The Washington Post’s Leader for Decades: The Life and Times of Katharine Graham

Few people have had such a profound impact on the American political and journalistic consciousness as Katharine Graham. Her major role was leading the Washington Post from 1963 until 1991. David Huff explains.

Katharine Graham in 1975, available here.

Overview

Born Katharine Meyer in 1917 in New York City, she was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, who was an American businessman and publisher of the Washington Post newspaper, which he acquired in 1933. After attending Vassar College, she transferred to the University of Chicago, where she received her B.A. degree in 1938. After college, she worked for a year as a reporter for the San Francisco News. After briefly employed in San Francisco, she joined the editorial staff of The Washington Post. In 1940, she married Philip Graham, who was a graduate of Harvard Law School.

In 1946, Philip Graham assumed the position of publisher of the Post. He served as publisher and later co-owner of The Washington Post and its parent company, The Washington Post Company. During his years with the Post Company, Graham helped The Washington Post grow from a fledgling local paper to a national publication and the Post Company expand to own other newspapers as well as radio and television stations. Tragically, however, Phillip Graham committed suicide in August 1963 after suffering from manic depression. As a result, Katharine Graham was transformed from a reticent widow to publisher and chief executive of The Washington Post. Strong-minded, gifted and engaging, Ms. Graham recognized the extraordinary talent of other outstanding individuals in the publishing community. She hired Benjamin Bradlee first as managing editor and then as executive editor to handle the newsroom operations of the growing and well-respected newspaper. Under their tutelage, the Post confronted major crises—the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate Crisis—that no one could have foreseen. Yet, Graham and Bradlee both possessed strong instincts and judgment, a tenacious and unequaled work ethic, and outstanding interpersonal skills that enabled them to survive these political tribulations.

The Pentagon Papers Controversy

In 1967, former Secretary of State Robert McNamara commissioned a study known as The Pentagon Papers, which was the history of the Vietnam War and the decisions made therein by American foreign policy makers from 1945–1967. As the Vietnam War escalated, with more than 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by 1968, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg—who had worked on the project—came to oppose the war, and decided that the information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be available to the American public. In March 1971, he gave a copy of the report to The New York Times, which then published a series of shocking articles based on the report’s most appalling secrets. In sum, the papers revealed that the United States government had broadened the initial war in Vietnam into Southeast Asia with the military bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks. At that time, these seminal events were not reported by the American press.

On June 13, 1971, the Times began to publish a series of articles based on the information contained in the Pentagon Papers. After several published pieces, the Justice Department issued a temporary restraining order against further release of the material, arguing that it was harmful to the country's national security. In the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Times and The Washington Post joined forces to fight for the right to publish, and on June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the government had failed to prove harm to national security and that publication of the papers was justified under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press.

Due to the favorable Supreme Court ruling, The Washington Post's reputation was enhanced by Graham's defiance of a restraining order by pursuing publication of the Pentagon Papers. To her credit, Graham fought U.S. government efforts to censor the material, which, in turn, upheld the First Amendment right of the free press against prior restraint by the government.

The Watergate Crisis

A year later, on June 17, 1972, a break-in at the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. triggered a political earthquake that shook the foundation of America's democratic institutions. The subsequent cover-up by people who worked for or with the White House, and by Nixon himself, created a constitutional crisis that not only threatened America's "checks and balances" in its democratic representative system, but also called into question the presidency itself.

During the crisis, Katharine Graham faced the full wrath of the Nixon administration as the paper's reporters—Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward—sought to piece together the story of the Watergate burglary. Throughout the Watergate Crisis, Woodward and Bernstein were fed leaks by a deep-background source they referred to as "Deep Throat," who was later revealed to be FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, Sr. They kept up a constant stream of leads demonstrating not only the direct involvement of Nixon officials in Watergate activities, but also that the Watergate wiretapping and break-in had been financed through illegally laundered 1972 campaign contributions. In a shocking cover-page article, The Washington Post reported on October 10, 1972 that the Watergate bugging incident stemmed from a "massive, nationwide campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the president's re-election committee officials.”(1)

"The investigation of such a tangled web of crime, money, and mischief  would have been hard enough under the best of circumstances, but it was made much harder given the unveiled threats and major and minor harassments by a president and his administration,”(2) she wrote in an excerpt from her 1997 memoir, Personal History. At the end of 1972, Republican businessmen challenged the licenses of two Florida TV stations owned by The Washington Post Company, causing the company's stock price to drop by more than 50 percent.(3) "Sometimes I wondered if we could survive four more years of this kind of strain, of the pressures of living with an administration so completely at odds with us and determined to harm us.”(4)

Graham described her own role in the unfolding story as "a kind of devil's advocate, asking questions all along the way -- questions about whether we were being fair, factual, and accurate.”(5) She downplayed the notion that she had shown courage by standing by her reporters and editors, saying she had no choice. "By the time the story had grown to the point where the size of it dawned on us, we had already waded deeply into its stream.”(6)  "Once I found myself in the deepest water in the middle of the current, there was no going back.”(7)

After months of painstaking investigation by Woodward and Bernstein and U.S. Congressional hearings, coupled with the discovery of President Richard Nixon's secret tape recordings, the United States Supreme Court stepped into the unfolding political drama. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Court ruled in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court. On July 30, 1974, Nixon complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes to the American people. Nine days later, on August 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon delivered a nationally televised address in which he announced his decision to resign the presidency, effective at noon on August 9, 1974. At that time, Vice President Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as the nation's 38th President of the United States.

Watergate had a profound impact on the American system. It provided the impetus for pernicious cynicism and collective alienation toward the American political process. The intrinsic values and institutions that many people held as sacred-honesty, trust, company loyalty, and faith in a benevolent government-had been tainted and corrupted during the crisis. As a result, many Americans lost faith in the federal government and the reputation of the presidency was greatly damaged. Furthermore, many Americans were astounded that their democratically elected officials were culpable of such undemocratic and criminal behavior. Moreover, from an historical perspective, the Watergate Crisis served to deepen the political disenchantment and growing cynicism that commenced after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the bloody quagmire in Vietnam.

Legacy

Katharine Graham faced many tribulations, but she rose above them, created a name for herself and, in my opinion, forever changed the face of journalism. Graham, who became America's first female Fortune 500 CEO, was a mover and a shaker whose breadth of knowledge and depth of character touched a deep and resonating chord in American society. Her life gave meaning to the phrase that adversity builds character. Through tragedy and disappointment, Ms. Graham's sense of moral clarity enabled her to adapt, to endure, to develop a will of iron in order to bear the burdens that fate dealt her with uncommon grace. Rather than retreat into isolation and self-pity, she rose to the occasion to summon and cultivate political and journalistic impulses that existed within her and in turn, utilized them to strengthen America's democratic institutions. 

Conclusion

Finally, despite Ms. Graham's continual political tribulations during the Nixon presidency, she maintained not only a firm and steadfast loyalty, but also a strong and unswerving commitment to her brave, passionate and determined counterparts at the Post. Ms. Graham's unparalleled support for her reporters as well as her editors led to landmark journalism, which reverberated through the highest levels of our government and culture. She helped to create one of the world's great newspapers, and her legacy lives on through the quality of reporting and editorial writing that Americans have come to expect from the Post and written media at large.

In essence, what the American people should gain from Ms. Graham's telling experience is that our political system is tilted more toward personal aggrandizement than to individuals willing and able to make a real contribution. Graham's story underscores the reality that a person's loyalty and experience - though important attributes - are often sacrificed for political expediency.

Ultimately, her success is directly related to those superb professional skills but, as with all great people, it is the result of the priceless qualities of depth of personality and strength of character. It is those latter traits, which America needs more than ever, that make her truly irreplaceable and will cause her to live forever.

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

Now read David’s article on Jackie Kennedy’s influence on the arts here.

Klein Venedig: A 16th Century German Settlement in Modern-Day Venezuela

The European colonization of South America had a number strange episodes - and perhaps one of the most unusual was Klein Venedig. This was an attempt to set up a German settlement in modern-day Venezuela - however the focus ended up being heavily on the search for the fabled lost city of gold - El Dorado. Erick Redington explains.

Portrait of Phillip von Hutten, a Lieutenant-Governor of Klein Venedig in the 1540s.

An Imperial Election

The Holy Roman Empire. As Voltaire wrote, it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. A patchwork of about 1,800 states, free cities, margravates, and other polities. This politically complicated entity would be the start of one of the strangest, and most little known, colonization efforts in the New World. In 1519, Emperor Maximilian I died, and a new Emperor had to be crowned.

In any other empire, crowning a new Emperor would be as simple as consulting a family tree. However, this was the Holy Roman Empire. It was an elective monarchy. Seven electors, important rulers within the Empire, would choose the new Emperor. Elections were not straightforward, for the Holy Roman Empire was extremely decentralized and individual rulers were very jealous of their own powers and rights in relation to the Emperor. To achieve a majority of the electors and be chosen Emperor would come at a high cost, both politically and economically. 

The election of 1519 would not be a normal election. The three men who put themselves up as candidates were the three most famous rulers in Europe at the time: Henry VIII of England, Francis I of France, and Charles I of Spain. Between these three men, much of the wealth and power of the continent rested. The wealth that could be spent by the three men whetted the appetites of the seven electors. It would take a significant amount of politicking and deep pockets to win the election.

