in his official correspondence with Sherman, who monitored the situation but did not respond to the cavalry chieftain until Thursday, December 1, 1864. Kilpatrick had been informing Sherman of numerous instances of murder and mutilation of his men after they had been taken prisoner.

Sherman wanted to ensure that Kilpatrick had communicated his concerns to Confederate cavalry commander General Joseph Wheeler before issuing any retaliatory order. Once Kilpatrick had alerted Wheeler, if he obtained substantial proof that Rebel soldiers were committing any excesses, he would receive official approval to retaliate. In such a situation, Sherman’s command was: “You may hang and mutilate man for man without regard to rank.” The killings stopped for unknown reasons. It is worth noting that almost 40 years later, Filipino soldiers opposing Wheeler in that conflict were mutilated, and Wheeler claimed that the Filipino army was responsible.

 

The Shirt-Tail Skedaddle

During the spring of 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was by the side of Major General William T. Sherman as they engaged in skirmishes with Confederate cavalry throughout the Carolinas Campaign. One particular event that stood out was the Shirt-Tail Skedaddle, which became a legendary and humorous moment amid the campaign.

The allure of flirtation and suggestion is not a modern phenomenon reserved only for the present day. Marie Boozer, a prominent figure during the Civil War era, was known for her captivating charm and beauty. She was considered the "it" girl of her time, captivating the attention of many suitors with her coquettish ways.

Mary "Marie" Boozer's reputation as the most beautiful lady in Columbia, SC, preceded her and continued to flourish despite the turmoil of war. Her beauty was so renowned that even prominent figures like General John S. Preston and General Sherman were captivated by her charm. The scandalous tales surrounding Boozer and her ambitious mother, as depicted in  Tom Elmore's book “The Scandalous Lives of Carolina Belles Marie Boozer and Amelia Feaster: Flirting With the Enemy” tells the story of Boozer and her ambitious, Yankee-supporting mother, who was herself considered a beauty, married four times. Essentially, the mother was promoting her daughter in a social-climbing scheme.

Following Wade Hampton's departure from Columbia SC on February 17, 1865, the town succumbed to Sherman's forces and was engulfed in a devastating fire, vividly depicted in Royster's The Destructive War. Within three days, 1400 establishments and residences were reduced to ashes. Realizing that a war-torn, burnt-out town was not conducive to their aspirations, Marie's mother made the decision to accompany the Union army, with her daughter in tow. The soldiers, naturally, were more than willing to have two attractive women join their ranks. Despite the attention from the soldiers, Marie and her mother had already chosen a particular officer to look after them: Judson Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick and Marie were frequently seen together.

Judson Kilpatrick narrowly avoided capture by Wade Hampton during the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads on March 10, 1865. General Hampton, along with Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler’s Cavalry Corps, surprised Kilpatrick’s camp in an attempt to delay Kilpatrick’s cavalry and allow Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee’s infantry to cross the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville, North Carolina. Due to Kilpatrick’s overconfidence and failure to post enough cavalry pickets, Hampton and Wheeler’s attack caught the Federals off guard. Kilpatrick had to flee into a swamp wearing only a nightshirt to escape capture. Marie was left behind, reputedly in a scanty nightdress, to be cared for by the Confederate cavalry, who were (naturally) only too pleased to liberate her from the Yankees.

Despite the embarrassing incident, Kilpatrick managed to regroup his troops and recapture his camp after intense dismounted fighting. Hampton, upon learning that infantry reinforcements were on their way, decided to withdraw, having achieved his objective of keeping Kilpatrick’s cavalry occupied for a significant amount of time. The Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads left a mark on the federal commander’s reputation, but Kilpatrick’s escape in his nightshirt became a subject of ridicule known as Kilpatrick's Shirt-tail Skedaddle.

Marie overcame this minor setback to become a celebrity. She eventually made her way north, married a wealthy Northerner, and later married a French count after a dramatic divorce. Further sordid tales continue from there. Her life story became legendary, with tales of her reign as a queen of international society in Europe. Despite the initial misfortune at Monroe’s Crossroads, Marie’s resilience and subsequent adventures added to her intriguing narrative.

 

End of the War

On March 13, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick took part in the capture of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for which he was brevetted to brigadier general in the regular army.

  • Effective the same date (March 13, 1865) Judson Kilpatrick was brevetted to major general in the regular army “for Gallant and Meritorious Services” during the Carolinas Campaign.

  • Judson Kilpatrick led his cavalry during the Battle of Bentonville (March 19–21, 1865), the largest Civil War engagement fought in North Carolina, and the final battle of the Carolinas Campaign.

  • In early April 1865, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry served as Major General William T. Sherman’s escort when Confederate General Joseph Johnston surrendered his troops at Bennett’s Place.

  • On June 18, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major general of volunteers.

  • He later became the US Ambassador to Chile, marrying a lady from a wealthy family.

One last story about Judson Kilpatrick that you just could never make up. Lieutenant General Wade Hampton, the highest-ranking cavalry officer in the history of the Confederacy, and Major General William T. Sherman's chief of cavalry, Kilpatrick, had a long history of clashes on various battlefields during the Civil War. From Brandy Station to the Atlanta campaign, these two adversaries had faced off multiple times before the Carolinas Campaign.

Following Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, General Johnston led his troops to Greensboro and then sought to make peace with Sherman. Convinced that further bloodshed was unjustified, Johnston arranged to meet Sherman at James Bennett's house near Durham Station on April 17. The two officers, along with their entourages, gathered at the appointed time for negotiations.

As Sherman and Johnston conducted their discussions inside the Bennett house, General Hampton and his son relaxed outside. Hampton, dressed in his finest uniform and sporting a black felt hat with gold braid, exuded an air of confidence. Despite carrying a switch instead of his usual broadsword, Hampton's presence still conveyed a sense of authority and readiness to defend his beliefs.

 

Determined to end the fraternizing among his men, Hampton snarled, “Fall in!” When Kilpatrick approached to protest, remembered one witness, “Wade Hampton looked savage enough to eat ‘Little Kil’”, which prompted his antagonist to return “his looks most defiantly.”

“The war is over,” proclaimed Kilpatrick to his old adversary. “Let the men fraternize.”

“I do not intend to surrender,” snapped Hampton. He added that he would never fraternize with the Yankees, “but would retaliate with torch and sword” to avenge the style of war the North had waged. With a stern tone, Hampton again snarled at his troopers, “Fall in!”

The dialogue swiftly transitioned into a series of insults, blending humor with genuine animosity. Hampton initiated the exchange by mentioning Monroe’s Crossroads, prompting Kilpatrick to retaliate with accounts of battles where he had emerged victorious. The conversation escalated into a heated argument, drawing the attention of a crowd of officers and journalists. Johnston and Sherman eventually intervened to diffuse the confrontation.

Following the conclusion of the conflict, Hampton went on to serve as governor and later as a US Senator representing South Carolina. Kilpatrick became involved in politics and served as US Ambassador to Chile, where he met his wife. They went on to raise a family of several children.

In 1881, President James A. Garfield nominated Judson Kilpatrick to resume his role as ambassador to Chile, a decision that required Senate approval. Wade Hampton, despite their past rivalry, presented Kilpatrick's name to the Senate, leading to his unanimous confirmation for the position.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

References

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid/

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-dahlgren-affair-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-on-richmond/

https://www.battlefields.org/visit/heritage-sites/dahlgrens-cavalry-raid

https://civilwarmonths.com/2024/03/02/the-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-takes-a-sinister-turn/

https://www.historynet.com/kill-cavalrys-ride-sea/

https://www.wistv.com/story/22292427/columbias-it-girl-in-the-1860s-as-notorious-as-todays-celebrities/  

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/A-Southern-Belles-Notorious-Tale

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2017/02/16/wade-hampton-and-judson-kilpatrick/#:~:text=Beginning%20in%20the%20spring%20of%201863%2C%20Wade%20Hampton,Sherman’s%20chief%20of%20cavalry%20for%20his%20Carolinas%20Campaign.

If you thought automation and robotics are a modern development, then you could not be further from the truth. Hero (Ηρων) of Alexandria (sometimes referred to as Heron) is often hailed as one of antiquity's greatest engineers and inventors who was a monumental figure in the history of science and technology of the ancient world. His contributions to mechanical engineering, mathematics, robotics and automation continue to resonate, influencing the development of various technologies that are still relevant today.

Living in the 1st century CE, Hero is best remembered for his ingenious devices, many of which were powered by water, air pressure, and steam—pioneering innovations that made him the father of automation.

Terry Bailey explains.

An illustration of Hero’s aeolipile.

Life of Hero of Alexandria

Hero's precise dates of birth and death are not well-documented, but he is thought to have lived in the Roman province of Egypt during the 1st century CE, possibly under the rule of emperor Vespasian. Alexandria, the city where he resided and worked, was a vibrant intellectual hub, home to the famous Library of Alexandria and many scholars. Hero likely studied and worked at the Museion, (Museum), (μουσείο), of Alexandria, an institution that supported scientific research and housed many of the era's most important intellectuals.

Little is known about Hero's personal life, as much of the biographical data about him has been lost over the centuries. What is clear, however, is his status as a polymath. Making significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, physics, and engineering, and his works were highly regarded by scholars in both his time and during the Renaissance. His influence extended beyond the Greco-Roman world, impacting Islamic scholars who preserved many of his writings and eventually the European world.

 

Hero's Inventions

Hero's inventive genius is best demonstrated through his numerous mechanical devices. He designed automated machines powered by water, air, and steam that performed tasks automatically without human intervention. These inventions ranged from toys and gadgets to practical devices, many were seen as marvels of engineering during his time.

Some of his most significant inventions include:

 

1. Aeolipile (Hero's Engine)

Hero's most famous invention is the aeolipile, which is often considered the earliest recorded example of a simply steam-driven device. The aeolipile consisted of a spherical vessel mounted on a set of bearings. Attached to the sphere were two bent nozzles. When the vessel was heated, water inside it turned to steam, which was forced out of the nozzles, causing the sphere to spin. While the device was not used for practical purposes, it demonstrated the potential of steam power and laid the groundwork for his later developments in engine technology.

