Most of us have wondered at some point whether we have rich, royal or famous relatives in our distant past. Here is a light-hearted article exploring some ways to find out if that is the case!

Above is the family tree of Sigmund Christoph von Waldburg-Zeil-Trauchburg.

It's fun to imagine that we may have a long-lost millionaire aunt who is desperately searching for some ancestors to leave her fortune to. Or it can be nice to think that we have a degree of pedigree in our heritage, perhaps even blue blood running through our veins.

But if you're more serious about finding out whether you have any famous or royal relatives, there are now numerous ways you can go about finding out

How to find royalty in your family tree

Genealogy Apps

One way to begin your search is to turn away from dusty history books and archives and turn instead to modern technology.

A quick search in your favourite app store will likely produce a whole range of apps and programmes that will help make your family tree research a whole lot easier.

After all, so many other people around the world have already done some digging on the history of ordinary people everywhere - why not tap into their results and research if it's available?

This is what many of the best apps allow you to do - to collaborate with other researchers and historians, or to access the bank of information that has already been uncovered by like-minded genealogy sleuths.

You may even connect with some distant relatives who are looking into the same family tree, they might be just as delighted to find you.

Specialist Family Tree Services

If you find that the apps aren't giving you the results you're after - i.e. those rich or royal skeletons in the family closet - you may prefer to sign up for one of the online services that allow for a deeper dive in your lineage and ancestry. 

These are becoming big businesses and so it makes sense to tap into these global networks of historical information and valuable archive libraries. They also make for fascinating rabbit holes where you can get lost in the worlds of your great-uncle's war adventures or your great-great-grandmother's time as a military nurse.

Be warned, though - once you start to dive into the history of your nearest and dearest it can become addictive! Some find that their casual interest in locating a long-lost royal relative soon turns into an obsession that consumes a great deal of their spare time. It seems there's something endlessly fascinating about where we came from, and many of us want to know as much as we can about the lives and loves of the people who came before us. 

Hiring Genealogy Experts

If you find that you want to skip the whole research part and just get the results, you might be better off hiring an expert to do the legwork for you.

There are many excellent family tree specialists and they not only have a gift for knowing where to find the right information, they also usually have a wealth of experience in this field that can help with your investigation. 

Search online for a genealogy expert near you to fast-track your family tree findings

• Finding Royal Titles to buy

If you discover that your research and digging don't yield the kind of results you were looking for, you could always follow in the footsteps of royals and nobles throughout the ages and take matters into your own hands.

While you may not have royalty in your past, there's a little-known way that you could enjoy this high-calibre status in your present, as well as gifting a more regal lineage to future generations. 

This is the route of purchasing noble titles for sale in Europe, and not only is it a completely genuine and totally legal practice, but it's also something that has a rich history in many of the royal and aristocratic houses of Europe stretching back centuries to some of the oldest kings and queens of history.

Whichever route you choose, there are plenty of ways you can go about finding any links in your family tree to the royals of the ages. And if all your efforts still don't result in a regal connection, you always have the option of becoming the first member of a new royal line by purchasing a royal title of your own.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at what happened during the Mexican War of Independence with the important figure of José Morelos - and how things didn’t turn out quite as the rebels intended.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, how Hidalgo continued the war here, and the impact of José Morelos here.

Am portrait of King Fernando VII of Spain. By Vicente López Portaña.

Changes On Both Sides of the Atlantic

The year 1815 brought many changes to the struggle for independence in New Spain. The death of Morelos brought confusion as to who would be the primary leader of the revolution. Morelos had known how to groom younger officers into becoming leaders. The problem was so many, such as Matamoros, were already dead. The rebels needed a leader to rally around. After his victory over Morelos, Viceroy Calleja had offered amnesty to all rebels, and many would take him up on his offer, all seeming lost.

Another change was the conditions in Spain. In 1814, the French were finally driven across the Pyrenees. Napoleon abdicated after the occupation of Paris and his Spanish royal prisoners were freed. The long-awaited King Ferdinand VII was able to return to his capital (literally no one wanted Carlos IV back) and he would lead Spain to a glorious future of freedom and liberal politics. Except…he wouldn’t. Ferdinand was not the man his supporters thought he was.