Charles could not be too careful. Henry VIII and Francis I ruled countries outside the Empire, while Charles was Archduke of Austria in addition to King of Spain. That made him the “German” candidate. But he had been raised in the Low Countries and was primarily King of Spain. If Charles lost the election, his possessions would be too far-flung and diverse to defend easily. And if Francis I became Emperor, a German Holy Roman Empire united to France under a young and ambitious king would be unstoppable. For Charles, the election had to be won, no matter the cost.  And cost meant money. Lots of money. Charles would borrow enormous sums of money for “gifts” to the electors and others who could influence them. Although Charles would in the end be elected unanimously, this belies the closeness of the election. Once the election was won, however, the bill would come due. The loans would have to be repaid.

Buying a Crown

Medieval and early modern Europe had a thriving banking industry. Two of the biggest names in banks of the time were Fugger and Welser. These families grew rich lending money to kings, dukes, princes, and even private individuals. Lending money to a man who now ruled half of Western Europe was a great business strategy. Charles knew he would have to repay his creditors. His problem was that from the moment of his election, he was beset by crises throughout his domains. Crises are expensive, but if he defaulted on his loans, he could not expect to get more in the future. There had to be another solution.

It was only 27 years before Charles’ election that Columbus made his first voyage to the New World. By the time Charles was elected, his first throne, the Kingdom of Spain, owned half of the Western Hemisphere. Spain’s empire was more than a land of milk and honey. It was a land of gold and silver. Landless mercenaries leaving Europe poor and unloved were returning ennobled and wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. Treasure ships were sailing into Cádiz and Seville bringing untold wealth. For Charles, this wealth was needed more to pay for wars against Francis, who was still bitter about losing the election, the Ottomans, who were attempting to push Islam further into the heart of Europe, and Protestants, who were threatening the very existence of the Empire and the religious unity of Western Europe. Bartholomeus Welser was a shrewd businessman. As the leader of his family’s banking firm, he had backed the right horse in the Imperial election. He wanted to be repaid by Charles but knew about the Emperor’s financial situation. He saw the wealth coming from the New World and wanted in. 

The Province of Venezuela had been founded in 1527. Meant to govern the area around the Orinoco River, the economic potential of the area seemed limitless. There were rumors of gold mines, gems, silver, and many other riches. The problem was the area was undeveloped and unexplored. Welser saw an opportunity to extract the wealth of the New World directly, and Charles saw a cheap way to settle a debt. In 1528, Charles granted a charter for Welser to take control of an area roughly corresponding to Venezuela. The southern boundary was to be the “South Sea,” still undefined. All this territory was to be controlled by Welser but also in the name of Charles. Welser would have to fund an expedition, conquer the country, and build defenses at his own expense. If the rumors of boundless riches were true, the expense would be a pittance in comparison.

To Find El Dorado

Welser named Ambrose Ehinger as Captain-General of the new colony of Klein Venedig, or Little Venice in German. On February 24, 1529, 480 men of German, Spanish, and Portuguese extraction, along with some slaves, landed at Santa Ana de Coro, on the north coast of Venezuela.  Very soon, it became clear that rumors of massive gold mines right on the coast were simply rumors. Ehinger was still determined to make his mark, and his fortune, and decided to explore the interior of the continent. Some say he was searching for El Dorado, the fabled lost city of gold. Others that he was looking for the mines of the natives who were in possession of some gold. Ehinger prepared his expedition carefully. After all, the grant went an undefined amount of space south, and he did not know how far he would have to go. 

Ehinger’s expedition, accompanied by a number of native porters, departed and explored the shores of Lake Maracaibo. The record of brutality towards the natives of the area, the Coquivacoa, and those who were part of his expedition was horrendous. The porters were tied together by the neck in a long rope-chain and subjected to a brutal work regimen. When one man would fall out due to fatigue, he would simply be decapitated, thus freeing the rope and allowing the chain to move on. The natives, finding this brutal man, and his brutal expedition moving through their territory, fought. On September 8, 1529, he would establish the city of Neu Nürnberg, later called Maracaibo. Despite the fierce resistance of the natives of the area, and not finding the gold he wanted to, Ehinger saw the expedition as a success. He would outfit another.

The second expedition would be prepared like the first. Large numbers of native porters and a large military contingent. The expedition would set off south and west from Coro in 1531. This excursion would become a hell on earth. The Spanish would devastate native villages. The terrain was horrible. Brutality toward the native porters was normal. One group, sent back with 70,000 pesos worth of gold, had to abandon the treasure and eventually turned to cannibalizing what remained of their porters. For almost three years, the expedition roamed the jungles of Klein Venedig looking for the city of El Dorado, or at least a little more gold. Ehinger ordered his soldiers to take all gold from the natives they could find. He, however, forbade his men from buying food from the natives, even though the natives wanted to sell them food. Ehinger was, amazingly after all this, allegedly desirous of not annoying the natives.  Eventually, Ehinger would be shot in the neck with a poison-tipped arrow and died on May 31, 1533.

A New Governor but the Same Goal

The successor of Ehinger would be George von Speyer, who was appointed the new governor by Charles. Speyer was determined to succeed where Ehinger had failed. He would find his fortune, he was sure. Speyer outfitted an expedition of about 2000 men and set off for the interior in 1535. This expedition would cross mountains and rivers. They would be the first expedition to cross the Mal-País. The natives were just as hostile to Speyer as they had been to Ehinger. They were also smart. They would encourage Speyer and his men that just over the horizon was a city where people were dress well and lived lavishly in a gold city. Speyer and his men overlooked the warning signs of disaster and pressed on, driven to emulate Cortés and Pizarro.  

Once the expedition had gone a few hundred miles, Speyer decided to split the expedition to cover more ground. The plan was to meet up at a designated rendezvous point later on. After further travel, and several mutinies amongst his men, Speyer was forced to turn back and return to Coro. One source says that 310 of the 400 men under Speyer died. The other half of the expedition was commanded by Ehinger’s second in command Nicholas Federmann. Federmann had been angry that he had not been made his friend’s successor and had been superseded by Speyer. He had been the choice of the Welser, but Charles had overruled them and appointed Speyer instead. Federmann was seen by many of Charles’ advisors as a cruel and overbearing man. Whether he was either of those things, he was a great leader of men. It has been written of him that he was tireless in driving his men but led by example and did not expect any man to do that which he would not do himself.

Now, presented with an opportunity for independent command, Federman grabbed his chance with both hands and made his own expedition. Through force of will, he brought his expedition over the Andes and into the valleys of New Granada, ignoring Speyer’s orders. Although Jiménez de Quesada would make it to southern Colombia first by a few weeks, the achievement of Federmann was not small.  A confrontation would occur between Quesada, Federmann and Sebastián Belalcázar, all three of whom led expeditions to the area and therefore believed they had rights to the treasures of the region. After a period of negotiation, all three men agreed to go to Spain together and request King Charles settle the dispute. Charles would eventually rule in favor of Quesada. Federmann would return home to Augsburg where he was promptly fired by the Welsers.

Speyer would go on to make several more expeditions. He would continue to search for three more years after the famous first expedition ended. By 1539, sick and worn out from expeditions, Speyer resigned as governor of Klein Venedig. He wanted to return to Europe but was persuaded to turn back at Santo Domingo out of a sense of duty. He would not live long, however, dying in 1540 at Coro. After Speyer’s death, the governorship passed to Phillip von Hutten. Hutten had been on Speyer’s expeditions and, shockingly, still had a desire for more.

To Do the Same Thing Over and Over…

Hutten would begin his first expedition in August 1541. Falling for the old native trick of convincing the explorers that all the gold was just over the next hill, Hutten pressed on with reckless abandon. The natives pointed Hutten to the Omaguas tribe, a powerful and warlike tribe. When the expedition arrived in Omaguas territory, Hutten was convinced this was the gateway to the fabled El Dorado. He was determined to capture living Omaguas to find out more. This resulted in a battle with an estimated 15,000 natives. The expedition, worn down through years of travail by this point, could not cope with this force. Hutten decided to return to Coro and mount a major expedition. 

Hutten and his men were convinced they had been within the grasp of the fabled city. All Hutten had to do was get back to Coro, mount another expedition, and he would be the next Cortés. What he did not know was that he had been gone too long. In 1545, after not hearing from Hutten for years, the Spanish had appointed Juan de Carvajal as Captain-General of Venezuela. When only 100 miles from Coro, Carvajal, realizing that if Hutten returned, he would lose his position, captured the unfortunate Hutten. Hutton, accompanied by one of Bartholomew Welser’s sons and the expedition’s bodyguard, were all hacked to death on Carvajal’s orders.

By this point, the colony was in chaos. None of the riches that had been promised had been found. The only thing the Welsers had really accomplished was to capture natives and sell them into slavery. There were no farms, no commerce. Everyone had been so wrapped up in finding El Dorado that a true settler colony, the original intention, did not exist and there was no real plan to build one. Hutten would be the last governor of Klein Venedig. This sad disaster of a colony would not be definitively put out of its misery as Hutten had been. It would die with a whimper. Although the legal existence of the colony would continue for a while longer, the attempt to settle Germans, and the Welser’s grand dreams of limitless gold were over.

What do you think of Klein Venedig? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

Controversial Heritage: An Approach to Racism from the Land of Black Pete

In the eyes of foreigners, the Netherlands has a controversial tradition. Every autumn an old man named Sinterklaas (a figure based on Saint Nicholas, patron saint of children and one of the sources of the popular Christmas icon of Santa Claus) with a staff, a miter and a long beard arrives in the Netherlands on a steamboat accompanied by dozens of servants, called zwarte pieten (Black Petes). These Petes have traditionally been painted black, have bright red lips, gold earrings, and curly hair. Black Pete hands out sweets and presents to children. To outsiders this whole tradition has an obvious stereotypical racist character, but for many Dutch people it is an innocent tradition: they say this has nothing to do with racism. In the last ten years in particular there has been increasing criticism of the racist character of Black Pete, both from minority groups within the country and from abroad. This is a very delicate situation in the generally liberal and tolerant Netherlands. Fierce discussions and demonstrations by supporters and opponents characterize the past ten years. Why is this tradition so highly valued and how should it continue?