 

2. The Automatic Temple Doors

The ingeniously designed system developed by Hero to open and close temple doors using the same principles of steam power that Hero discovered on his Aeolipile was a marvel. In this device, the fire would be lit on an altar, heating water. The steam produced would flow into a container, causing it to displace air or liquid into a system of counterweights, which in turn moved the temple doors. This dramatic use of automation not only impressed worshippers but also showcased the mechanical principles Hero was developing and his ability to utilize steam.

 

3. Vending Machine

Long before modern convenience stores and vending machines, Hero designed what is often considered the world's first vending machine. His machine dispensed water when a coin was inserted. The coin would land on a lever that opened a valve, allowing a set amount of water to pour out. Once the coin slid off the lever, the valve would close. This was a prime example of Hero's knack for designing automated systems that performed repetitive tasks efficiently.

 

4. The Programmable Cart

The development of a programmable cart, which could be pre-set to follow a specific course was groundbreaking. The cart was powered by a falling weight, and strings attached to the wheels that controlled its direction. By adjusting the length of the strings, Hero was able to "program" the cart to move in a particular pattern. This early form of automation and programming revealed a very forward-thinking approach to engineering.

 

5. Hydraulis (Water Organ)

One of Hero's mechanical masterpieces was the hydraulis, an early form of a pipe organ that used water pressure to produce sound. The device utilized air pushed through pipes by water that produced music that was both automated and regulated. It is widely considered one of the earliest known musical instruments that combined mechanics with artistry, in addition to, basic mechanical programming. Needless to say, it is from this we derive the modern word hydraulics, (from Ancient Greek ὕδωρ (húdōr) 'water' and αὐλός (aulós) 'pipe)

 

6. Automata and Theatrical Devices

It was his fascination with automata, or self-operating machines, that offered him an opportunity to produce fully automated theatre shows complete with theatrical settings. He designed mechanical birds that could sing and even designed a miniature theatre complete with figures that moved automatically. These inventions were primarily used for entertainment, but they also highlighted Hero's understanding of pneumatics and robotics. His automata amazed audiences and further demonstrated his mastery of mechanical engineering.

 

Greatest Achievements and Legacy

Hero's inventions were undoubtedly revolutionary, but perhaps his greatest achievement lies in his ability to document and share his knowledge. The writings of his work have survived the ages, offering a wealth of information about the scientific and technological advancements of his time. Some of his most important works include Pneumatica, Automatopoietica, Mechanica, and Metrica. These texts not only describe his inventions but also delve into the principles of mathematics, geometry, and physics that underpinned his work.

 

1. Pneumatica

The treatise Pneumatica is one of his most famous works, where Hero describes a variety of machines that operated on the principles of air pressure and hydraulics. This includes devices like the aeolipile, the automatic temple doors, and various fountains. Pneumatica is a treasure trove of early engineering, showing how Hero applied scientific principles to everyday life, from temples to theatres.

 

2. Automatopoietica

In Automatopoietica, the focus was on automata and robotics. In this work he explained the mechanics behind self-operating devices, offering insight into how machines could perform tasks automatically. This work is an early exploration of robotics, showing that the concept of automating tasks was already being considered in ancient times.

 

3. Mechanica

The Mechanica explored the fundamental principles of mechanics, such as levers, pulleys, and gears. This work reveals the underlying principles of his inventions and shows Hero's broad understanding of mechanical forces. In Mechanica, he also delves into architectural engineering, explaining how large structures like temples and catapults could be constructed using mechanical systems.

 

4. Metrica

In Metrica, Hero turned his attention to mathematics and particularly geometry. This work is significant because it compiled various mathematical formulas and theorems that could be applied to practical engineering problems. Metrica includes formulas for calculating the area and volume of different shapes, as well as methods for measuring distances and determining the size of objects. This blend of theoretical mathematics and applied science helped bridge the gap between abstract geometry and practical engineering.

 

Influence and Impact

Although much of Hero's work was ignored during the Middle Ages, it was rediscovered by Islamic scholars and engineers during the Islamic Golden Age. His works were translated into Arabic and studied by thinkers like Al-Jazari, who expanded upon Hero's concepts. Later, during the Renaissance, Hero's writings became widely available in Europe, and his engineering principles were further developed by scientists and inventors such as Leonardo da Vinci.

Hero's greatest legacy is his role as a pioneer of automation. His inventions demonstrate that the idea of machines performing tasks independently of human intervention is not a modern one but dates back thousands of years. His inventions particularly the aeolipile, foreshadowed the Industrial Revolution, where steam engines became a driving force of change. Hero's work serves as evidence of the innovative spirit of the ancient world and continues to inspire engineers and inventors to this day.

In conclusion, Hero of Alexandria was a visionary whose work laid the foundations for automation and mechanical engineering. His life and inventions are remarkable examples of ancient ingenuity, and his influence extends far beyond his era. From the aeolipile to automata, Hero's devices were centuries ahead of their time, demonstrating a deep understanding of physics, mechanics, and mathematics. His writings and inventions not only entertained and served practical purposes in his time but also shaped the future of technology. As the father of automation, Hero's legacy endures, reminding us of the incredible potential for human innovation and development that ancient cultures provided humankind.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

Notes:

Automation

The word automaton is derived from the Ancient Greek automaton (αὐτόματον), which means "acting of one's own will". It was first used by Homer to describe an automatic door opening or automatic movement of wheeled tripods.

 

Robotics

We derive the term robotics from the Czech word robota meaning 'forced labor'. It was used for the first time, 100 years ago, in a play by the author of the same nationality, Karel Capek.

The full term robotics was first used by American science fiction author Isaac Asimov in 1941 from robot +‎ -ics by comparison to "physics ... hydraulics, celestial mechanics, and so on" in his short story Liar

 

Mechanics

The word Mechanics is derived from Ancient Greek: μηχανική, mēkhanikḗ, lit. 'of machines', is the area of physics concerned with the relationships between force, matter, and motion among physical objects.

 

Pneumatics

We derive the word Pneumatics from the Ancient Greek πνεῦμα pneuma' wind, breath and related to the use of gas or pressurized air in mechanical systems.

Unlike many other Poles who took part in the Civil War on the Union side, Count Adam Gurowski was not a soldier or a commander, and his actions had no influence on the shape of the Civil War. He was primarily a publicist whose sharp views on the actions of Abraham Lincoln's government were so violent and uncompromising that the US president even treated him as a potential assassin. Rafal Guminski explains.

Adam Gurowski.

Count Adam Gurowski: History and Political Activity in Europe

Adam Gurowski was born on September 10, 1805, into a family of noble origins and a count's title. He was the oldest of seven siblings. His sister, Cecilia, was married to Baron Frederiks, general adjutant of Tsar Nicholas I, and his brother, Ignacy, married the Spanish Infanta Isabella de Borbón, daughter of the Duke of Cadiz, and became a Spanish grandee. As the oldest son, he received a good education. After completing his education at the provincial school, he began his studies in Berlin, Leipzig, Göttingen, and Heidelberg. He studied law, philosophy, history, and classical philology.

After his studies, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland and joined a political party from the western part of the country, which sought to maintain the status quo and preserve the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland. The count quickly left the organization, and in January 1829 he was supposed to take part in preparations for the so-called coronation plot, the aim of which was the death of the Russian Tsar Nicholas I. After the outbreak of the November Uprising, Gurowski became involved in organizing the insurgent administration and civil authorities, which, however, ended in failure. The count became a staunch critic of the insurgent dictatorship, and after its fall, he became a member of the Patriotic Society, on behalf of which he demanded the dethronement of Tsar Nicholas I as the King of Poland.

Despite being blind in one eye, he joined the insurgents as an ordinary soldier and took part in battles, for which he was promoted to officer and received the Silver Cross of Virtuti Militari. After leaving the army, he became an envoy of the Patriotic Society to Paris, where in French magazines such as Trubine, François, National, Reformateur, La Révolution de 1831 and Le Globe, he undertook to criticize the authorities of the November Uprising. After the fall of the Uprising, Gurowski struggled with the instability of his political views and a tendency to sharp disputes, through which he quickly alienated people from his closest surroundings.

The year 1834 was special for the Pole because of the radical change in his views and ideas. His statements began to include comments of a pan-Slavic nature with Poland as the unifier of the Slavic world. He also viewed the Polish emigration differently, whose activities for the liberation of the country he had previously assessed negatively. The change in the count's views is best seen in his interest in the postulates of French utopian socialism. The changes in Gurowski's worldview reached even such basic assumptions as nation and patriotism.

The count's new views conflicted him with his family and Polish patriotic circles, but it was only the request for amnesty addressed to Tsar Nicholas I and the recognition of Russia as the country that was to lead the unification of Slavic nations that made Gurowski a national apostate. His stay in Russia turned out to be difficult. The state apparatus of the Tsarist regime forced him to reassess his views once again, and the complete isolation from his family and countrymen began to weigh heavily on him.

 

A Polish Count on American Soil

In 1840, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland to sort out his property and family affairs. The attempt to recover his confiscated property ended in failure. Finding himself in a hopeless situation, the count decided to emigrate. In April 1844, he left the border of the Kingdom of Poland forever and went to the West. For some time, he lived in Bavaria, Hesse, and then in Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy. Unable to settle down permanently, the Pole decided to leave the Old Continent and emigrate to the United States of America. On December 2, 1849, Count Gurowski found himself in New York.

The Pole's situation in America was quite stable at first. He had brought a supply of cash with him from Europe, and thanks to letters of recommendation, he had access to intellectual circles from the very beginning. After half a year, the count's financial situation began to deteriorate, which forced him to seek a source of support outside New York. In Boston, he was even offered a chance to lecture on law at Harvard University, but due to poor attendance, his lectures were quickly suspended. During this time, the Pole became keenly interested in the issue of slavery and took an active part in the life of the local intellectual social elite. He managed to get to know the leaders of American literature and poetry: Henry W. Longfellow and James R. Lowell, who, together with Gurowski, had in common a particular aversion to slavery and criticism of that institution.