Ferdinand the Reactionary

The Spain of 1814 was governed by the Constitution of 1812, born in the fires of the Peninsular War. This constitution limited the powers of the monarch, created a legislature that would represent all Spaniards on both sides of the Atlantic, and provided for guarantees of rights to all citizens. After all, this constitution and the person of Ferdinand VII were what the Spanish had just fought a six-year occupation for. In town after town, the people of Spain rapturously turned out to greet their longed-for monarch. All the conflicting classes, groups, juntas, and political factions were united. What possible reason could anyone want to fight against the new Spanish government that offered the colonials everything they could hope for, freedom, a liberal constitution, and the lifting of racial restrictions?

It only took a few weeks after his return to Madrid for Ferdinand to discard the constitution and restore absolute rule. He had proven to be far more reactionary than anyone could have feared. Barely a week after the end of the constitution, liberal leaders in and out of the government were arrested in a wide sweep. Ferdinand had even allowed the Jesuits to return. The united front with which Spain could have faced its fractious colonials was gone. Now Spain would see a continuation of the chaos of the war years.

War Exhaustion Grips Mexico

The situation in New Spain was little better than what was seen in the mother country. The rebels were forced to fight a guerrilla campaign against the forces of the Viceroy. Outnumbered, outgunned, and without any financial resources, the rebels were forced to extract supplies and money from the populations of the areas they operated in. This led to a great deal of economic devastation and needless deaths.

For the royalists, their situation was not much better. The great treasure fleets were a thing of the past. Spain was a chaotic mess led by a man who seemed to combine the fecklessness of his father with the corruption of Godoy. Despite their battlefield victories, the royalists were unable to finish off the rebels, who could retreat into the vastness of the desolate countryside. Lacking money and support from Spain, the royalists were forced to take food and supplies from the local populace. Many royalist commanders, receiving little to no support from Mexico City, set up their own fiefdoms throughout the colony, making themselves answerable to no one.

In many cases, the people of New Spain would be forced to contribute to both sides at the barrels of their guns, leaving nothing left for themselves. New Spain was dying by its own hand. The fight between the rebels and the royalists after the death of Morelos was carried out with a brutality that led many to disregard causes and ideologies and fight simply for hate’s sake.

New Rebel Leaders Arise

For two men, the war was still about the ideals of Hidalgo and Morelos. Vicente Guerrero was the right-hand man of Morelos. He was a man who still believed in freedom and independence for Mexico. A man who showed so much integrity during the war, that when the new Viceroy, Juan Ruiz de Apodaca, wanted to coax Guerrero to surrender he dispatched Guerrero’s own father, who was a royalist, to try to convince him. Guerrero turned down his own father, convinced of the justice of his cause. Guerrero would be made General in Chief of the rebels and fought battle after battle against the royalist forces. While successful time and again, he lacked the men and resources to deal a killing blow.

José Miguel Fernandez also believed in the dream. He came to see himself as the embodiment of the struggle for independence. In time, he would be known more famously as Guadalupe Victoria, taking this name symbolizing the fight for freedom.  Victoria would also gain several victories against the royalists.

From 1815 to 1817, these two leaders would lead a semi-successful partisan war against the royalists. Hitting isolated towns and garrisons hard, they would quickly retreat back into the mountains or the jungle. Despite these victories, the rebels were not capable of driving the Spanish from Mexico. For all the problems the royalists had, they were still better armed, trained, and provisioned. The only advantage the rebels seemed to possess was mobility. Neither side could achieve anything like a decisive victory that could affect the outcome of the war.

The Royalists Hit Back Harder

In 1817, the royalists decided to concentrate on Victoria, operating in the area around Veracruz. Striking hard and fast, the royalists hammered Victoria’s forces, retaking all the cities he had occupied. Victoria’s army was destroyed, and he himself had to hide in the jungle with only a few followers for several years. With one threat defeated, and seemingly out of the war, Apodaca now concentrated on Guerrero. Royalist troops were thrown at Guerrero’s rebels, but they were never able to pin him down. What the royalists were able to do was, through battle and attrition, whittle down Guerrero’s forces and so devastate the countryside in his area of operations that his effectiveness was limited.

By 1819, Apodaca could fairly accurately report to Ferdinand’s government that he did not need any more troops from Spain. From the Viceroy’s seat, the insurgency may still linger on, but the war of independence was over. There was a less than zero chance that Guerrero would be able to victoriously march into the Zocalo with his army and win the war. Events in New Spain, however, would be overtaken by events in Old Spain.