Bram Peters explains.

Illustration from Jan Schenkman's book Sint Nikolaas en zijn Knecht (Saint Nicholas and his Servant).

Although Sinterklaas is a tradition for children, it’s always the adults who say Black Pete must stay black, not the children. This has to do with the fact that adults have an image from their youth of what Black Pete should look like. Children don’t have those memories. And that’s why it’s so sensitive. Adults feel that a tradition they have only fond childhood memories of may not be passed onto the next generation. Their tradition is under pressure to change and that hurts. Every survey shows that it is mainly older Dutch people who want to stick to the traditional appearance of Black Pete. Younger generations are more open to change.

Over the past ten years you can see that the annual recurring discussion is starting to influence public opinion. The number of Dutch people who are in favor of the traditional Black Pete decreases a little every year, but it is going slowly. International events also influence this shift, for example UN researcher Verene Sheperd’s criticism of the Dutch tradition in 2013 and the worldwide Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Slowly the tradition is changing: every year more Black Petes appear with only some soot smudges on the face rather than full blackface. Other Petes are painted in all kinds of colors.

When something is part of your own culture and tradition, it can be very difficult to understand that it can be hurtful to others. Something that is perceived as racist by others cannot be easily understood for people for whom it is part of their identity. There seems to be a blind spot. In addition, we live in a time when the world is changing rapidly. Globalization, migration and the rise of the internet and social media mean everyone is connected to everyone and old habits and customs are constantly under discussion. Many people experience a loss of identity and tend to cling to the old. Polarization is the result. It is more important than ever to keep in touch with each other and really understand why one wants change and why that change takes time for the other.

Global discussions

Similar discussions about racist heritage are also present in other countries. Take for example the situation in the United States, where statues of so-called Civil War “heroes” such as General Robert Lee are removed and the use of the Confederate flag on government buildings and other locations has become highly controversial. The statues and flag are widely seen by minority groups as symbols of slavery and oppression. And they find the majority of historians on their side. For white residents of the southern states, the situation is sometimes more nuanced. They see these symbols as part of their past and heritage and do not necessarily associate them with racism. The aforementioned blind spot seems to be present here too because most of these people aren’t white power supremacists. It is essential that this group enters the dialogue with the group that do find these symbols racist, even if one may not be used to talk with the other. This will help to get a better mutual understanding and hopefully accomplish a re-evaluation of the controversial heritage that simply exists, even if it will take time. And to make a stand together against the white power movement that is not only openly racist but is even proud of it and cannot be reasoned with.

What do you think about re-evaluating controversial heritage? Let us know below.

About the author: Bram Peters is an historian from the Netherlands. He has a MA in political history from one of the major Dutch universities, and specialized in national identity and traditions, as well as parliamentary history, the second world war and war propaganda. He worked for years as a curator at one of the largest war museums in the Netherlands. He likes to get involved in public debate by writing articles for national and regional newspapers and websites.

The Mormon Battalion’s Movement to Western America - Part 2: The Journey West

The story of the Mormon Battalion remains an enduring legend. Recruited by the U.S. government from among those heading to Utah to gather with Brigham Young, this group of some 500 men plus women and children undertook a trek across the American Southwest during the Mexican-American War. The battalion is usually consigned to a footnote in the story, but it is a story which looms large in the settlement of California. In that context, the legend of the battalion and how it has found a truly revered place in the history of the Mormon faithful is significant. In part 2 below, Marvin McCrary explains the progress of the battalion as they made their way across the west.

You can read part 1 on the origins of the Mormon Battalion here.

Mormon Battalion Monument in Presidio Park, San Diego, California, available here.

In the decades before the Civil War, the concept of Manifest Destiny energized the nation. It would be President James K. Polk, upon his election in 1844, who would take it upon himself to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy than his predecessors, including war with Mexico in 1846. At the height of this fervor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had begun their exodus from Nauvoo, Illinois. Persecution and mob violence had made it impossible for them to stay. Under the direction of Brigham Young, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they would leave their homes and most of their belongings behind. Colonel Thomas L. Kane, who was friendly to the Saints and sympathetic to their plight, advocated on their behalf with the national government. President Polk authorized U.S. Army officials to recruit Saints to enlist and join the Army of the West to conquer California.

Colonel Kane accompanied Elder Little as far as St. Louis, carrying Polk’s orders to Colonel Stephen W. Kearney, who commanded the troops at Fort Leavenworth. At the time, the Saints were building temporary settlements in the Missouri River Valley when an army expedition under Captain James Allen met up with them. Allen worked with Brigham Young to recruit the necessary volunteers. The battalion would consist of five companies, each with approximately 100 men. Upon the arrival of Colonel Kearney at Council Bluffs, the battalion was enrolled into service, and Allen became Lt. Colonel of Infantry. Allen mustered them into the service of the United States Army for the period of one year. The first four companies left July 21, 1846, and the fifth left two days later. Thirty-five women and forty-two children, most of whom were families of the soldiers, would accompany the battalion on their journey.

As the volunteers readied for their departure, Church leaders met privately with the men. Those whose families would not be joining them in the march were promised that their families would be cared for by the Church. In what was likely to have been of reassurance and comfort to the men, Brigham Young told them that if they were faithful and kept to the commandments, they would not face any battles. Furthermore, Young prophesied that the actions taken by the Saints would leave an indelible mark upon military history. Each man in the battalion received forty-two dollars in clothing allowance, as well as wages for service. The women were also paid for doing laundry for the group. Members of the battalion donated a portion of their clothing allowance to the Church, and thereby provided essential funds for the planned trek to the Rocky Mountain West. This contribution on behalf of the battalion would prove to be of great value, and President Young said they were the "present and temporal salvation" of the Saints. A farewell ball was held,  and although they had  no proper floor on which to dance, Lt. Colonel Allen observed the mirth and merriment of the occasion.

Go West

The prior hardships faced by the Saints would have prepared them for the difficulties they would inevitably face in the journey ahead. When Horace Greely wrote “Go West, young man,” the west he was referring to was wild and untamed, and held a fascination for the adventurous soul. There was fertile farmland available for those who possessed a strong arm, a stout heart, and the willingness to work hard for the opportunity. This was especially attractive to those who hoped to escape the rampant poverty and unemployment which plagued the big cities of the East. However, settlement would prove to be a mixed blessing. While many would find new opportunities in the West, this would displace other groups including Native American tribes and Mexicans. Brigham Young hoped that the participation of the Saints in the war would not only grant free transportation to the West, but that it  would also “let the Mormons be the first [United States soldiers] to set their feet on the soil of California.”

The battalion took a ferry across the river, and then marched to Fort Leavenworth, arriving on August 1, 1846. They were given munitions and arms, and every soldier was able to sign his own name on the payroll, much to the surprise of the paymaster, as only a third of the previous recruits who had enlisted had been able to do so. The battalion would quarter at Fort Leavenworth for two weeks, during which time Colonel Kearney’s regiment had already embarked for Santa Fe to conquer New Mexico for the United States. The men of the battalion continued to hold religious services and strict moral conduct, unusual for soldiers. The days were extremely hot, and Colonel Allen himself became gravely ill. Allen did not recover by the time the Saints left Leavenworth on their way to Santa Fe, and thus was the battalion placed under the command of Captain Samuel Hunt. The road was not easy, and Wiliam Coray remarks that the heat and close quarters lended itself to further discomfort. He observed that “the suffering of the sick [was] intolerable…The cause of sickness I attributed mostly to the plums and green corn which we used [to eat] so freely at the Fort.”

Allen’s death

On August 26th, the men received news that Colonel Allen had succumbed to his illness. Allen’s death struck the men hard; William Hyde wrote that it “struck a damper to our feelings. We considered him a worthy man and looked upon him as a friend.” It was assumed that Captain Hunt would be appointed officially, however it was not to be. In his place, Lieutenant Andrew Jackson Smith, a 1838 graduate of the military academy, was appointed by Polk. This was met with dismay, as Polk had issued a direct order that the battalion could nominate their own officers, and Hunt had endeared himself to the men. In addition to Smith, the battalion was joined by Dr. Sanderson, a surgeon from Fort Leavenworth. In the nineteenth century there were two disciplines, the surgeon and the physician. The surgeon used tools for amputation and lancing, and the physician used herbs, plant material, and minerals to treat disease. Balancing the humors was still in practice by 1846, with puking, purging, or bleeding being the prescribed standard treatment for illness. Sanderson, who was highly-regarded for his progressive methods, practiced purging, and this brought him in conflict with the men of the battalion. 

In September, as the battalion entered Comanche territory where the native were hostile, many of the men took ill. Dr. Sanderson treated the men with calomel, a mercury chloride mineral which was widely known to effectively purge the system. The men had been told by Church leaders that they were to keep to their strict dietary observance, and to not take the medicine.  The system used in Nauvoo favored the usage of herbs, and gentler methods. Lieutenant Smith believed that the men were being disrespectful, and would even pull the sick and ailing out of their tents if they did not report to the doctor for treatment. While harsh, there was a limited supply and the journey was long, and Sanderson could not afford to waste anything. Complicating matters was the fact that Sanderson was a Missiourian, and the men were wary of his intentions, due to the anti-Mormon violence which occurred in Missouri in 1833. These were merely a few of the difficulties the battalion would have to endure the march to California.