Eventually, the Pole returned to New York and in 1852 took a job at the New York Daily Tribune. He wrote a column on European affairs, criticizing the rule of Tsar Nicholas I. Despite his continued interest in European affairs, the Pole was fascinated by his new homeland, which he admired in many ways. He traveled extensively in the northern and southern states, and published his observations in “America and Europe”, which was warmly received by critics and praised for its impartiality and insightful observations. The Pole was greatly impressed by his new homeland and in many ways recognized its superiority over European countries. He paid special attention to the unique relationship between power and freedom. In his opinion, in Europe, these two forces competed with each other, while in America, they cooperated for the common good and development. The count was equally impressed by the class structure of American society. In his opinion, the superiority of the American system was the lack of class division dominated by the aristocracy. He noted with admiration that the law was created on the initiative of the people and for the people, and not by a privileged ruling group.

Gurowski's relations with the New York Daily Tribune began to deteriorate significantly, and as a result, the count lost his job. From then on, for four years he supported himself by publishing articles in various magazines. During this time, he continued to write a book on the history of world slavery, which was published in 1860 under the title “Slavery in History”.

 

Abraham Lincoln under harsh criticism from Adam Gurowski

The Pole, who was increasingly vocal in his criticism of slavery, decided to move to the US capital, Washington, where he hoped for greater understanding of his views. He wanted to seek support from politicians from the radical wing of the Republican Party. Thanks to his work in the New York Daily Tribune and his authorship of the books: “America and Europe” and “Slavery in History”, the Pole was already a well-known person in Washington. He quickly established important acquaintances, including Salmon P. Chase, the future chief justice of the United States, and John A. Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he joined a volunteer unit under the command of Cassius M. Clay, which was to protect and patrol the capital. After the threat had passed, the Pole got a job at the State Department. His duties included reading the European press and preparing reports on articles of interest to the department. However, Gurowski lost his job after his diary, in which he criticized the government, the president, and the Union generals, fell into the wrong hands. Ultimately, he published the contents of the diary in December 1862. Thus began his crusade against Abraham Lincoln.

Adam Gurowski should be considered the most ardent critic of the federal government and the president at the time. Although the Pole spoke positively about Lincoln's inaugural address, the government's lack of decisive action in the event of the attack on Fort Sumter and the riots in Baltimore ultimately confirmed his dislike of Abraham Lincoln. Gurowski stated that the current Union government "lacked the blood" to defeat the Confederacy, and calling up 75,000 volunteers was definitely not enough to defeat the Confederacy. He also believed that the situation overwhelmed Abraham Lincoln, who had no leadership skills and could not compare to George Washington or Andrew Jackson. He considered the president's greatest flaw to be his lack of decisiveness, and he saw it as the cause of the Army of the Potomac's defeats. Gurowski also criticized Lincoln's personnel decisions, especially the delay in dismissing General George McClellan from the position of commander of the Army of the Potomac. However, Gurowski was able to appreciate Lincoln. He praised the president's behavior after the defeat at Chancellorsville. The count accused Lincoln of manipulating election promises and making military decisions through the prism of politics, which was to result in the deaths of many soldiers. However, in the face of the president's re-election, Gurowski showed a shadow of support for him, fearing for the election of the hated McClellan and his pro-slavery lobby.

There is no doubt that Gurowski's criticism of the president was often exaggerated, but in some aspects the Pole's opinion coincides with the contemporary opinion of historians. The count's attitude towards the president was dictated by his views and difficult, uncompromising personality. The Pole's most positive opinion of Lincoln was expressed after the president's death. In Gurowski's eyes, the murdered president became a martyr close to sainthood, who will go down in world history as a great and noble man.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

References

·       Carter R., Gurowski, „The Atlantic Monthly” 1866, t. 18, nr 109.

·       Derengowski P., Polacy w wojnie secesyjnej 1861-1865, Napoleon V, Oświęcim 2015.

·       Fisher L.H., Lincoln’s Gadfly, Adam Gurowski, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman 1964.

·       Garewicz J., Gracz. Rzecz o Adamie Gurowskim [1805-1866], „Res Publica”, 2 (1988), nr 5,

·       Głębocki H., „Diabeł Asmodeusz” w niebieskich binoklach i kraj przyszłości: hr. Adam Gurowski i Rosja, Arcana, Kraków 2012.

·       Łukasiewicz W., Gurowski AdamPolski słownik biograficzny, V.  9, Wrocław 1960-1961.

·       Stasik F., Adam Gurowski 1805-1866, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN ,Warszawa 1977.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

An introduction by the author Jeb Smith: I have often engaged in discussions with both lay people and academics on the various causes of Southern secession. I have also read many books from both sides' perspectives of the war. I consistently hear the same arguments used to support the claim that the South left the Union to preserve slavery. I will respond here to the most common arguments and, hopefully, explain why the evidence does not support this conclusion.

 

This is the final part in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here, and part 4 on the Confederate Constitution here.

John S. Mosby.

Slave Owners Rebellion?

It is said that the most robust support for secession came from the areas that had the most slaveowners. Based on this information, some would argue that the cause of withdrawal was slavery. High federal support in areas with limited slaveowners, such as West Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee, are prime examples to support this claim. But first, we must ask the following questions: What about the non-slave owners in Eastern Virginia who supported the South? What about non-slaveholding Western Tennesseans and Deep South voters who supported secession? Should we claim they prove secession was in support of abolishing slavery? What about the slave states that stayed in the Union? 

 In Confederate Arkansas, 20% of their households were slave owners, while Kentucky, which remained primarily loyal to the Union, had 23% of their households that were slave owners. In North Carolina, near-unanimous support for secession was given after Lincoln's call for volunteers when only 27% of the households in the state were slave owners. Arkansas voted 65 to 5 for secession after Lincoln's call for volunteers, yet only 20% of households were slave owners. Although there were few Southern Jewish Confederates slave owners, a large portion of the group supported secession. Further, thirteen percent of the Virginia delegates from high slave-owning counties voted against secession.

A closer look shows that politics, not slavery, drove the secession movement. For example, in Western Virginia, many areas with a low percentage of slave owners supported secession, while many areas that were politically supporters of the Whigs did not. James McPherson , [who used the argument we are discussing] acknowledges, "A good many low slaveholding Democratic counties voted for immediate secession, while numerous high-slaveholding Whig counties cooperation." In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts looks at this argument and finds that while slave ownership influenced secession votes, political party associations were far more critical.

"A high slave-owning country in eastern Virginia was far more likely to poll a strong secession vote than a low slave-owning county in western Virginia. But a whig county in eastern Virginia was more likely to show more union strength than a Breckinridge country, just as a Breckinridge county in western Virginia was more likely to show pockets of secession support than a whig county." 

-Daniel W. Crofts Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis University of North Carolina Press reprint 1993

 

Further, the area that would become West Virginia had long opposed unfair tax rates within Virginia.[1] West Virginia, like today, was more an extension of Pennsylvania and did not share the southern culture of Virginia. Immigrants from Pennsylvania mostly inhabited West Virginia. In Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee, Michael Korda wrote, "Mountainous northwestern Virginia...was largely populated by settlers from Pennsylvanian who were instinctively pro-union." The Appalachian areas of Western Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee had very different ethnic, political, and cultural histories. 

West Virginia supported the Confederacy more than commonly believed. Many of the Virginia votes against secession did come from the western part of the state, but that does not make them supporters of the Union. These counties were surrounded by federal territory and not so anxious to jump into a war. The most robust support for the Union came from the northern panhandle or around the railroads who had a financial interest in remaining in the Union. The rest of the state was decidedly pro-South. Further, many Ohio and Pennsylvania troops went to West Virginia recruiting stations [this was common] and formed union regiments, so the actual number of units supporting the North is inflated. 

Western Virginia's support for the Union is overstated for many reasons. Early in the conflict, much of western Virginia was controlled by the Union, and a pro-union "restored government of Virginia" was instituted. Elections were only held in areas of Union control, as pro south civilians and soldiers fled the state and thus, were not allowed to vote on whether or not to join the Union. Lincoln decided to recognize this pro north government that met in Wheeling. This Government was not officially recognized by the state of Virginia but was rather an unconstitutionally created, militarily controlled area. Therefore, basing conclusions on this occupied territory is not a fair judge of western Virginia's loyalties. 

The Union support in Tennessee seems to be exaggerated and possibly based on a limited number of Union newspapers during the war. As in Virginia, Daniel W. Crofts shows that counties that were "traditionally Democrat," the low-level slave-owning middle and western Tennessee counties, voted for secession. It was only in the Eastern area of the state where spare slave-owning counties held a strong pro-Union stance. 

Maryland's southern and eastern areas were similar in culture and politics to the rest of the South. In contrast, the pro northern areas of Maryland were heavily influenced by socialist immigrants from Europe and thus supported the North. Overall, support for the Union in Maryland also seems overstated.[2] The truth is that Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, and Western North Carolina remained Republican areas after the war. In contrast, the planter areas remained Democratic after the war.[3]

Lastly, if the Government did oppress a particular group, specifically slave owners, violating their rights, wouldn't we then expect strong resistance from that sector? For example, if today's politicians decided that pizza is unhealthy for us and outlawed it, then most pizza shop owners would likely be among those who would resist those efforts. Others may agree with the pizza owners but not be so willing to leave the country over it. So it should not be a surprise that slave owners were among the most dedicated secessionists. 

 

The Confederate Constitution did not allow States to abolish Slavery

The first argument one often hears is that the Confederate Constitution made it impossible to abolish slavery. It is true that the central Confederate government could not abolish slavery; however, neither could the federal government under the U.S. Constitution in 1861, as Lincoln accepted in his First Inaugural Address. Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa points out that freeing slaves was a state issue in the C.S.A. just as it was in antebellum America. Some have misread Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 of the C.S.A. Constitution, claiming it outlaws the freeing of slaves; however, this section applies only to Congress and not to the sovereign states.

As DeRosa argues that the clause even demonstrates that its authors believed non-slave states would join the Confederacy. This is also shown in Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1. Many in the Confederacy, including vice president Stephens, thought  the non-slaveholding upper Midwest would join the Confederacy because its free trade laws would encourage states connected to the Mississippi River to join. In his infamous Cornerstone Address on March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens said, "We made ample provision in our Constitution for the admission of other States...Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way." 