Fire From the Rear for the Royalists

As mentioned earlier, Ferdinand VII restored absolute rule in 1814. By 1820, Spanish liberals were either in prison or in hiding. They groaned under the heavy hand of Ferdinand and his neo-absolutist rule. Dissatisfaction was high, and the constant wars in the colonies were driving discontent even higher. In order to deal with the rebellions in the New World, Ferdinand had ordered a force to gather in Cádiz and sail for the Americas to put down the rebels once and for all. Ferdinand wanted to take no chances. Despite the war in New Spain seemingly being won, he would reinforce his colonies, finish off the rebels, then his troops would move colony by colony destroying rebel armies until the colonials were finally suppressed. On New Year’s Day, 1820, troops in the city led by Colonel Rafael del Riego staged a revolt demanding the return of the Constitution of 1812 and the end of absolutism. Riego’s army began marching into the interior to gather supporters when another uprising took place in Galicia. From these two seeds, the rebellion grew throughout Spain. By March, the liberals approached Madrid and even surrounded the royal palace. Ferdinand saw the writing on the wall and agreed to restore the constitution and surrender many of his own powers.

Back in 1812, the Supreme Junta in Spain had ordered the old Viceroy, Vanegas, to implement the Constitution. Vanegas was a liberal, so he was not necessarily opposed to many of the high ideals contained therein. What he did oppose was independence for New Spain. Vanegas was more far-sighted than the Supreme Junta. He recognized that the implementation of liberal ideas in New Spain would inevitably lead to independence. The Supreme Junta missed this and believed that no one truly informed of the guarantees of the Constitution would oppose it.

Vanegas knew the Constitution of 1812 made his job virtually impossible. He suspended its implementation soon after, using Morelos’ rebellion as justification. By the time news reached Spain about this, the new government of Ferdinand approved heartily. Vanegas was replaced by Calleja, who decreed in August 1815 that the Constitution was dead. This was how the political situation in New Spain sat for several years.

A Time for Questions

When, in 1820, the liberal Constitution came back, many of the royalists were horrified. They were conservative by nature and political outlook. They had spent the better part of a decade fighting against the liberalism that the rebels embodied. Now, they were being told by the government that they had put their lives on the line for, that the liberal ideals were the right ones. This new, liberal Spain was not one they were willing to fight for.

In 1820, the revolution was nearly dead. Guerrero was driven deep into the mountains. Victoria was still eating bugs in the jungles around Veracruz. The people were exhausted. The country was devastated. Most of the true believers were dead or in hiding. It had seemed that all the years of fighting and struggle had been for nothing. Militarily, the rebels had lost.

For the royalists, it had seemed a lost cause too. Sure, they had won on the battlefield. Yes, the rebels were still fighting, but they were disorganized bands not much more organized than outlaws. It was ideologically where they had lost the war. They had fought for the ideals of dios, patria, y rey; God, Fatherland, and King. Now, through no fault of their own, those ideals were thrown out the window by rebels in Madrid who were attempting to undermine everything they had done for almost a decade. What was the point of fighting against the liberalism the rebels were trying to establish in New Spain when their very government, seemingly their very king, they were fighting for was telling them that liberalism was the new order of the day?

It was a time for choosing in New Spain, for all of the combatants. Where did your first loyalty lie? To the king? To Mexico? To New Spain? To liberalism? To conservatism? To republicanism? To monarchism? For everyone fighting in New Spain by the dawn of 1821, the answer to that question would put to the test all of the major players. They would all be held in the balance.

What do you think of the 1810s in Mexico and the impact from changes in Spain? 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.

Slavery in New York has a long and sad history. Here, Richard Bluttal provides an in depth history of the subject from the 17th to the 19th century, from the Atlantic slave trade era to the end of slavery and beyond.

A depiction of an early slave auction in New York (then New Amsterdam). By Howard Pyle.

First Slaves Arrive in New World in 1619

Twenty Africans, carried on a Dutch ship, are brought to Jamestown, Virginia, to be sold as indentured servants, not slaves, a fine distinction that probably escaped their notice.