Winter Quarters

In the summer of 1846, President Young had hoped the rest of the Saints would make it all the way to the Great Basin, but mud and sickness had taken its toll, and he determined that they must procure temporary settlement in anticipation of the coming winter. The Ote and Osage natives had agreed to let the pioneers use some of the lands across the river from Council Bluffs. In September, they began building a town which would be called Winter Quarters. Young divided the town into wards, and he appointed worthy men to be bishops over each of these wards, with the responsibility of caring for the townsfolk. While the Saints were in Winter Quarters, Brigham Young received inspiration concerning their journey to the West.

Let us know what you think of Mormon Battalion below.

Now read part 3 about the Mexican-American War and the end of the journey here.

Bibliography

Arrigton, Leonard J. Brigham Young: American Moses. New York: Knopf, 1985.

Brands, H.W. Dreams of El Dorado: A History of the American West. New York: Basic Books, 2019.

Cowan, Richard, and William E. Homer. California Saints. Utah: Bookcraft Publishing, 1996.

LDS Church. Saints Volume 2: No Unhallowed Hand. Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2020.

Ricketts, Norma Baldwin. The Mormon Battalion. Utah: Utah State University, 1996.

London’s Great Stench in the 19th Century - Part 1: What Caused the Great Stench?

Millions of tourists visit London each year to take in the city's iconic architectural sites and attractions. It is hard to imagine that the iconic River Thames was once a site of unbearable stench and disease that choked Londoners. The summer of 1858 was labelled as the Great Stink by the British press and was a result of many years of poor living conditions, sanitation and a lack of public health reforms. The Great Stink was the tipping point that encouraged a change of attitude towards public health from a laissez-faire attitude, where the government did not interfere with public health, to a desire to improve living conditions. A laissez-faire attitude meant that government officials took a step back from interfering with social welfare and let issues take their own shape naturally.

Amy Chandler explains.

A dirty Father Thames in 1n 1848 edition of Punch magazine.

This article will explore public health during 1842 to 1865 by focusing on the work of Dr John Snow and the cholera outbreaks, Sir Edwin Chadwick's contribution to the Public Health Act, and Joseph Bazalgette's construction of the London sewer system. Part one will explore the factors that contributed to the Great Stink, such as overcrowding, the introduction of flushing toilets, cholera outbreaks and a call for public health reforms. Part two will analyse how Parliament handled the situation of the noxious smells from the River Thames through Bazalgette’s construction of the sewer systems. 

Investigations by Sir Edwin Chadwick 1842-1848

In 1842, social reformer Edwin Chadwick published a report for the Poor Law Commissioner entitled Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Poor. This report provided statistical evidence that outlined the stark contrast in life expectancy determined by class and residency. Chadwick highlighted how life expectancy in large cities, like London, was dramatically lower than in rural areas.(1) Laborer occupations were the most at risk of early death compared to professional trades.(2) Chadwick’s report is now seen as a “monumental step toward accepting and dealing with social costs of economic progress”, but not at the time of publication.(3) However, in 1842 Chadwick discovered that disease and infection spread throughout all classes of society. The poor suffered the most because of their unsanitary living conditions. Chadwick’s finding caused unrest with politicians. His report opposed the popular view that an individual was poor because it was their fault. This attitude meant that change was slow throughout the nineteenth century.

Furthermore, Chadwick’s report highlighted that social welfare concerns could only be resolved through financial improvements and changes approved by government. Chadwick suggested that the financial implications for tenants and owners to ensure good drainage and clean water supply to their inhabitants would be “offset by the reduced cost of tending to the ill” in the future.(4) Other measures included improved drainage, removal of refuse from houses, streets and roads and placed in “moveable vessels”.(5) The idea here was to spend money to improve the living conditions to save money in the future, as the population would be healthier and less likely to need medical assistance. Chadwick suggested taxing households to contribute to the cleaning programmes but he misunderstood that many people struggled to afford necessities in everyday life.

Chadwick’s theory does have some credibility that by improving the living conditions in densely populated areas would reduce the spread of disease. At this point in history, the theory of miasmas was still widely believed and accepted as diseases caused by bad smells rather than bacteria and viruses. Despite medical and scientific beliefs as largely inaccurate to what caused disease, the measures that Chadwick was describing were credible ideas. For example, providing clean water supplies reduced the risk of contracting an illness, and removing rotten household food and other waste from the streets, housing and roads deterred the presence of rats and mice infiltrating densely populated areas.

Chadwick encountered much opposition from Parliament as the poor working-class created the wealth that many of the upper class experienced the benefits from exploited labor. Change in attitudes towards creating the first Public Health Act was not until 1848 after London suffered another deadly cholera outbreak, although this act did not require local medical officers to enforce or design cleaning programs to improve sanitation conditions.(6) Parliament passed the 1846 and 1848 Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act, including “filthy and unwholesome” buildings and houses, “foul and offensive ditch, gutter, privy, cesspool or ash pit”, and removal of refuse and waste.(7) This act closed old cesspits, which caused all new waste to flow into the River Thames, with open cesspits unable to handle the growth in population and new flushing toilets leaked sewage into water supplies into the river.

The 1848 Public Health Act enforced appropriate drainage and sewer systems that distributed waste into the River Thames. Many believed that sewage in the river would magically disappear. In reality, waste stagnated within the water, and Londoners continued to use this water to wash and drink. Many did not understand that the River Thames is a tidal river, where water levels are influenced by the tide, resulting in circulating waste.(8) In 1851 The Great Exhibition in London, showcased the newest and high-tech inventions on an international stage that illustrated Britain’s power and wealth.(9) One invention that proved popular was the flushing toilet and it was made available to the public after 1851. Like many of the inventions displayed at The Great Exhibition, the flushing toilet was only affordable by the wealthy upper classes. Many toilets flushed into old cesspits that were incapable of containing the amount of waste pumping through, causing overflowing waste into the Thames and drinking water.(10) Despite technological advances of the flushing toilet, London did not have a sewer system capable of handling this new technology. 

The cholera epidemic and Dr John Snow’s breakthrough

Another cholera outbreak, in 1854, erupted throughout London and raised concern around the living conditions in London’s most densely populated areas. Dr John Snow investigated the cause of the disease by analysing the water supplied from the River Thames and water supplied by wells and natural springs. London suffered three major cholera outbreaks, but in 1854 the outbreak was different in the poverty-stricken area of Broad Street, Soho near Golden Square. Snow decided to investigate the deaths from cholera by using a grid system and map of the local area to plot the radius of infections by contacting the residents and workers in the local area. Snow’s findings revealed that those who drank from the Broad Street pump, which filtered water directly from the River Thames, became severely ill with cholera. Snow documented his investigation noting, “all the deaths had taken place within a short distance of the pump” and suspected “some contamination of the water of the much-frequented pump in Broad Street”.(11) Snow examined the water from Broad Street and compared water samples from the river and wells. The results emphasized that water from the Thames had physical specks floating in the water that supported Snow’s thinking.(12)

Snow concluded that the water from the River Thames was contaminated and caused cholera outbreaks. In light of this discovery, Snow ordered officials to stop public use of the Broad Street pump. In doing so, Snow discovered that infection and mortality rates reduced rapidly and proved his theory. In October 1854, Snow investigated the water quality supplied by companies in Southwark and Vauxhall that pumped drinking water from the Thames and compared this to water provided by Lambeth water company, who pumped their water from a less polluted area in the Thames; Lambeth had a lower mortality rate in comparison to the Southwark and Vauxhall areas.(13) Of course, Snow’s understanding of science and disease was founded on the miasma theory, but his investigations disproved the miasma theory but he was unsure why or how as Germ theory was not discovered until 1861. Despite Snow’s investigation, many politicians were still adamant in their belief of bad smells as the cause of disease, and this attitude halted progress in improving public health.  

Solved one problem to cause another

The work of Snow and Chadwick progressed attitudes towards public health and improved living conditions for Londoners. But they could only do so much as many government officials were resistant to believing anything other than bad smells causing disease. The Public Health Act aimed to improve life in poverty-stricken areas but in reality, created overfilled cesspools that contaminated water supplies, turning London's iconic river into a vat of stench and disease. All these factors became culminated into the 1858 Great Stink and became a turning point in changing government policies towards public health and sanitation by constructing a sewer system that is still in use today. 

Part two will explore how the Great stink forced government officials to tackle London’s sewage and waste problem by commissioning Joseph Bazalgette to flush the River Thames and clean up London’s act.

Now read party 2 on the Great Stench and its aftermath here.

 1. The National Archives, Victorian Britain, The National Archives: Find Out More, undated <https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/victorianbritain/healthy/fom1.htm> [accessed 4 March 2022].

2. Ibid.

 3. I. Morley, ‘City chaos, contagion, Chadwick, and social justice’, Yale J Biol Med, vol. 80, (2007),p.61.  

 4. M. Williams, ‘Kingsley, Millar, Chadwick on Poverty and Epidemics’, 26 May 2020, The Victorian Web < https://victorianweb.org/science/health/williams1.html > [accessed 4 March 2022].

 5. Ibid. 

 6. Ibid.

  7. UK Parliament, ’Nuisances’, 2022, Uk Parliament <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/nuisances/nuisances/ > [accessed 4 March 2022]. 