Professor DeRosa shows that the South wanted border states and the free Midwest states to join the Confederacy. During the constitutional convention, the delegates rejected Howell Cobb of Georgia's proposal that all states be required to be slave-owning. Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated, "Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself." The state of Georgia declared, "New States formed out of territory now belonging to the United States, or which may be hereafter acquired, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people thereof may determine at the time of admission." So while slavery was optional, states' rights were applied in the C.S.A., regardless of their choice. In The Confederate Constitution of 1861, DeRosa summarizes, "Thus, slavery was not a constitutional prerequisite for admission, and once admitted, a state could either reorganize or prohibit the institution." 

 

Slavery was the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy 

The first argument I am usually given is that Alexander Stephens declared slavery to be the "Cornerstone of the Confederacy." Although his speech has been named the "Cornerstone Speech, "he focuses also on tariffs, internal improvements, and economic issues. So why is most of his speech ignored and only a few sentences pulled out and attacked? The focus is on the portion that mentions slavery because slavery is what we want to be remembered as the primary cause of secession.

His speech was unprepared and given in the deep South state of Georgia. But I also think that there are other reasons to be cautious about the importance and understanding of the speech. 

For one, it is only a transcribed piece. According to the newspaper reporter who transcribed it, it "Is not a perfect report, but only a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens." It is simply an interpretation of a portion of his actual speech. According to Stephens, in writings after the war, the speech was misinterpreted and misunderstood. He claimed he was simply restating what Judge Baldwin of the United States Supreme Court had said. The following, written in 1884 by Richard M Johnson, summed up Stephens’ speech and his use of the term "cornerstone." 

"On the subject of slavery there was no essential change in the new Constitution from the old as Judge Baldwin [of Connecticut] of the U.S. supreme court had announced from the bench several years before, that slavery was the cornerstone of the old Constitution [1781-89], so it is of the new" [1833] .

-Quote in Lochlainn Seabrook , Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery Is Wrong Sea Raven Press 2014

 

Later, Stephens wrote that what caused secession was a dispute over  centralization. Stephens' speech simply clarified disputed subjects in the U.S. Constitution that are now clearly defined and beyond dispute in the C.S.A. Constitution. These subjects include tariffs, internal improvement, and slavery. He was trying to assure the audience that the states would decide on these issues, not the central government.

As the Kennedy twins argue, if anyone should have been seen as speaking for the whole country, it ought to have been the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis. His three most essential speeches (Farewell to Congress, First Inaugural in Montgomery, Second Inaugural in Richmond) all speak to the causes of secession. He mentioned that the reasons for secession were liberty, state's rights, tariffs, the Constitution, and preserving the Union from Northern Democracy. Jefferson Davis said, "I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Davis does discuss slavery in the first of those speeches, but stresses more the sovereign right of his state, Mississippi, to secede.

 

Fugitive Slave Laws

Some critics claim that the South only cared for states' rights when slavery was involved. To support this claim, they point out that the South objected to Northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave laws. This objection seems reasonable on the surface but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states' rights and the Union of 1860.

Even if we assume the premise for the sake of argument, it will only prove that the South did not care for the rights of the states in the North, not their state's rights. Since the rights of the people of each state were in place to secure its individual states citizen's rights and not another’s, this would make sense. And if one state decides not to follow the compact or contract [Constitution], disagreement will occur. This is also why the right to secession is vital to self-government. 

However, a proper understanding of states' rights is not lawlessness or states ignoring the Constitution; it is, in fact, the opposite. States' rights are in place to prevent the current politicians in power from violating the Constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case, the northern states were violating the Constitution because, in their minds, slavery was wrong in God’s eyes. As William Seward put it, "There is a higher law than the constitution." 

Within the Constitution, southerners were already granted the right to have their property returned. Northern states were violating this. Therefore states’ rights, as Jefferson said, are the best way of preserving the authority of the Constitution over elected politicians in D.C. who would seek to abolish it. The Constitution, not men, was the authority. The wording of the United States "supremacy clause" is set out below, occurring in Article VI. The wording of the Confederate equivalent, also occurring in Article VI, is identical apart from the substitution of "Confederate" for "United."

This Constitution and the Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or to be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Only the Slave States joined the Confederacy

"Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson threatened to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the Democrats won in 1860, the northern states would have been the seceding states, not the southern." 

- James R. and Walter D. Kennedy, The South Was Right! Pelican Publishing Gretna 2008 

 

Some believe it is self-evident that slavery caused secession because only slave states joined the Confederacy. So if I am defending the causes of the South and saying slavery was not the sole cause of secession, then why didn't any free states join? 

Keep in mind that when the Confederacy was first formed, there were more slave states still in the Union. Furthermore, if secession was driven by slavery, why didn't all the slave states join the South? Many volunteers fought for the South from the non-slave state of California. New Jersey produced two Confederate generals, Gen. Samuel Gibbs French and Gen. Julius Adolphus de Lagnel.[4] 

Many free states nearly left the Union as well. NY almost left the Union, and a middle confederacy might have formed, which could have included Penn, NY, NJ, MD, and D.E. On March 13, 1861, a report from A R Wright Esq of Georgia said Gov Hicks of Maryland was already corresponding with New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey governors about forming a central confederacy. Delaware, Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio were also later mentioned. The rise of a radical Republican party[5] to national prominence caused all sorts of upheavals. 

The South originally planned for the northwest to join them. When Robert Smith addressed the citizens of Alabama, he believed Indiana and Illinois would join the Confederacy. He desired the entire Union (excluding New England) to eventually be drawn under the new Confederate Constitution, restoring the Union of the founders. However, when Lincoln called for war, many were unwilling to face an uphill battle against the might of the North. Further, nationalism and patriotism drove many to volunteer for the Union. 

Also, consider that the states most influenced by the Jeffersonian tradition did leave the Union. And we must not forget the North maintained slavery during the war in MO, KY, DE, Washington DC, MD, Western Virginia, northern controlled sections of the Indian territory, and Union-controlled LA and Virginia. 

 

John Mosby said Secession was about Slavery 

The "Grey Ghost" of the Confederacy, John Mosby, said that the South was on the side of slavery during the war. Here, critics say, we have an admission from a former confederate informing us of what we all already knew, the South left to preserve slavery. Yet we are also told that post-war southerners are part of the "lost cause" and should not be listened to. Unless, of course, it is Mosby who was telling certain historians what they wanted to hear. Highlighting one statement made after the war by a southerner turned Republican trying to gain favor does not negate the factual purposes of southern secession.

Another argument used is not historical but rather philosophical. The argument is that the South could not care for freedom since they denied that freedom to others. However, this at most shows inconsistency in how they apply liberty. It also seems to assume the South left to preserve slavery. 

In response, the South said that its citizens had more rights and were allowed more freedom than the North. The majority of states in the North did not allow individuals the freedom to own or buy human property as the "slave optional"[6] states did. All men were created equal; southerners had rights like anyone to own their property, including slaves. This is also why African-Americans, Native Americans, Jews, and others had equal rights to own slaves in the South. States had maintained legal slavery since before the Union was created. The world had accepted slavery for thousands of years. African slaves had no rights in Africa when they were enslaved.

Slavery also offered the owner freedom of another sort that we will discuss later. During an interview with historynet.com over his latest book on Lincoln, distinguished historian Eric Foner said, "To most white Southerners, owning a slave was not a contradiction to the idea of freedom, indeed rather the opposite, owning slaves made a person more free, it and enabled you to achieve the economic independence that all Americans thought was very important to freedom." 

 

States' Rights were just to protect Slavery

"The doctrine of States’ rights was never a mere pretense for slavery, but reflected a deep passion for self-government rooted in Southern culture as well as an earnest understanding of the Constitution rooted in Southern history."

-James Rutledge Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters; The Constitutional Doctrine of States Rights in the Old South Shotwell Publishing Columbia SC 2018

 

The claim that states' rights were just an excuse to preserve slavery is a common one. This claim was covered earlier, but additional information is needed since it is repeated so often. State's rights were vital to our Union, self-government, and our whole political system. Therefore, the next chapter also will be dedicated to this topic, and after reading it, this objection should dissipate. 

As with the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution did not allow the central Government to abolish slavery. If the South had left to preserve slavery alone, why did they also add additional powers to the states? If states' rights were to protect slavery, and slavery was protected, why the need for an even more decentralized Constitution? If the intention was to protect slavery, then the United States Constitution would have sufficed, and there would have been no need to create a document ensuring more vital states' rights.

When the Confederate government overreached into state matters on non-slavery issues during the civil war, states resisted it. This resulted in states like Georgia threatening to secede. After slavery had ended in the United States, the South still maintained the most robust states' rights philosophy in the country. 

The first state's rights advocates in the U.S., many of whom spoke out against slavery, were Southern men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, St. George Tucker, George Mason, Patrick Henry, John Taylor of Caroline, and John Randolph. Patrick Henry called slavery "a lamentable evil,"but then said, "I deny that the general government ought to set them free." George Mason said, "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant." John Taylor of Caroline said, "The fact is that negro slavery is an evil which the United States must look in the face." 

 States' rights were also crucial to northern states before the civil war. There were Democrats in the North who were both for states' rights and against slavery. These two came together in the northern states' nullification of the fugitive slave laws. During the Civil War, Republicans wished to institute national banking, and many northern Democrats objected. Lazarus Powell stated, "The result of this course of legislation is to utterly destroy all the rights of the States. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here." No matter the issue, states had pushed back against federal overreach; slavery was simply one more area where the federal was intruding on the states' rights in 1860.

Preserving slavery was far from the primary goal of secessionists. During the war, Southern General Patrick Cleburne wanted to free all the slaves. Near the end of the war, Jefferson Davis sent diplomats to France and Britain, offering to end slavery if they would recognize the Confederacy.  Some Northern generals, like General George Thomas, were wealthy slave owners who fought for the North despite saying during the war, "I am wholly sick of states' rights." State's rights did not equal slavery. This misunderstanding comes from a post-war nationalistic approach to antebellum America. The next chapter will detail states' rights before the Civil War to help us understand why they were considered vital to self-government and the Union. 

 

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]           See George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864

[2]           For more info, see Jeb Stuart; The Last Cavalier by Burke Davis.

[3]           See "Man Over Money" the Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism by Bruce Palmer.

[4]           De Lagnel was appointed Brigadier General in the Confederate forces but for unknown reasons declined the rank, eventually rising to Lieutenant Colonel.

[5]           A party that has not changed in its modern form.