Jamestown had exported 10 tons of tobacco to Europe and was a boomtown. The export business was going so well the colonists were able to afford two imports which would greatly contribute to their productivity and quality of life. 20 Blacks from Africa and 90 women from England. The Africans were paid for in food; each woman cost 120 pounds of tobacco. The Blacks were bought as indentured servants from a passing Dutch ship low on food, and the women were supplied by a private English company. Those who married the women had to pay their passage--120 pounds of tobacco.

With the success of tobacco planting, African Slavery was legalized in Virginia and Maryland, becoming the foundation of the Southern agrarian economy. Very important when cotton becomes the main source of the economy by time of the cotton gin 1793.

Atlantic Slave Trade and the Middle Passage

Both Maryland and Virginia were in need of a more permanent source of labor: slaves. Although Massachusetts was the first colony to recognize slavery, Maryland and Virginia soon followed, with both colonies legalizing slavery during the 1660s.

Since some African chiefs or kings could increase their wealth by working closely with slave traders, one tribe might capture the warriors of another tribe and then sell their prisoners of war into slavery. Astonishingly, hundreds of thousands torn from their villages and homes survived degradation and deprivation to become the almost 4 million people held in slavery in 1860, at the eve of the Civil War.

Triangular Trade receives its name from the shipping routes that connected Europe, Africa, the West Indies, and North America in the transatlantic commerce of slaves and manufactured goods. These routes began in England, where goods were shipped to Africa. Nearly one-third of all slave voyages were outfitted in Liverpool, London, Bristol, and other ports in Britain. French vessels from such ports as La Rochelle, Le Havre, Bordeaux, and Nantes made up another 13 percent.

In Africa, the goods were then traded for slaves bound for the Americas. Known as the Middle Passage, the forced voyage from the freedom of Africa to the auction blocks of the Americas was a physical and psychological nightmare that lasted several weeks or months. Having unloaded their cargoes in the colonies, the ships returned to England laden with tobacco, sugar, cotton, rum, and other slave-produced items. This trade pattern continued with some modifications into the early nineteenth century.

In order to maximize profits and offset any losses, most captains packed as many Africans as possible into the holds of their ships. During the late 1600s and throughout the 1700s, most English ships that sailed directly from Africa to the colonies carried about 200 enslaved Africans. Later slave ships could carry as many as 400 slaves with a crew of 47.

Slaves were chained in pairs (the right arm and leg of one chained to the left leg and arm of another), and men and women were separated from each other. All of them were forced to lie naked on wooden planks below deck in extremely hot quarters. At times, small groups of slaves were allowed to come on deck for exercise; some of them were forced to dance. Women and children could occasionally roam the deck, but men were allowed on deck for only a short while. Heat, limited sanitary facilities (sometimes buckets for human waste were not emptied for long periods of time), and epidemics from diseases such as smallpox and dysentery together produced an unbearable stench onboard. An outbreak of disease could devastate an entire cargo of enslaved Africans, and an estimated 15 to 20 percent of slaves probably died on route to the colonies, primarily from diseases resulting from overcrowding, spoiled food, and contaminated.

Many also died of starvation and thirst. Yet captains most feared slave mutinies, 250 of which scholars estimate took place. As a result, those slaves who were disruptive or likely to cause a mutiny were thrown overboard.

Because of the stench and disease, many slave ships had to be abandoned after about five years. Eventually ships were built especially for human cargo, with shackling irons, nets, and ropes as standard equipment. During this process slaves were frequently and harshly flogged, sometimes with a paddle but more often with a whip that had a lead ball sewn on its end. They were also forced to learn how to speak a new language, eat new foods, and obey White masters.

At last, when the ship we were in, had got in all her cargo, they made ready with many fearful noises, and we were all put under deck, so that we could not see how they managed the vessel. ...The stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome....The closeness of the place, and the heat of the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded that each had scarcely room to turn himself, almost suffocated us. This produced copious perspirations, so that the air soon became unfit for respiration, from a variety of loathsome smells, and brought on a sickness among the slaves, of which many died -- thus falling victims to the improvident avarice, as I may call it, of their purchasers.

  • Dr Alexander Falconbridge describes the middle passage:

    The slaves lie on bare planks. The surgeon, upon going between decks, in the morning, to examine the situation, frequently finds several dead. These dead slaves are thrown to the sharks.