 8. D.G, Hewitt, ’18 facts about the 1858 Great Stink of London’, History Collection, 3 June 2019 < https://historycollection.com/18-facts-about-the-1858-great-stink-of-london/ >[accessed 4 March 2022].  

 9. L. Picard, ‘The Great Exhibition’, The British Library, 14 Oct 2009 <https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-great-exhibition> [accessed 4 March 2022].

 10. Hewitt, op.cit. 

 11. T.H. Tulchinsky, ‘John Snow, Cholera, the Broad Street Pump; Waterborne Diseases Then and Now’, Case Studies in Public Health, (2018), p.81.

 12. K, Tuthill, ‘John Snow and the Broad Street Pump’, UCLA, 2003 <https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html >[accessed 8  March 2022]. 

 13. Tulchinsky,op.cit,p.82.

Bibliography

Authority., ‘Cholera epidemics in Victorian London’, The Gazette, 2016 <https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100519 >. 

BAUS.,‘A Brief History of The Flush Toilet: From Neolithic to modern times’, The British Association of Urological Surgeons, undated <https://www.baus.org.uk/museum/164/a_brief_history_of_the_flush_toilet >.

Bibby, M., ‘London’s Great Stink’, Historic UK, 2022 <https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >.

Hewitt, D.G.,’18 facts about the 1858 Great Stink of London’, History Collection, 3 June 2019 < https://historycollection.com/18-facts-about-the-1858-great-stink-of-london/ >. 

LSHTM., ‘Sir Edwin Chadwick 1800 – 1890’,  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2022 < https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/introducing/history/frieze/sir-edwin-chadwick >.

Morley, I., ‘City chaos, contagion, Chadwick, and social justice’, Yale J Biol Med, vol. 80, no. 2, June, 2007,pp. 61-72. 

Picard, L., ‘The Great Exhibition’, The British Library, 14 Oct 2009 <https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-great-exhibition>. 

Porter, D.H., ‘From Inconvenience to Pollution -- Redefining Sewage in The Victorian Age’, The Victorian Web, 1999 <https://victorianweb.org/technology/porter9.html >. 

The National Archives, Victorian Britain, The National Archives: Find Out More, undated <https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/victorianbritain/healthy/fom1.htm>.

Tulchinsky, T.H., ‘John Snow, Cholera, the Broad Street Pump; Waterborne Diseases Then and Now’, Case Studies in Public Health, 2018, pp. 77-99. 

Tuthill, K., ‘John Snow and the Broad Street Pump’, UCLA, 2003 <https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html >. 

Uk Parliament, ’Nuisances’, 2022, Uk Parliament <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/nuisances/nuisances/ >.

Williams, M., ‘Kingsley, Millar, Chadwick on Poverty and Epidemics’, 26 May 2020, The Victorian Web < https://victorianweb.org/science/health/williams1.html >. 

Modern American Gun Culture and the American Frontier

With the most citizen-owned firearms of any nation in the world and a higher-than-average rate of gun-related deaths, America stands out from every other developed Western nation. Here, Greg Hickey argues that this American gun culture exists because American history is unique - no other nation has experienced such rapid expansion or enjoyed so large a frontier as the United States did shortly after its independence. Stemming from the American frontier of the nineteenth century, guns have become enmeshed with America in a relationship that persists through the new frontiers of the twenty-first century.

1890s painting of cowboys: The Herd Quitter by C.M. Russell.

Guns in America

United States citizens own a total of 393,347,000 firearms. India—a country with four times as many people as the U.S—is a distant second with 71,101,000 civilian-owned firearms. Americans own 120.5 firearms per 100 people, meaning that, on average, every American owns more than one gun. The tiny Falkland Islands ranks second with 62.1 firearms per 100 people, just over half the rate in the United States.

Gun safety advocates cite high gun ownership as a significant factor in the above-average rate of gun deaths in America. In 2019, this figure stood at 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people, more than eight times higher than the rate in Canada and almost 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom. The question is how and why modern gun culture became so pervasive in America compared to other developed Western nations.

The Right to Bear Arms

There are three countries in the world with the right to own firearms enshrined in their constitutions: the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico. All three are relatively new nations. The U.S. gained its independence from Great Britain in 1783; Guatemala and Mexico got theirs from Spain in 1821.

Of course, firearms were present in the Americas from the moment the first European settlers arrived in the fifteenth century. These weapons played a major role in the wars of colonization and independence fought on the continent. In contrast, Europeans did not use guns to conquer Europe. Nations fought wars against each other, yet the European nations we know today are descendants of ancient Europeans: Romans, Gauls, Franks, Normans, Slavs. But Europeans did use guns to conquer the Americas.

Thus, the post-indigenous histories of the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico are comprised entirely by the history of firearms. The Europeans who settled in these regions brought guns. Their descendants who severed ties with the colonial powers fought with guns. And their descendants living in newly independent nations inherited those guns and acquired new ones. Yet despite the historical and legislative parallels, gun ownership in the United States far exceeds that of Guatemala and Mexico.

Independence and Its Aftermath

When the Mexican War of Independence began in 1810, the Spanish viceroyalty of New Spain stretched from modern-day California to the isthmus of Panama (including Guatemala) and covered what would become the southwestern United States. The Spanish had conquered most of southern Mexico by 1525. By 1536, they had overtaken Jalisco and other regions on the Pacific coast. By the eighteenth century, they had established colonies in present-day Louisiana, Texas, and California. In other words, Spaniards had thoroughly permeated the land that would become Mexico and Guatemala by those nations gained independence.

By contrast, the United States in 1783 consisted of the original thirteen colonies on the Atlantic Ocean plus territory stretching west to the Mississippi River and north to the Great Lakes. In 1803, the U.S. nearly doubled in size with the completion of the Louisiana Purchase. In 1845, the U.S. annexed Texas. One year later, Americans agreed to divide the Oregon Country with the British along the border of present-day Canada. And in 1848, following the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded territory that would become the southwestern United States. In the 65 years since it became a nation, the territory owned by the United States effectively tripled in size.

No other nation in the world faced a comparable situation. Mexico, thanks to the aforementioned Mexican-American War, lost a considerable amount of territory shortly after its independence.

Canada became a nation in 1867 with the union of the British colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada. Three years later, Canada acquired Rupert’s Land, a northern wilderness territory that made up most of present-day Canada, from the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). The HBC had acquired the land, which stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky Mountains and north to the Arctic Circle, under a charter from England in 1670, and had exclusive rights to colonize and trade in the territory. Unlike America, the vast majority of Canadian land was under British control when Canada became a nation.

Likewise, the British had colonized practically all of Australia by 1832, well before Australian independence in 1901. In another contrast to America, neither Canada nor Australia fought a war to gain independence. Instead, Britain willingly ceded control of these overseas territories to local governance.

The American Frontier

Consequently, the early history of the United States proved unique in comparison to other nations in the world. And this early history has directly influenced modern gun culture. Americans fought a war with guns to gain their independence. They subsequently acquired territories that tripled the nation in size, some of which involved more fighting with guns. The eastern Americans then pushed west into new territories, hunting and protecting themselves and driving away understandably hostile Native Americans with guns. From Lewis and Clark to the Oregon Trail to the Wild West, westward expansion claimed a defining chapter in American history, and this expansion was made possible by individual citizens with guns.

Whether as a cause or effect, the American firearms industry took off in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In 1776, George Washington ordered the establishment of the Springfield Armory in Springfield Massachusetts. In 1816, the U.S. government hired Eliphalet Remington’s Remington Arms Company to produce flintlock rifles. And in 1836, Samuel Colt patented his Single Action Army Revolver, also known as the Colt 45 or “the gun that won the west.” Americans needed guns, and gunmakers provided new models to fit their needs.

The Second Amendment

In 1791, the existing state legislatures ratified the U.S. Bill of Rights containing ten amendments to the Constitution. In particular, Amendment II states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This Second Amendment has provided legal support for private gun ownership in the 230 years since ratification.

Yet the Second Amendment does not capture the spirit in which early Americans used their guns. Guns did not rise to cultural prominence in the hands of New England militiamen sitting at home and protecting their farmland. Rather, guns captivated the American imagination on the frontier, in the hands of pioneers and explorers and cowboys and outlaws.

By the 1870s, guns were so prevalent in the American West that some towns started cracking down on armed citizens. The first law passed in Dodge City, Kansas was an 1878 ban on carrying guns in town. The infamous 1881 shootout at the O.K. Corral occurred when a group of cowboys defied the Earp brothers’ orders to turn over their weapons in accordance with a Tombstone, Arizona law requiring all town visitors to disarm upon arrival. American gun culture and the American gun control movement both began on the American frontier.

The New American Frontier

Not every American frontier town followed the examples of Dodge City and Tombstone. In many places, the American West remained a lawless territory governed by individualism and determination. In the words of Matt Jancer in his Smithsonian article “Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West”:

“As the West developed, towns pushed this mythos of the West as their founding ideology. Lax gun laws were just a part of an individualistic streak that manifested itself with the explosion in popularity of concealed carry licenses and the broader acceptance of openly carrying firearms (open-carry laws) that require no permit.”

This individualistic frontier mythos remained well after Americans settled all the nation’s territories. It spawned an entire genre of film and literature. John F. Kennedy invoked the frontier ideal when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960, stating, “We stand today on the edge of a New Frontier,” beyond which were “the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.” Six years later, the television series Star Trek echoed Kennedy with an opening monologue that began, “Space… the final frontier.”