[6]           As the Kennedy’s described them.

Because she played her cards right, Anne of Cleves, as the fourth wife of King Henry VIII of England, managed to escape the wrath he inflicted on two of his previous wives and lived a privileged life on good terms with the king after their separation.

C. M. Schmidlkofer explains.

Anne of Cleves. Painitng by Barthel Bruyn the Younger.

It seems unfair that Anne of Cleves, the fourth wife of King Henry VIII, is known throughout history as the “ugly” wife (out of the six total he had) when in reality, it was her wit and intellect that makes her remarkable.

Born in Dusseldorf in 1515, Anne of Cleves was the daughter of Maria of Julich-Berg and Johan III, Duke of Cleves. Her marriage to Henry in Jan. 6, 1540, right from the start was fraught with disappointment and misunderstanding.

First, at the tender age of 24, she was invited to become Henry’s fourth bride based on a painting the king commissioned of her countenance which he later said looked nothing like her. But that came a bit later.

The marriage was a political arrangement fostered by Henry’s “fixer,” Chief Minister Thomas Cromwell who sought to temper the power plays of Spain and France while boosting Protestant influence with the union.

 

First meeting

The first meeting between the king and his bride was a massive fail, as Anne rejected Henry’s surprise meeting wearing a disguise and the relationship went downhill from there.

The complaints began in earnest then as the king complained she did not look like the commissioned portrait.

He called her a “Flanders Mare,” said she smelled, and reportedly refused to have marital sex with her.

Anne was a fish out of water in Tudor Court. Her upbringing did not include dancing and music, the heart of Tudor life, but was focused on learning duties of a noblewoman she was expected to become along with household skills.

In an attempt to integrate herself into life with Henry, perhaps nervous over what lay ahead, she had the foresight to socialize with her English travelers to learn customs and social skills as well as learning the king’s favorite card games during her voyage to meet him.

There is little known about Anne’s feelings about the marriage but she was keenly aware that two of Henry’s first three wives were either banished or beheaded and that the purpose of any union was to produce a male heir for the king.

 

And although Henry had his coveted son through his third wife, Jane Seymour, who died shortly after giving birth, he was forging ahead with the fourth marriage to secure another.

 

End of marriage

Seven months after his marriage to Anne, who served as queen consort, Henry notified his bride their marriage was to be annulled three days hence. His reasoning was the marriage was never consummated and for good measure threw in questions about Anne’s relationship years ago with her brief engagement to Francis the Duke of Bar in 1527.

Wisely, Anne knew that arguing or pleading to continue the marriage would not be successful and instead fully cooperated with the king’s wishes. Certainly, she had nothing to lose and as it turned out she gained beautifully.

Henry, possibly relieved over Anne’s cooperation, awarded her with a generous settlement, granted her the title of “the King’s Sister” as long as she remained in England and bestowed upon her large tracts of properties, such as Hever Castle – the former childhood home of Henry’s second wife, Anne Boleyn, whom he had beheaded in 1536.

Unlike Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who resisted the king’s demand for annulment on religious grounds, ending up banished from court until her death in 1536, Anne was allowed to keep her jewels, her metal plate and her dresses, and received a generous annual stipend along with revenue from other properties.

She willingly turned over her wedding ring to Henry, asking that it be destroyed “as a thing which she knew of no force or value.”

Henry seemed to value Anne’s counsel after their separation and continued a cordial relationship with her until he died in 1547.

 

Later years

At that point Anne lost her title of the “King’s Sister” and she moved away from court, leading a quiet life until Mary I, Henry’s daughter with his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and Anne’s stepdaughter, took the throne in 1553. Anne briefly came under suspicion when a plot to depose the queen and place Elizabeth I on the throne was investigated because Anne also had a close relationship with Elizabeth I, the daughter of the king and Anne Boleyn.

She escaped a charge of treason and remained cordial with Mary I until her death in 1557 at the age of 41 after a brief illness in Chelsea Old Manor, her home and former home of Catherine Parr, Henry’s sixth and last wife.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

References

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/sixwives/meet/ac_handbook_children.html

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-death-of-anne-of-cleves/

https://www.historytools.org/stories/anne-of-cleves-the-unwanted-queen-who-survived-and-thrived

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/henry-viii-and-anne-of-cleves/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anne-of-Cleves-queen-of-England

Operation Frankton was a covert military operation carried out by the Royal Marines during the Second World War and was one of the most audacious and daring raids in military history. The raid was executed in December 1942 and targeted the German-occupied French port of Bordeaux, a crucial hub for the Axis powers, which facilitated the movement of supplies critical to the German war effort. The operation, led by a small group of commandos, was remarkable not only for its boldness but also for its significant impact on the war effort. Delving into the main reasons behind the mission, the key figures involved, and the importance of the operation, it is also possible to lightly explore the separately planned parallel mission by the Special Operations Executive (SOE) against the same targets.

Terry Bailey explains.

Tannenfels, a German blockade runner which was sunk.

The Strategic Importance of Bordeaux

Bordeaux, located in southwest France along the Garonne River, was a vital port for the Axis powers during the Second World War. Following the fall of France in 1940, the German military took control of the port and used it to facilitate the movement of supplies utilizing blockade runners. The port was especially important for the transit of rubber, which was essential for manufacturing tires and other military equipment. The loss of Bordeaux would disrupt the supply lines and put a significant strain on the German war machine, making it a prime target for Allied forces.

The British Admiralty recognized the strategic value of targeting Bordeaux early in the war. However, conventional bombing raids were deemed too risky to the civilian population and ineffective due to the heavy defenses surrounding the port. The need for a more unconventional approach led to the conception of Operation Frankton, a mission designed to strike at the heart of the German supply chain with minimal resources.

 

The Planning of Operation Frankton

The idea for Operation Frankton was conceived by Major Herbert "Blondie" Hasler, a Royal Marines officer with a background in unconventional warfare and small boats. Hasler, who had previously served as a fleet landing officer in Scapa Flow, was then sent to Narvik in support of the French Foreign Legion in the Norwegian campaign, for which duties he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), mentioned in dispatches, and awarded the French Croix de Guerre.

He was known for his innovative thinking and determination and believed that a small, highly trained team could infiltrate the heavily guarded port using kayaks, plant explosive charges on the ships, and escape undetected. The operation would rely on stealth, surprise, and the ability to navigate the treacherous waters of the Gironde estuary.

Hasler's plan was initially met with skepticism by some members of the Admiralty, who viewed it as too risky and unlikely to succeed. However, Hasler's persistence, coupled with the lack of viable alternatives, eventually won over his superiors. The operation was given the green light, and Hasler was put in charge of selecting and training the men who would carry out the raid.

The men Hasler recruited became part of the Royal Marine Boom Patrol Detachment which was part of combined operations. The group who carried out the raid consisted of 13 Royal Marines, including Hasler himself, 6 two-man teams plus one reserve. The men were chosen for their physical fitness, mental toughness, and ability to operate under extreme conditions. They underwent rigorous training in kayaking, explosives, and navigation, practicing initially in the waters in southern England, and eventually in the cold and treacherous waters off the coast of Scotland.

The operation was set to take place in December 1942, during the winter, when the long nights would provide the cover of darkness needed for the raid. The men would use specially designed folding kayaks, nicknamed "cockles," to navigate the Gironde estuary and reach the port of Bordeaux. Once there, they would attach limpet mines to the hulls of the German blockade-running ships and then attempt to escape through France to Spain, with the help of the French Resistance.

 

The Execution of the Raid

The operation began on the night of the 7th of December, 1942, when Royal Navy submarine HMS Tuna sailed from Holy Loch in Scotland with the six kayaks and raiders on board, where the men were dropped off the coast of France, near the mouth of the Gironde estuary. The plan was for the men to paddle their kayaks up the estuary, cover a distance of around 70 miles, and reach the port of Bordeaux within four nights.

The hull of Cachalot was damaged while being passed out of the submarine hatch, leaving just five kayaks to start the raid. The reserve member of the team, Colley, was not needed, so he remained aboard the submarine with the Cachalot crew Ellery and Fisher.

The first night of the mission was fraught with difficulties. The strong currents and freezing temperatures took a toll on the men, fighting against strong cross tides and cross winds, Coalfish became separated. The remaining kayaks then encountered 5 ft (1.5 m) high waves and Conger capsized and had to be scuttled, once it became apparent that it would not be possible to bail it out, Sheard and Moffatt held on to two of the remaining kayaks, which carried them as close to the shore as possible, then had to swim for it, the remaining kayaks then came across the separated Coalfish.

As the conditions deteriorated Mackinnon and Conway in Cuttlefish became separated from the other kayaks in the group. After reaching the shore, MacKinnon and Conway evaded capture for four days but were betrayed and arrested by the Gendarmerie and handed over to the Germans at La Reole hospital 30 miles southeast of Bordeaux, while attempting to make their way to the Spanish border.

The 3 remaining kayaks, Catfish, Crayfish and Coalfish, covered 20 miles in five hours landed near St Vivien du Medoc, and laid up through the day, however, while resting during the day and unknown to the others, Wallace and Ewart in Coalfish had been captured at daybreak near the Pointe de Grave lighthouse where they had come ashore, now they were only 2.

The second night, 8/9 December, the two remaining kayaks Catfish and Crayfish paddled a further 22 miles in six hours. On the third night, 9/10 December, they paddled 15 miles and on the fourth night, 10/11 December, because of the strong ebb tide they only managed to cover 9 miles.

Hasler's original plan was for the raid to be carried out on the 10th of December, but now Hasler had to change his plan, due to the strength of the ebb tide they still had a short distance to paddle, so the remaining commandos laid up for another day, setting off to and reach Bordeaux on the night of 11/12 December.

On the night of the 11th of December, 1942, after four grueling nights of paddling, avoiding German patrols, the surviving commandos reached the port of Bordeaux. The men split into two teams, with Hasler and Marine Bill Sparks in the kayak Catfish taking one side of the port and Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in the kayak Crayfish taking the other side of the port. Using limpet mines, the teams successfully attached explosives to the hulls of six German ships. The explosives were set to detonate in the early hours of the morning, ensuring the commandos had time to extract themselves from the immediate area.