In short, the American ideal is inextricably linked with determined, productive individuals pushing boundaries and exploring new frontiers in science, technology, space, society and human rights. This ideal extends from the time when American settlers set out into the physical frontier of a new nation. And this historical frontier is inextricably linked with guns. Modern American gun culture and American ideals of liberty, individualism and self-determination derive from the same historical events—events that were unique to the formation of America. The eighteenth-century pioneer, the Old West outlaw and sheriff, and the ambitious tech entrepreneur are all operating on the same fundamental principle.

The True Origin of Modern American Gun Culture

Thus, American gun culture is not an outgrowth of the Second Amendment or the mark of a particularly warlike nation. Instead, America’s fascination with guns stems from the circumstances surrounding the country’s early history—circumstances that set the United States apart. No other country matches America in firearms ownership because no other country began with its citizens venturing out into a massive frontier in the same way - armed with their ambition and wits and firearms. American gun culture is so widespread because guns played an essential role in the events that defined America.

Author Biography

Greg Hickey is a forensic firearms examiner and the author of Parabellum, a novel about American gun culture and a fictional mass shooting at a beach in Chicago.

Find more of his work at greghickeywrites.com.

American Civil War Line Tactics: Brilliant, Stupid, or the only Option?

Infantry line tactics in the American Civil War can perplex the mind. Hundreds of years of line infantry tactics seem to be perfected to horrifying effect. Casualties from the outbreak of the war shocked the American public. Dead and wounded amounting to greater than all the previous conflicts combined, would fall in a single day. Many have often pondered the question, maybe they should have changed their tactics? Austin Duran explains.

Battle of Shiloh by Thure de Thulstrup.

The Minie ball surely would have caused the need for a change right?

Invented by Claude-Etienne Minie in 1846, the Minie ball changed the battlespace in 19th century warfare. The Minie ball was a hollowed out conical shape, with multiple grooves near the rear. The hollow portion in the rear of the round caused the round to expand. This expansion would press the bullet grooves into the sides of the barrel, catching the rifling and inducing a spin. A spinning round is far more accurate than a non-spinning round. Think of it as a spiraling football versus a shotput. Not only is it more accurate, it will travel much farther, and faster. Additionally, the conical shape was far more aerodynamic further adding to its lethality.

This Minie ball could kill out to 800m while the round ball of decades past could only be lethal to 200m. Even though no soldier could intentionally hit anything at that range, the range of battlefield lethality nevertheless increased 400%. As anything within the 800m was within lethal range. A three thousand man brigade, firing just 2 rounds a minute, could empty its 40-60 round allotment in just 20-30 minutes, putting 120k-180k rounds out in the process. While these numbers would have been the same prior to the invention of the Minie ball, the increased lethal range added significantly to the lethality on the battlefield – especially with continued use of compressed line infantry tactics. 

If not the Minie ball, maybe the mass casualties?

From the very outset of the war the casualties were aggressive. The first major battle, the Battle of Bull Run with around 5,000 casualties, was the single bloodiest day in American history up to that point. A horrid record that would be surpassed at Shiloh and Antietam with around 23,000 casualties each. Despite the mounting losses on both sides, little in way of tactical change would happen until Robert E Lee adopted defensive trench tactics as manpower began to dwindle.

The primary reason for the aggregation of manpower in line formation was to consolidate firepower. Concentration of effort has always been a military tenet. However, the increased range of the Minie ball should have allowed for some dispersion of effort given some assumptions. First, the user of the rifle would have to be trained. Despite the increased accuracy of the Minie ball, the soldier would still need to be precise with their shots as they could no longer rely on massed volleys. This required training which was often not given. Notably at the Battle of Shiloh, many troops on both sides fired their weapons for the first time in combat. The levy style recruitment often left training to wayside in effort to amass sheer numbers. 

Murderous technological advancements and massive causalities, beg the question: maybe we should do things differently? Fire and maneuver in smaller squads of men? Perhaps moving from cover to cover, as opposed to massing ranks in front of one another? But I submit to you there is one thing that prevented the modern light infantry tactics that we know today from being used: smoke.

Smoke

Black powder was invented by the Chinese and first used in combat in the 900s AD. And from its inception it produced a tremendous amount of smoke. There are many reasons why small unit tactics would not work in the American Civil War, but the primary was gunpowder smoke.

Even if training was given, the problem of smoke from black powder arises. First, it’s rather difficult to do anything covert, or quickly without being seen when giant puffs of smoke rise from your position. If you have ever seen a reenactment or decide to look one up on YouTube after this article, note that re-enactors often use one-quarter charges when firing. The amount of smoke produced was enormous. Second, assuming you have a trained rifleman, they will only be able to get a few shots off before their vision is likely clouded due to the smoke present. Also, with their smoke signal advertising their position it would be likely only a matter of time before massed volleys could be directed their way. This would render them either dead or hopelessly stuck behind cover.

Another example of how smoke affected the battlefield lay with Picket’s Charge. Prior to the assault by the confederates on the third day of Gettysburg, General Lee ordered a massive artillery bombardment. It is well known that the majority of the rounds sailed over the intended target by several hundred yards, rendering the bombardment ineffective. This shelling lasted over an hour yet no adjustments to fire were made; why? Smoke. They couldn’t see that they were missing their targets.

The burnside carbine, and other repeating rifles were available early in the war, why not invest solely in these sorts of firearms? While the increased fire rate of this sorts of carbines would certainly have unleashed devastation on the battlefield (and did when in properly trained hands—cavalry typically), in the arms of untrained, massed infantry, the smoke would have rendered the commanders blind in record time. This would squelch all hope of command and control in an age of limited command and control as is.

Smokeless powder would not be invented until decades after the American Civil War. With the blinding presence of black powder, commanders continued to use line formations and massed volleys. The drawbacks of smoke outweighed, even nullified, the benefits of new tactics. This led to murderous effects on the battlefield despite technological advancements.

What do you think of the importance of smoke in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

How Florida was Mapped: The First Survey of Coral Springs

Coral Springs is located in Florida, just north of Miami. It has seen its population boom in the post-war years. Here, Karl Miller looks at how the mapping of Florida took place in the 19th century - and how the area was formed in the 20th century.

The Coral Springs covered bridge, an old building in the city. Source: Legionaries, available here.

Like many cities formed during the rise of suburbia in post-World War II America, Coral Springs, Florida expanded extremely rapidly. Founded in 1963, it grew from just 1,489 residents in 1970 to over 134,394 in 2020, becoming one of the largest fifteen municipalities in Florida. Also like many other new American cities, its story started well before incorporation.

For over a thousand years, Tequesta natives occupied the area that would eventually become Coral Springs. Archaeological digs showed several areas of native occupation including camps and burial sites, ending when the last of the tribe, decimated by European disease, departed for Cuba in 1763. While Seminole natives and others likely crossed through the area in the decades after the Tequesta left, the first recorded visit to the future area of Coral Springs did not come until long after the Tequesta departed.

Upon receiving Florida from Spain by the treaty of Adams-Onis in 1819, the United States began to organize the territory they had acquired. Starting with the Land Ordinance Act of 1785, the United States adopted a common system, the Rectangular Method, for measuring land. Starting from a designated point called a meridian, the new territory was divided north and south into 36-square-mile blocks called townships that were further measured east and west by ranges. Measured from a meridian established at Tallahassee, the land that would eventually become Coral Springs sat at Township 48 South, Range 41 East.

Working through the swamps

George MacKay, a 35-year-old New York surveyor who had moved to Florida to conduct various business interests, was hired by the United States Surveyor General’s Office in 1845 to conduct surveying work in the southeastern part of the state. Valentine Y. Conway,  the Surveyor General of Florida, instructed MacKay to survey land south of Township 44 “to the Atlantic coast, and as far west as practicable.” Using a magnetic compass and a surveyor’s chain which was  specified to be “33 feet in length . . . containing 50 links . . . made of good iron wire,” MacKay’s team – which included his younger brother Alexander as well as several enslaved persons -  proceeded to work their way through the south Florida swamps, enduring the insects, heat, snakes, and alligators that the profession routinely experienced at that time.

On March 26, 1845, MacKay surveyed the area in which the future Coral Springs would sit. His brief survey notes show he found a rocky area with “scrub pine, cypress . . . and sawgrass.”  In a later account of his surveying expedition, MacKay described the conditions they encountered, stating often the weather was so still “there was not enough air stirring to move as aspen leaf” and that their measuring lines could only pass in places “by cutting away the lofty fresh grass and wading (or rather wallowing) through the mud and underrubbish.”  

Having completing his assigned survey, MacKay, after going on a difficult trip in which his boat “was driven back to New River two or three times by contrary wind, turned in his report to the Surveyor General’s headquarters in St. Augustine.”  Based on his account showing 888.6 miles surveyed, he was paid $3,555.  He eventually moved back to Caledonia, New York, where he died in 1880.

Growth

The land itself remained isolated for several more decades, until the state government sold it as part of a grant to speculator Richard Bolles in 1908. After the draining of south Florida swamps began in earnest under Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, the land was acquired by Henry “Bud” Lyons in 1919 as part of his 20,000-acre green bean and cattle operation. In 1961, Lyons’ widow sold the land to developer James S. Hunt for $1 million, setting the stage for Coral Springs to be incorporated two years later.

As a case study in the growth of suburban America, the surveying expedition that first reached the area of the future Coral Springs illustrates a typical first step in development. It illustrates how a city can quickly go from an undeveloped natural setting to a major suburban municipality in only a few short decades. While in a sense this example shows the triumph of progress, it is also a cautionary story in that the path to rapid development came at the cost of destroying extensive areas of pristine wetlands and wildlife habitat. When faced with a similar situation in the future, hopefully a more balanced, deliberate outcome will result.

What do you think of the development of Florida? Let us know below.

1 U.S. Census Bureau, “Characteristics of the Population: Florida,” 1970, accessed January 15, 2022 at https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1970a_fl1-01.pdf;  U.S. Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Coral Springs, FL,” 2020, accessed January 15, 2022 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/coralspringscityflorida.

2 Joe Knetsch, "The Surveys of George Mackay: A Drawer of Lines on the Map of South Florida," The Florida

Surveyor, Vol. II, Issue 1 (October 1994).

3 C. Albert White, A History of the Rectangular Survey System (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983): 332, accessed December 20, 2021 at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/histrect.pdf, 332.

4 U.S. Government Survey Field Notebooks, Vol. 84, 1845: 283, accessed October 13, 2021 at https://ftp.labins.org/glo_all/Volume84_pdf/Folder%2013%20pg%20262%20to%20285_pdf.pdf.

5 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1896): 261, accessed November 20, 2021 at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Board_of_Regents_of/Lt1f3-7J2xcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=weathermaking+ancient+and+modern+smithsonian+mackay&pg=PA260&printsec=frontcover.

6 A.H. Jones.  A.H. Jones to George MacKay, February 2, 1846. Letter. MacKay-Hutchinson Family Papers 1836-74, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin.

7 U.S. Treasury Department, Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury Transmitting the annual report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office: 112, accessed December 21, 2021 at https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=indianserialset. 

8 New York, Death Index, 1880-1956, New York Department of Health, Albany, NY; NY State Death Index; Certificate Number 5870.

The Mormon Battalion’s Movement to Western America - Part 1: The Journey Begins

The story of the Mormon Battalion remains an enduring legend. Recruited by the U.S. government from among those heading to Utah to gather with Brigham Young, this group of some 500 men plus women and children undertook a trek across the American Southwest during the Mexican-American War. The battalion is usually consigned to a footnote in the story, but it is a story which looms large in the settlement of California. In that context, the legend of the battalion and how it has found a truly revered place in the history of the Mormon faithful is significant. Part 1 here look at how the journey began.

A painting of the Mormon Battalion arriving at the Gila River in Arizona in December 1846.

The origins of the battalion lay in the wider context of the Mexican-American War. Also known as the Mexican War, it was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. The concept of Manifest Destiny held that the United States had the providential right to expand to the Pacific Ocean. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845, which had won independence from Mexico in the Texas Revolution of 1835. Diplomatic efforts to establish an agreement on the Texas-Mexico border, and to purchase the territories of California and New Mexico had failed. President James K. Polk had sent an envoy to Mexico with an offer of up to $20,000,000 ($739,863,157.89 in 2022) in return for California and New Mexico. No Mexican leader would be willing to cede half his country and still have the ability to stay in power, therefore Polk’s envoy was not received. To bring pressure, Polk sent General Zachary Taylor to the disputed area along the Rio Grande. When the Mexicans fired on the troops in April of that year, Polk had found the rationale he needed to justify an attempt to seize the land by force. In a written message to Congress in 1846, Polk explained that “war exists between the two countries because the Mexican government has at last shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil.”

War

The prospect of war imbued Americans with a strong sense of patriotism, as it was among the few things in which both Northerners and Southerners could agree upon at the time. In the decades preceding the Civil War, the issue of slavery remained divisive. According to Jay Sexton, Polk believed that westward expansion would serve to accomplish his goal of settling the question of slavery, as Manifest Destiny presented expansion in racial and territorial terms. Polk's agenda during his presidency, unlike that of his two immediate predecessors, would be largely driven by foreign policy considerations. In the nineteenth century, quarrels and conflict with the European powers, most notably the British Empire, were still a matter of concern. However, American leaders believed that their destiny  was to become an imperial power, while also aiming for a more inspired purpose than their European cousins. 

As the national government made its preparations for war, despite the varied hardship of having to navigate political differences, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was experiencing difficulties of its own. Known by the pejorative term of “Mormon” due to their belief in the Book of Mormon, since its founding in 1830, members of the Church frequently had conflicts, misunderstandings and difficult relations due to their religious beliefs. Hostile sentiment had caused them to be forced out of New York, Missouri and Illinois. In 1844, the Church’s founder, Joseph Smith, was killed at Carthage. The death of their leader raised questions about the Church’s survival as the Saints faced increased persecution. In 1846, tensions reached their peak, and the Saints were once again forced to move. Brigham Young succeeded to the position of president, and he sought to move the Saints from Nauvoo to the Mountain West.

To the West

Under the leadership of Young, the Saints believed in their own manifest destiny to settle in the West. Norma Ricketts points out that there were some 20,000 saints who embarked to cross the prairie, carrying only what they could in wagons and carts, along with their livestock. During the Winter of 1846, Latter-day Saint leaders in Winter Quarters laid plans for the continued migration of the large number of Saints. Upon their arrival in Iowa, Elder Jesse C. Little was tasked with asking the government for help in securing safe passage to the West. Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles saw this as an opportunity to recruit men from among the Saints to participate in Polk’s War. It was at this time that Young first met Thomas L. Kane from Philadelphia with deep personal connections to the Polk administration. 

The Polk Administration initially questioned the loyalty of the church, as it was thought that if the Saints moved West, they may potentially join forces with a foreign power and make themselves a threat. The relations between the Church and the government had been fraught with tension, as the government expressed a hostile indifference to their struggles. Kane, who had become friendly to the Saints, advocated for them, assuring the Polk Administration that they “retained American hearts, and would not side with Mexico.” There were many among the Saints who were reluctant to enlist, still suspicious of the government's intentions. At the behest of Polk, James Allen was sent to Mt. Pisgah, to a camp of homeless Latter-day Saints who had been driven from their homes by anti-Mormon mobs, to recruit a battalion of 500 men to fight. After he met with Brigham Young, Young endorsed the plan, saying that while the goal was not patriotism in itself, participating would hopefully allay the suspicions of the people as the Church endeavored to move West. 

Let us know what you think of Mormon Battalion below.

Now read part 2 about the journey west here.

A History of Democracy in Britain

The recent Russian aggression in the Ukraine sees an autocracy threaten a small democracy.  History is indeed repeating itself on old battlefields. Democracy it seems is something very fragile and can often be taken for granted. The recent pandemic has as a side effect created new and resurrected old conspiracies theories about the precarious and illusory state of democracy in Britain and the rest of the world. This has manifested itself in peaceful and not so peaceful ways. This article is not to challenge the veracity of these claims but traces the history of Britain’s own democratic journey.

Stephen Prout explains.

Emmeline Pankhurst, a very prominent suffragette, in 1903.

Few may realise that democracy is relatively new to Britain when considering the nation’s long existence in the world.  It took a long frustrating journey in some instances met with brutal suppression that would altogether be considered unthinkable today. Britain was not always the land of hope and glory or the green and pleasant land.

The Beginnings

The earliest recorded discussion around the subject of electoral rights although brief took place in the middle 1600s in the form of the Putney debates. These were discussions on the British constitution with officers, soldier, and civilians of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army during the English Civil War. These talks were limited in in terms of audience, and nothing was achieved.

Between 1793 and 1797, Charles Grey politician and future Prime Minister, brought this idea of reform before parliament but received two rebuffs and risible support from his political peers. The apprehension was largely due violence of the French Revolution that was fresh in the minds of the frightened ruling classes who feared a repeat in Britain. This reaction also could be seen when at the same time Thomas Paine published his work The Rights of Man which was immediately judged as revolutionary incendiary material.  The nation was in a frightened and paranoid state.

A Pro-Reformist organisation was formed called The Society for the Friends of the People. The government’s immediate response was resistance and suppression. Consequently, the progress made by the reformists was limited and so were their achievements. 

The timing of its formation was unfortunate any attempt to challenge the established order at this time was viewed as treasonous so much so that William Pitt introduced numerous laws such as the Sedition Acts, Treason Acts, and the Newspaper Publications Act that made such the existence of any reformist very difficult.  Britain was now an authoritarian and repressive state and things would get worse, but the determination of the movement continued.

The 1832 Reform Act

Over thirty years from Grey’s first attempts, the first steps to electoral reform would begin in the form of the First Reform Act in 1832 but in that time the British people would experience a very tragic and bloody event that would be known as the Peterloo massacre.

When events started to gather momentum in 1817 only 11% of the male population were entitled to vote.  The picture of the lack of fairness in the political system remains unchanged. There was a meagre amount of support in political circles, lone voices such as Henry Hunt, MP made representations but was making scant progress. 

An impatient population began a series of mass gatherings, but the most famous and significant event was at a political gathering at Peterloo, Manchester in 1819. Freedom was still very much constrained by William Pitt’s repressive laws from the late 1700s. The events of the French Revolution were still fresh and so in panic the Royal Hussars were dispatched in brutal cavlary fashion. The crowd was dispersed with the use of sabres killing a reported fifteen demonstrators.  The action was counter intuitive as the reformists were more determined than ever following the “bloodiest political event in the nineteenth century on English soil”. Despite the severity and loss of life ten years would pass before voting rights were remotely reviewed. The first reform act was presented to parliament but only after three challenging attempts.