The raiders then made their escape, splitting up into pairs and heading in different directions to avoid capture. Hasler and Sparks managed to make contact with the French Resistance and began their journey south towards Spain. Laver and Ellery, however, were not as fortunate. They were captured by the Germans a few days later and executed, as part of Hitler's infamous commando order. Hasler and Sparks, after a harrowing journey through occupied France, eventually reached Spain and were repatriated to the United Kingdom via Gibraltar in April 1943.

 

The Aftermath and Impact of Operation Frankton

Operation Frankton was a tactical success, with 2 ships sunk, 2 ships several damaged and a further 2 ships slightly damaged. The damage to the ships and the resulting disruption to German supply lines had a significant impact on the war effort. The raid also had a profound psychological effect, demonstrating that even heavily guarded ports were vulnerable to small, highly trained commando units.

However, the mission came at a high cost. Of the 10 men who set out on the raid, only 2 survived, Hasler and Bill Sparks, 6 were captured and executed by the Germans, while 2 were lost at sea. Despite these losses, the bravery and determination of the Royal Marines became a symbol of courage and ingenuity.

 

Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, later praised the operation, stating that it shortened the war by six months. While this claim is difficult to verify, there is no doubt that Operation Frankton had a significant impact on the course of the war, both strategically and symbolically. The Germans defined the raid as the most daring raid of the Second World War.

 

The Parallel Mission by the Special Operations Executive (SOE)

While Operation Frankton is the most well-known raid on Bordeaux, it is important to note that the SOE had also planned a 2 part parallel mission against the same targets. The SOE, a British organization responsible for conducting espionage, and sabotage in occupied Europe, recognized the importance of disrupting German supply lines in Bordeaux.

A team led by Claude de Baissac of the Special Operations Executive were preparing to take explosives onto the ships when he heard the explosions of Hasler's limpet mines. The loss of the opportunity for Hasler and de Baissac to work together to strike a harder blow against the Germans was a hard lesson.

The other aspect of the SOE's plan was codenamed "Operation Josephine B," which involved a sabotage mission aimed at destroying the electricity supply to the port of Bordeaux. The mission was to be carried out by a team of SOE and French resistance, who would infiltrate the power station and plant explosives to disable the facility. The objective was to cut off electricity to the port, rendering the German ships and facilities inoperable.

Operation Josephine B was planned to take place around the same time as Operation Frankton, this aspect of the SOE mission was delayed due to difficulties in securing the necessary explosives and logistical support. By the time the mission was ready to go ahead, Operation Frankton had already been executed.

Despite the delay, Operation Josephine B was eventually carried out in June 1943, and the power station was successfully sabotaged. The mission achieved its objective, but the impact was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the ships in the port had already been severely damaged by Operation Frankton. The SOE's mission, while important, is often overshadowed by the daring and dramatic nature of the Royal Marines' raid.

The SOE was aware of the Royal Marines' mission, but the Royal Marines were unaware of the SOE mission due to SOE's secrecy policy. However, after Operation Frankton a clearing and controlling house was set up that would coordinate all special operations in the future ensuring that missions did not clash, this process is still in place today.

In conclusion, Operation Frankton stands as a testament to the courage, ingenuity, and determination of the Royal Marines during the Second World War. The raid on Bordeaux, carried out by a small team of commandos using unconventional methods, dealt a significant blow to the German war effort and demonstrated the vulnerability of even the most heavily defended targets.

The operation also highlighted the importance of coordinated efforts in warfare, as the separately planned SOE mission against the same targets showed. While both missions were successful in their own right, the lack of coordination between these missions is a reminder of the challenges faced by Allied forces in executing complex operations during the Second World War and the loss of a greater blow to the Germans.

The legacy of Operation Frankton lives on, not only in military history but also in the broader narrative of the Second World War. The bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Marines continue to inspire generations of military personnel and serve as a powerful example of what can be achieved through courage, ingenuity, and determination in the face of overwhelming odds.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

Notes:

The Bordeaux raiding team consisted of:

A Division

Blondie Hasler and Marine Bill Sparks in kayak Catfish.

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in kayak Crayfish.

Corporal George Sheard and Marine David Moffatt in kayak Conger.

 

B Division

Lieutenant John Mackinnon and Marine James Conway in kayak Cuttlefish.

Sergeant Samuel Wallace and Marine Robert Ewart in kayak Coalfish.

Marine W. A. Ellery and Marine E. Fisher in kayak Cachalot.

A thirteenth man was taken as a reserve, Marine Norman Colley.

 

Blockade runner

A blockade runner is a light fast merchant vessel used to evade a naval blockade of a port or strait. In addition to, speed it uses stealth, blockade runners transport cargo, such as food or arms to a blockaded city.

 

The Special Boat Service

The Special Boat Service (SBS) is a special forces unit of the United Kingdom under the control of Royal Navy admiralty and 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 from a naming point of view with the army special forces unit the Special Air Service, (SAS), warranting the SBS its own budget.

The reformation of the SBS after the Second World War as part of the Royal Marine Commandos is in part due to Operation Frankton by the Royal Marine Boom Patrol Detachment (RMBPD).

 

Words of Lord Mountbatten, the commander of Combined Operations

Mountbatten's words are carved into a stone at the Royal Marine Commando base in Poole, Dorset, (the current headquarters of the SBS).

"Of the many brave and dashing raids carried out by the men of Combined Operations Command none was more courageous or imaginative than Operation Frankton".

 

Point of interest:

The reader may be interested to know that the author of this article personally met and knew both Blondie Hasler and Bill Sparks in the early 1980s.

 

Herbert George "Blondie" Hasler, DSO, OBE

Herbert George "Blondie" Hasler, DSO, OBE (27 February 1914 – 5 May 1987) served as an officer in the Royal Marines and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

 

He was recommended for the Victoria Cross, for Operation Frankton, however, he was not eligible as his actions were not "in the face of the enemy" as required for that decoration.

 

William, (Bill), Edward Sparks DSM

William, (Bill), Edward Sparks DSM (5 September 1922 – 1 December 2002) was a British Royal Marine Commando in the Second World War.

He volunteered for hazardous service as a way of avenging his brother Benny who had died on the cruiser HMS Naiad.

One of his three sons Terry Sparks, became a Captain in the Royal Marine Commandos

 

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in the kayak Crayfish were also recommended for the DSM which at the time could not be awarded posthumously, so instead were mentioned in dispatches.

During the First World War, the Triple Entente was faced with the very real prospect of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Eager to secure their interests in the Middle East, the British and the French drew up the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region in the case of victory against the Central Powers. Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never enacted, it set the framework for the Middle East’s current borders and the name Sykes-Picot has since become synonymous to many with an era of colonial misrule.

Holly Farrell explains.

Sir Mark Sykes.

Francois Georges-Picot.

During the First World War, the Triple Entente was faced with the very real prospect of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Eager to secure their interests in the Middle East, the British and the French drew up the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region in the case of victory against the Central Powers. Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never enacted, it set the framework for the Middle East’s current borders and the name Sykes-Picot has since become synonymous to many with an era of colonial misrule.

Holly Farrell explains.

 

‘The Sick Man of Europe’: Why did the Allies anticipate the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire?

By the turn of the 20th century the Ottoman Empire, which controlled areas across North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, was struggling both economically and militaristically. The Ottomans became unable to maintain such an extensive bureaucracy and a vast decentralized political structure. Although reforms attempted to modernize the Empire, these measures were of short-lived success and contributed to a growing debt crisis in the late 19th century. The Ottoman Empire also lost many territories in the decades preceding the First World War. France gained control of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881, Italy took Libya in 1911, and Britain took control of Oman in 1861, the Arabian Gulf Chiefdoms in 1820, Kuwait in 1899, Egypt in 1882 and Sudan in 1899. In October 1914 the Ottoman Empire joined the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, hoping to confront Britain and France, and benefit from German aid.

 

Drawing up the Sykes-Picot Agreement

Negotiations between the Entente Powers of Britain, France, and Russia for the division of Ottoman territories began in November 1915. They were initially between Mark Sykes, a scholar and guard in the British military during the Boer War, and Francois Georges-Picot, a lawyer-turned-delegate for the French government. However, the eventual agreement was also up to the assent of Russia. All three powers aimed to secure territory, trade routes, and oil wealth, but also had their own ambitions for particular areas. Russia hoped to gain ports in the Dardanelles, including Constantinople, to access trade routes to the Black Sea. Britain wanted to control Palestine due to its proximity with the Suez Canal, and secure access to India through the Persian Gulf. France, meanwhile, was the largest investor in the Ottoman Empire and sought to maintain their influence in the region to protect their investments.

The Entente Powers had already given Constantinople and its surroundings areas to Russia as part of the Constantinople Agreement in March 1915. This crucially granted Russia access to the Mediterranean Sea. Meanwhile, the Sykes-Picot Agreement sought to coordinate Britain and France’s interests in the region. On May 16 1916 a deal was secretly signed between Sykes and Picot and approved by Russian foreign minister, Sergey Sazonov.

Under the terms of the agreement, France was allocated control of Syria, Lebanon, Cilicia, and Mosul, whilst Britain was allocated Baghdad and Basra and northern Palestine (this included the ports of Haifa and Acre, and modern-day Jordan). However, as shown on the map below, these territories were divided into spheres of control and those of ‘influence’. It was decided that Palestine would be put under international administration due to its holy sites. Independent states would be created in the remaining Arab territories.

 

Britain’s contradictory promises: Sykes-Picot, the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, and the Balfour Declaration

Whilst Britain, France and Russia appeared to have settled their vision for the post-war Middle East, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was threatened by two additional contradictory agreements which Britain had made with the Arab nationalist and Zionist movements.

In July 1915, several months prior to the beginning of Sykes’ and Picot’s negotiations, Hussein bin Ali (Arab nationalist leader and Sharif of Mecca) wrote to Henry McMahon (the British High Commissioner in Egypt) to request British support for an independent Arab state. McMahon was initially reluctant to collaborate with Hussein, believing his territorial ambitions to be ‘extravagant’, however he was eventually persuaded to offer his support. When McMahon replied to Hussein, British and French troops were suffering defeats by Turkish forces in the Gallipoli campaign. McMahon believed that an Arab uprising would distract and weaken Ottoman forces in the region, enabling the Entente troops to make a tactical withdrawal. Consequently, Britain saw an advantage in working with Hussein. Over the course of ten letters between July 1915 and March 1916 (referred to as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence) Hussein and McMahon negotiated a plan of British support for an independent Arab state if the Arab nationalists launched a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. However, the British excluded three areas from the independent state as they claimed they were not ‘Arab enough’. This affected the provinces of Basra and Baghdad, the Turkish districts of Alexandretta and Merson, and the districts of Syria that lay west of Damascus, Homs, Aleppo and Merson. The nationalist uprising began in June 1916 and, although the Entente provided limited manpower, they provided officers, gold, and munitions to support the war against the Ottomans. However, the Hussein-McMahon correspondence lacked the formality of a treaty and its contradiction with Britain’s plans under Sykes-Picot ultimately made it an empty promise.

However, Britain’s conflicting plans for the Middle East did not end here. On November 2 1917 the British government issued an arrangement for Palestine in the Balfour Declaration. In a letter to prominent Zionist Lord Rothschild, the British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour outlined Britain’s promise to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This support was later publicized. However, the question of why the British government issued this declaration has still gone unanswered. Whilst some historians have argued that many members of the British government had Zionist sympathies, others have suggested that antisemitism increased support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Alternatively, it has been argued that Britain was trying to gain the support of Jews across the world, particularly in the US, who the British hoped would take a more active role in the war. However, this declaration was a bitter betrayal for the Arabs.

Despite initially being kept secret, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was eventually publicized by the Bolsheviks in late November 1917 following the Russian Revolution. Leon Trotsky published the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Izvestia newspaper on November 24 1917 to expose the plans which Vladimir Lenin called ‘the agreement of the colonial thieves’. This caused a political scandal for Britain and France and created a strong mistrust between the Entente and Arab nationalists. The British assured their allies in the Middle East that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was merely discussion amongst the Entente powers and that they would stand by the Arab people.

 

The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, Entente forces (mainly the British) occupied the former Ottoman territories. Whilst the original division of land planned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not materialize during peace negotiations, the borders of the newly created states were similar to those agreed upon in 1916. This was determined in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

Before signing the Treaty of Sèvres, the former Entente powers met at the Conference of San Remo in April 1920 to determine the division of the Ottoman Empire’s territories. Under article 22 of the newly created League of Nations, certain former colonies were classed as ‘mandates’ (ranging from A to C depending on perceived levels of development) if they were deemed unable to govern themselves independently. The former Ottoman territories became Class A mandates, meaning that they had ‘reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such a time as they are able to stand alone’ (as stated in Article 22). As a result, the newly created states in the Middle East became British and French mandates rather than colonies.

 

Under the Treaty of Sèvres:

·       The Ottoman Empire was dismantled

·       Turkey had to relinquish claims to territories in North Africa and the Middle East

·       Greece gained Smyrna (now called İzmir), Adrianople (now called Edirne), most of the hinterland to Constantinople and the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles

·       Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine became British mandates

·       Lebanon and Syria became French mandates

·       Morocco and Tunisia became French protectorates

·       Hejaz became an independent kingdom (it would later unite with Najd and other districts in 1932 to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

·       Armenian independence was recognized

·       The League of Nations controlled the Turkish straits

·       British, French, Italian and Greek troops occupied Turkey

·       The Turkish army could have a maximum of 50,700 men, it was forbidden to have an air force, and the navy could have a maximum of thirteen boats

·       The Allies were to control Turkish finances

 

The Treaty of Sèvres was resented in Turkey and popular discontent fueled an uprising against Sultan Mehmed VI. The new nationalist government under Kemal Atatürk drove the Greek and British troops out of Turkey and repudiated the Treaty of Sèvres. Consequently, the Allies agreed to renegotiate the settlement and signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

 

Under the Treaty of Lausanne:

·       All the territories given to Greece were returned to Turkey

·       All foreign troops were ordered to leave Turkey

·       Turkey regained control of the Straits, but they had to remain demilitarized

·       Turkey was recognized as the successor to the Ottoman Empire

·       The Allies no longer imposed controls over Turkey’s finances or military

·       The Allies dropped demands for autonomy for Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia

 

The Legacies of Sykes-Picot and the post-WW1 settlement in the Middle East

Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never implemented, it set the framework for the modern-day frontiers of the Middle East. This has created a lasting resentment in the region, especially amongst Pan-Arabists who oppose the division of majority Arab-populated territories into separate states and associate Sykes-Picot with European colonial misrule. Sykes-Picot has since been targeted by various groups in the region, including by the so-called Islamic State who declared their intention to remove Sykes-Picot as they bulldozed the border between Iraq and Syria in 2014.

One of the most controversial aspects of the division of former Ottoman territories was the eventual fate of Palestine. As a British mandate, Britain called for the migration of Jews to Palestine, paving the way for region to be declared a Jewish state (known as Israel) once they ended their mandate in 1948. This led to the displacement of the Arab population and the ongoing conflict between Israeli and Palestinian groups.

The post-First World War settlement in the Middle East also lay the groundwork for sectarian conflict elsewhere in the region due to the limited regard for the ethnic, tribal, religious, or linguistic groups of the new states’ inhabitants. Although the British and French eventually withdrew from the region in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been hardly any change to national borders. Crucially, this has left the Kurdish population without a homeland as the Treaty of Lausanne failed to accommodate for Kurdish self-determination.

As sectarian conflict continues in the Middle East, the question remains as to whether the national borders created by the Treaty of Sèvres can survive into the future, or if all traces of Sykes-Picot need to be removed to ensure peace in the region.

 

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

 

 

References:

Al Jazeera. ‘A Century on: Why Arabs Resent Sykes-Picot’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/sykes-picot-100-years-middle-east-map/index.html.

Al Tahhan, Zena . ‘More than a Century on: The Balfour Declaration Explained’. Al Jazeera, 2 November 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/11/2/more-than-a-century-on-the-balfour-declaration-explained.

Britannica. ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement.

Britannica. ‘Treaty of Lausanne’, 17 July 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Lausanne-1923.

Britannica. ‘Why Was the Ottoman Empire Called “the Sick Man of Europe”? ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/question/Why-was-the-Ottoman-Empire-called-the-sick-man-of-Europe.

Kearey, Kat. International Relations and Global Conflict C1890-1941. Oxford AQA History Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Muir , Jim. ‘Sykes-Picot: The Map That Spawned a Century of Resentment’. BBC News, 16 May 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36300224.

Oxford Reference. ‘Sykes–Picot Agreement’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100546581.

Oxford Reference. ‘Treaty of Sèvres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100457377.

Rabinovich, Itamar, Robbie Sabel, and Oded Eran. ‘A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Current Challenges’. Institute for National Security Studies, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep08741.

The Avalon Project. ‘The Sykes-Picot Agreement : 1916’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp.

The Economist. ‘Unintended Consequences’, 12 May 2016. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2016/05/12/unintended-consequences.

‘The Treaty of Sevres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://historylearning.com/modern-world-history/treaty-of-sevres/.

United Nations Digital Library. ‘Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/829695.

Young, George. ‘Deceit in the Desert: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire’. Hohonu 17 (2019): 37–40. https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/DeceitintheDesertThePartitionoftheOttomanEmpire.pdf.

In the long centuries when superstition held sway and the lines between humans and animals were more fluid than a flagon of ale, a most peculiar legal practice emerged across medieval Europe - the prosecution of animals. From pigs and pigeons to rats, bulls, and even the lowliest of flies, no creature was exempt from facing judicial scrutiny for alleged crimes against man or God. This bizarre legal tradition spanned over five centuries, indicting and often executing animals found guilty of trespassing, property destruction, or perpetrating violence against humans.

Richard Clements explains.

Trial of a sow and pigs at Lavegny.

The Rationale Behind the Madness

The notion of arraigning a barn swallow or bovine may seem utterly ludicrous today, but to medieval minds steeped in religious doctrine and folklore, it was a perfectly reasonable concept. The theological underpinning was that animals, having been granted a place in Biblical scripture and the Christian faith through stories like Noah's Ark, possessed souls and a degree of moral agency. As such, they could be held accountable for their misdeeds just like humans were.

Furthermore, canon law, which governed religious jurisdictions at the time, made little distinction between human and animal personhood. This blurring of boundaries, combined with widespread beliefs in sorcery, evil spirits taking animal form, and anthropomorphic folklore from Aesop's fables to Reynard the Fox, set the stage for animal prosecutions to take root across medieval society.

 

Farcical Yet Grim Proceedings

Despite their inherent absurdity, these trials followed strict court protocols with a sadistic kind of rigour. Animals were afforded legal counsel, permitted to testify in their own defence (through interpreters, of course!), and endured the same torturous punishments as convicted human criminals if found guilty.

One particularly infamous example of these trials is depicted in the 1995 film, "The Hour of the Pig," which dramatizes the trial of a pig accused of murder in 15th-century France. While the film offers a dramatic interpretation, it highlights the bizarre reality of these proceedings.

Less extreme but no less farcical was the 1519 case of a group of canine delinquents indicted in the Swiss municipality of Basing for persistently disrupting church services with their barking and unpriestly habit of nipping at parishioners' legs. Found guilty of "blasphemous barking" and "unchristian conduct," they were excommunicated from the parish, a punishment likely of little consequence to the canine culprits.

 

Insect Eradications and Rat Trials

Of course, easier targets for the courts were the ubiquitous pests that plagued medieval life - insects and rodents. In 1478, a plague of locusts descended upon Berry, France, like a biblical hailstorm. After ecclesiastical appeals to get them to leave went unheeded, the insects were taken to court and found guilty of an array of charges, from trespassing to violence against the citizens. An edict of banishment was ordered and carried out through ritual burnings and exorcisms, a farcical attempt to control the uncontrollable.

In 1508, the curious case of Autun, France, saw the appointment of the curiously named "Attorneys for the Defence of the Rats." These brave (or perhaps foolhardy) souls argued valiantly on behalf of their rodent clients accused of ravaging the region's grain supplies. Ultimately, the rats lost the case, and professional rat catchers were hired to round them up and execute the court's sentence of death.