The Reform Act (Or Representation of the People Act) 1832 was the eventual output. It would be limited in its scope, disappointing the expectations of the campaigners but would not be the end of the matter. It only marginally expanded the electorate, keeping power largely in the hands of the same status quo.  The criteria required a male eligible to vote to be living in a property or land worth an annual £10 per year, which was substantial in 1832 terms and was deliberately out of reach of the working man. As a side effect the law now formally excluded women from the vote removing the very tiny minority that already existed.

Measurement of the effect of the act is frustrated by unreliable statistics. Some statistics state that prior to the 1832 Reform Act, 400,000 English subjects (people who lived in the country) were entitled to vote and then the number rose to 650,000 after its introduction. Rodney Mace estimates that before, 1 percent of the population could vote and that the Reform Act only extended the franchise to 7 percent of the population. Despite how varied the statistics maybe they all point to the same conclusion and that was the impact of the act still was not enough to satisfy the Reformist movement. More would follow but another thirty years would pass.

The 1867 Reform Act

Slow steps and a determined populace eventually led to a further reform over thirty years later in 1867. Again, it would be limited in scale as the resistance of the privileged classes remained, even though perceptions were changing. The revolutionary scare they feared would be exported from France now seemed very unlikely in Britain and the masses that demanded reform were not of that same violent fervour. 

The Chartist Movement was formed in 1838 and they made their motives and aims clear - they would use only peaceful methods and would pursue several objectives, namely complete male suffrage, salaried MPs, sensible voting demarcation lines, and secret ballots. This of course still did not sit comfortablly with the anti-reformists who felt that they had done enough in 1832. However, a new act was passed in 1867 by Disraeli’s government.

The 1867 Act would now allow the vote all male heads of households in what was called a borough constituency. To accompany this change there would be various additions such as academics and professional classes that had savings of over £50 (a significant sum of the time).  Despite all this the Act still excluded a vast number of males and all females.  The act added an additional one and a half million males to the electorate, but large numbers of the population remained marginalised and excluded.

Disraeli believed that these reforms would win him a grateful electorate and another Conservative victory in the imminent election; however his judgement would turn out wrong. By 1869 his government was defeated and the drive for further reform continued.  Another fifteen years would elapse before any further changes would be brought before parliament.

The 1884 Reform Act

This 1884 Reform Act was by far the most interesting. This saw a pro-reformist government itself challenging the House of Lords, the remaining resistance in the opposition political parties and the Monarchy itself, who even in this late progressive age were entrenched in their old-fashioned ways. 

There was a real appetite for change that suited the character of the Gladstone government. Remaining written evidence of the exchanges and sentiments of this period of the two sides show how deep the divisions still were in this progressive age of reform. 

William Gladstone was the Prime Minister in office and one of his formidable obstacles was the British Monarchy, namely Queen Victoria, who was especially vocal and resistant to any reform especially on women’s rights.

Written records about Gladstone’s reforms show how deep the antipathy and fierce disagreement was expressed in the language of the time.  “Let me express hope that you will be very cautious not to say anything which could bind you to any particular measure” was her warning to Gladstone before a Leeds Banquet on the topic of Gladstone’s seemingly radical views. Gladstone was after all challenging the very establishment himself, seeing it as outdated and obstructive to the calls of the modern age that had arrived.

A lengthy memorandum from himself to the Queen stated "The House of Lords has for a long period been the habitual and vigilant enemy of every Liberal Government... I wish (a hereditary House of Lords) to continue, for the avoidance of greater evils... Further organic change of this kind in the House of Lords may strip and lay bare, and in laying bare may weaken, the foundations even of the Throne." 

The Queen wrote numerous other letters to Gladstone complaining about left wing speeches made by Liberal MPs. Victoria saw Gladstone’s policies as unsettling, but he was undeterred. It was summed up by an article in the Spectator in 1882 by John Gorst, a Conservative, showing that even the opposition benches in Parliament were coming round to the idea of electoral reform.  The fears that the working classes would radically upset the status quo were seen as unfounded. 

“If the Tory party is to continue to exist as a power in the State, it must become a popular party. A mere coalition with the Whig aristocracy might delay but could not avert its downfall. The days are past when an exclusive class, however great its ability, wealth, and energy, can command a majority in the electorate.”

Gorst commented further on his party’s anti reformist elements.  “Unfortunately for Conservatism, its leaders belong solely to one class; they are a clique composed of members of the aristocracy, landowners, and adherents whose chief merit is subserviency. The party chiefs live in an atmosphere in which a sense of their own importance and of the importance of their class interests and privileges is exaggerated, and to which the opinions of the common people can scarcely penetrate”.  The old ways were slowly eroding. 

The London Trades Council quickly organized a mass demonstration in Hyde Park. On July 21, an estimated 30,000 people marched through the city to merge with at least that many already assembled in the park. Thorold Rogers, compared the House of Lords to "Sodom and Gomorrah" and Joseph Chamberlain told the crowd: "We will never, never, never be the only race in the civilized world subservient to the insolent pretensions of a hereditary caste".  The Third Reform act was in motion and would be passed by Parliament in 1884 with some compromise.

The act now allowed the vote to all adult male householders and lodgers who paid £10 in rent annually in rural areas and towns and increased the electorate by a further six million, the biggest impact so far. There was still far more to go as and women were still not eligible to vote and a large proportion of males. The queen constantly referred to the “mad folly of women’s rights” and was a constant barrier. Gladstone found that to push any harder would put the passing of his bill at enormous risk. Maybe that battle would be fought later.  However, that campaign would now have to wait until the next century and a devastating war.

Women’s Suffrage and the final Reform Acts

The campaign for women’s voting rights continued into the twentieth century, but the political climate could not digest any more reforms.  The disenfranchised female population quite justifiably were growing more impatient. Already by the end of the nineteenth century the vote had been extended to women in other areas of the British Empire, New Zealand and Australia. There was also a large portion of the male population that still did not have the right to vote. 

Organised campaigns for women’s rights had been in running since 1867 with the women’s suffrage committee and the National Union Women’s Suffrage Society. Their methods were to work with the new Independent Labour Party, but anti-reformers inhibited any advancement. After Gladstone’s Reformist Liberal Party failed to gain any leverage on the matter more drastic action would be adopted by some factions of the movement.

By 1903 this faction, soon to be termed suffragettes, adopted a more aggressive and violent approach that departed from the more constitutional methods that were still adopted by the majority. It was not actually until much later in 1906 the movement’s members were termed suffragettes by a journalist in the Daily Mail. This moniker was adopted by that militant faction headed by the famous Pankhurst family.

The militant actions included the disruption of high-profile political meetings, one being in attendance by Winston Churchill. There were outbreaks of property damage, bombings and in one case fatally as Emily Davidson tragically threw herself under King’s Horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby.  This in today’s currency caused £90m of damage, over 300 arson attacks and 1,300 arrests according to records.

Whilst the frustration can be understood there is a view that these tactics did more to harm the campaign. These violent actions were not supported by all females (members and non-campaigners) and were simultaneously viewed by the authorities as criminal and terrorist acts and provoked harsh retaliatory measures such as lengthy prison terms. This was made infamous by brutal treatment to the suffragettes who took to hunger strikes. The response by the government was force feeding being anxious not to create martyrs.

How long this would have been sustained or tolerated we will not know because the First World War brought a halt to these activities.  This truce, support for the war effort, and the general horrific sacrifice brought new thinking, a challenge to the existing social order after the war ended, and ultimately change. George Cove, Conservative MP and Home Secretary summed up the mood well in 1917 in support of the fourth reform Bill that would be passed in 1918.

“War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men’s eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. … I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise.”

In 1918 the Representation of the People Pact was passed that gave all males the vote over the age of 21 and all women over the age of thirty (over eight million women).  It was still not entirely equal in all aspects (the age disparity and as women still needed a property qualification), but it was a further positive step forward and in 1919 Nancy Astor became the first female MP. A further act was passed in 1928 to lower the age for women to that of men and in 1929 Margaret Bondfield became the first female minister.  

No further changes would come until late in the twentieth century when the voting age was lowered to 18 for both sexes in 1969.  There are circles active today that seek to reduce that to the age of 16. The debates and demands for reform continue to evolve. Will there be further change, who can tell?

It took over century of resistance, repression, the gradual enlightenment to cause the changing of attitudes to finally achieve democracy. One could argue that as we know it democracy was a concept introduced to Britain only in the twentieth century.

A Word of Warning

Democracy is a fragile and it has experienced changing fortunes. It is hard and costly to win and so quick and more costly to lose as recent history warns.  Germany and Italy in the 1930s succumbed to brutal dictatorships, but then redeemed themselves.  Greece and Turkey were until the late twentieth century military dictatorships, Spain only became democratic shortly after the fall of Franco in 1975 and in the Far East we have witnessed the tragic fortunes of Myanmar. More poignant and topical is that the Russians have reverted to an autocratic rule after a fleeting dalliance with democracy in the 1990s.  We see in 2022 that Ukrainian democracy is in a perilous state due to the Russian invasion.

Democracy requires vigilance and should not be taken for granted, even in Britain.

What do you think of democracy in Britain? Let us know below.

Now read Stephen’s article on Britain’s relationship with European dictators in the interwar years here.

Sources

Parliament Archives – HM Government

Women’s, Suffrage in The British Empire – Christopher Fletcher, Laura E Nym Mayhall, Phillipa Levine – Routledge 2012

Gladstone and Disraeli -BH Abbott – 1972 – Collins Educational

Chris Day – Peterloo Massacre – National Archives “Blog” 2018

C J Bearman – various articles referenced:

An Examination of Suffragette Violence

Confronting the Suffragette Mythology'

Nottingham Castle field trip – exhibition of the Reform Acts