 

Last Rites at the Gallows

No case better exemplifies the intersection of legal propriety and deranged superstition than the trial of a Rouen pig in 1386. Dressed in a jacket and trousers (one can only imagine the indignity!), the condemned sow was tried, found guilty of killing and eating a human infant, confessed through an interpreter (though the details of this confession remain shrouded in mystery), and was promptly hanged in the public square while receiving its last rites from a priestly executioner. The scene, though documented in a woodcut from the era, defies logic and leaves one shuddering at the extremes of medieval justice.

These bizarre proceedings dragged on until the 18th century, finally fading out amid the Age of Enlightenment and humanity's tentative re-embrace of reason over hysteria and dogma. While manifestly ludicrous by modern standards, the tradition of prosecuting animals serves as an eerie window into a time when logic and hysteria shared an uneasy bedfellowship.

 

Conclusion

Absurd, merciless, yet strangely meticulous, the practice of indicting animals placed society's extremes on full display - the coexistence of elaborate legal systems, religious fervour, superstitious fear, and utter disregard for reason. With humans now firmly at the apex of the hierarchy of consciousness, such trials are rightly resigned to history's most astonishing legal curiosities. Though the very notion defies modern secular sensibilities, for centuries it was a grim reality when animals had their judgement day in court. Their stories, however, serve as a reminder of the strange and fascinating ways humanity has grappled with the natural world and our place within it.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

References

Evans, E.P. "The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals." London: Heinemann, 1906.

Hyland, Paul. "Animal Trials of the Middle Ages: An Overview." The Medieval Review, 2017.

BBC News. "When Animals Were Put on Trial." Available at: www.bbc.com/news

The Guardian. "The curious history of animal trials." Available at: www.theguardian.com

Barber, Malcolm. "Superstition and the Law in Medieval Europe." European History Quarterly, 1993.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The Siege of Syracuse (213–212 BCE) was a pivotal event during the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE), marking one of the most famous confrontations between the Roman Republic and the Kingdom of Syracuse in Sicily. This siege is notable not only for the Roman military efforts but also for the significant role that the famed Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes played in the city's defense. The strategic importance of Syracuse and the unique defensive technologies invented by Archimedes made this a defining moment in history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Hiero of Syracuse calls Archimedes to fortify the city. By Sebastiano Ricci.

The Context of the Siege

By 213 BCE, the Second Punic War was raging, and Rome was embroiled in a life-or-death struggle with the Carthaginian general Hannibal, who had invaded Italy. Syracuse, a wealthy and strategically important city-state, had been a Roman ally but shifted its allegiance to Carthage after the death of its ruler, King Hiero II. His grandson, Hieronymus, had initially taken the throne and allied Syracuse with Carthage. However, after a brief reign, Hieronymus was assassinated, leading to a power struggle and the eventual rise of a pro-Carthaginian faction within the city.

Rome, determined to bring Syracuse back into its fold, sent a large force under the command of Marcus Claudius Marcellus in 213 BCE. Marcellus' goal was to lay siege to the city, retake it for Rome, and neutralize its potential as a Carthaginian stronghold in the Mediterranean.

Archimedes, widely considered one of the greatest scientific minds of antiquity, played a crucial role in the defense of Syracuse. Although his reputation today rests largely on his contributions to mathematics and physics, during the siege, he demonstrated his genius in military engineering. According to historical accounts, most notably from the Roman historian Livy and the Greek historian Polybius, Archimedes designed a series of war machines that helped defend the city against the Roman attacks.

The Roman forces initially underestimated the difficulty of capturing Syracuse. They planned to use a combination of a naval blockade and a land assault to breach the city's formidable defenses. However, Archimedes' inventions dramatically hindered these efforts.

 

Archimedes' War Machines

1.   The Claw of Archimedes ("The Iron Hand"), one of the most famous of Archimedes' inventions was a massive crane-like device known as the "Claw of Archimedes" or the "Iron Hand." It was designed to defend the city against naval attacks. The Claw consisted of a long arm attached to a series of ropes and pulleys, which extended over the city walls. When Roman ships approached the city, the Claw could be lowered into the water to grasp the hull of the ship. Once securely attached, the mechanism would lift the ship out of the water and violently shake or drop it, often capsizing the vessel. This machine struck fear into the Roman sailors, as ships were unexpectedly lifted and destroyed by an invisible force.

2.   Catapults and Ballistae, Archimedes also designed advanced versions of traditional siege weapons like catapults and ballistae. These machines were used to launch massive stones and projectiles at Roman ships and troops from a great distance. What made these weapons especially effective was their accuracy and the ability to fire at varying ranges, depending on the size of the projectile. Archimedes reportedly calculated the optimal angles and trajectories for launching these missiles, maximizing their impact.

3.   The Burning Mirrors (Archimedes' Heat Ray) perhaps the most legendary of Archimedes' supposed inventions was a device designed to set Roman ships ablaze using concentrated sunlight. Ancient sources, particularly later accounts from writers like Galen and Anthemius of Tralles, describe Archimedes using large, polished bronze or copper mirrors to focus sunlight onto the sails of Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. Although this story has long been debated among historians and scientists—some suggesting it was more myth than reality—it has endured as part of the lore surrounding Archimedes' genius. Modern experiments have attempted to recreate the "heat ray" with varying degrees of success. While it is unlikely that Archimedes' mirrors were responsible for destroying entire ships, they may have played a psychological role in the defense by intimidating Roman forces, even if simply projecting concentrated sunlight onto the Roman ships.

4.   Defensive Walls and Siege Countermeasures, Beyond his more dramatic inventions, Archimedes also contributed to the reinforcement of Syracuse's defensive walls and the city's overall preparedness for siege warfare. He designed mechanisms for rapidly reinforcing weak points in the walls and designed traps that could be triggered when Roman forces attempted to scale or breach them. These countermeasures significantly delayed Roman progress and prevented the besieging army from quickly overwhelming the city's defenses.

 

The Roman Response and the Fall of Syracuse

Despite the effectiveness of Archimedes' war machines, the siege dragged on for two years. Marcellus and his legions were frustrated by their inability to break through the city's defenses. Over time, the Roman commander recognized that a direct assault would continue to be costly, so he shifted his tactics. He tightened the naval blockade and waited for a moment of opportunity.

In 212 BCE, that opportunity came. The Roman forces exploited a lapse in vigilance among the defenders. During a festival honoring the goddess Artemis, part of the Roman army managed to scale the city walls under cover of night and opened the gates from within. Roman soldiers poured into the city, and Syracuse fell to the invaders.

Tragically, Archimedes' life ended during the sacking of Syracuse. According to historical accounts, Marcellus had given explicit orders that the scientist was to be captured alive, likely due to his immense knowledge and the potential value he held for Rome. However, during the chaos of the city's capture, a Roman soldier encountered Archimedes, who was reportedly engrossed in a mathematical problem. When the soldier ordered Archimedes to follow him, the mathematician allegedly responded, "Do not disturb my circles," referring to the geometric figures he was drawing in the sand. The soldier, either misunderstanding or ignoring the orders, killed Archimedes on the spot.

Marcellus was reportedly dismayed upon learning of Archimedes' death, and he ensured that the scientist received full funeral honors.

 

Aftermath and Legacy

The fall of Syracuse was a significant victory for Rome during the Second Punic War. It removed a major ally of Carthage in the Mediterranean and secured Sicily as a Roman province. Marcellus' triumph over the city earned him the nickname "The Sword of Rome." However, the legacy of the siege is forever intertwined with the genius of Archimedes. His war machines, whether fully real or partially mythologized have captured the imagination of generations.

Archimedes' contributions to science, engineering, and mathematics continue to be studied to this day. His work in mechanics, particularly the understanding of levers and pulleys, laid the foundation for centuries of technological development. The siege of Syracuse demonstrates not only the practical applications of his genius but also the tragic loss of knowledge that sometimes accompanies war.

In the centuries following the siege, Archimedes became a symbol of the intersection between science and warfare, showing how intellect could alter the course of battle. The inventions attributed to him are part of the broader history of ancient military engineering, influencing Roman and later Byzantine defensive technologies.

In conclusion, the Siege of Syracuse stands as a testament to both the military prowess of Rome and the extraordinary intellect of Archimedes. While the Roman victory secured Syracuse and furthered their dominance in the Second Punic War, it was Archimedes' remarkable contributions to the city's defense that left an indelible mark on history.

His innovative war machines not only delayed the inevitable fall of Syracuse but also showcased the power of scientific ingenuity in warfare. The ultimate capture of Syracuse by Rome marked a turning point in the Second Punic War, weakening Carthaginian influence and securing Sicily as a critical province for the Roman Republic.

However, the siege also highlights the tragedy of war, symbolized by the death of Archimedes, one of antiquity's greatest minds. His mathematical and engineering brilliance, demonstrated during the siege, became a source of fascination for later generations, blending fact and legend.

Archimedes' inventions—whether fully realized or part of myth—illustrate the potential for scientific thought to shape the course of history.

His understanding of mechanics, optics, and physics laid the groundwork for future developments in science and engineering, while his role in the defense of Syracuse remains a symbol of how intellect can influence the outcomes of even the most formidable military struggles. Ultimately, the Siege of Syracuse serves as a reminder of the enduring legacy of Archimedes and the often bittersweet intersection of science, war, and human endeavor.

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

 

 

Notes

Sicily was originally taken from Carthaginian control during the First Punic War (264–241 BCE) and became the first province of the Roman Republic. The Kingdom of Syracuse was an allied independent region in the southeast of the island and a close ally of Rome during the long reign of King Hiero II

 

Point of interest:

One of the most interesting anecdotes concerning Archimedes and the King of Syracuse is the story of him running down the street naked shouting Eureka, (Greek: εὕρηκα, I have found).

Archimedes noticed while taking a bath that the level of the water in the tub rose as he got in, thus realizing that this effect could be used to determine the golden crown's volume, which was a problem the king had set him to discover if the metal worker who had made the crown was cheating the king out of gold by mixing fewer precious metals.

The water is incompressible, therefore when the crown was submerged it would displace an amount of water equal to its volume, thereby, dividing the mass of the crown by the volume of water displaced, and its density could be obtained.

Needless to say, if less precious and less dense metals had been added, the density would be lower than that of gold. This is what Archimedes discovered thus proving that silver had been mixed in with the gold and the metal worker was indeed cheating the king out of gold.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post