    It often happens that those who are placed at a distance from the latrine buckets, in trying to get to them, tumble over their companions, as a result of being shackled. This situation is added to by the tubs being too small and only emptied once every day.
    Fever - Alexander Falconbridge (a ship's doctor), An Account of the Slave Trade (1788)
    Some wet and blowing weather having caused the port-holes to be shut, fluxes and fevers among the negroes followed. I frequently went down among them, till at length their apartments became so excessively hot as to be only bearable for a very short time...
    The floor of their rooms was so covered in the blood and mucus which had come from them because of the flux, that it resembled a slaughter-house.

New York’s Involvement

Some of New York’s merchants and bankers profited directly by financing and participating in the Atlantic Slave trade.  In memoirs published in 1864, Captain James Smith, a convicted slave trader, claimed that in 1859 85 ships capable of  carrying between 30 and 60,000 enslaved Africans were outfitted in the port of NY to serve the slave markets of Cuba. “ I can go down to South Street, and go into a number of houses that help fit out ships for the business.” The trade was so profitable that on one voyage, a ship that cost $13,000 to fit her out completely, “ delivered a human cargo worth $220,000 to Cuba.

Major Dutch families such as Philipses were involved, others    had commercial ties with the British Caribbean colonies. By the mid-eighteenth century this family held over 52,000 acres in Westchester County and had one of the largest slave holdings.

By 1720 half the ships leaving New York were engaged in Caribbean slave trade. Slave auctions were held weekly and sometimes daily at the Wall Street slave market. Advertisements regularly appeared in newspapers- note Slave ads.

African Burial Ground

During the construction of the federal office tower in downtown Manhattan, the skeletal remains of over 400 slaves were discovered in graves. Of the 400 skeletons taken about 40 per cent were children under 15 years of age, the most common cause of the death was malnutrition, how? From examination of decayed teeth. The adult skeletons showed that many of these people died of unrelenting hard labor. Strain on the muscles and ligaments was so extreme that muscle attachments were commonly ripped away from the skeleton-taking chunks of bone with them-leaving the body in perpetual pain.

Showed that “colonial New York was just as dependent on slavery as many Southern cities, and in some cases ever more so.”

Slavery in Dutch New Amsterdam

The first Dutch agent of African ancestry who can be documented in the New York region was Jan Rodriguez in 1609. The first permanent European settlement in 1625 began when the Dutch West Indian Company established the village of New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island. From the start the Dutch had a labor shortage, the solution to merchants already engaged in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was to employ enslaved Africans clear the land, plant and harvest crops, and, to build houses, roads, fortifications and bridges. In 1626 a WIC ship brought eleven enslaved male Africans to the colony. Based on their names they were probably Africans from the southwest coast of Africa who were captured or purchased from the Portuguese.

Unlike the legal system in other slave colonies, Dutch laws did not mandate racial discrimination in New Amsterdam. Africans in the Dutch New Netherland colony could meet in groups, walk around the town without passes and own property. People of African ancestry could appeal to the Dutch courts for redress of grievances and even testify against Whites.

The “Land of the Blacks,” as it was known, covered the area that stretches from Greenwich Village north to Herald Square in midtown Manhattan today. In exchange for their freedom and land, each family agreed to pay taxes to WIC in corn, wheat and hogs every year.

Under Governor Peter Stuyvesant’s direction, a number of enslaved Africans became skilled caulkers, blacksmith, bricklayers and masons. In some cases, they were granted half-freedom , which meant they were still obligated to provide the WIC with labor when needed and that their children were not born free. Fort New Amsterdam was completed in 1635. Slaves built roads, cut timber and firewood, cleared land and burned limestone and oyster shells to make the lime used in outhouses and in burying the dead.

The enslaved Africans in the colony had a very ambiguous legal status. Dutch laws did not mandate racial discrimination in the colony. Africans could meet in groups, walk around town without passes and own property. People of African ancestry could appeal to the Dutch courts for appeal of grievances and even testify against Whites. In the portion of the colony beyond the wall stood a tract of land called “Land of the Blacks.” In exchange for their freedom and land, each family allowed to live there agreed to pay taxes to WIC in wheat, corn and hogs every year.

By 1654 the Dutch West India Company began to ship slaves to New Amsterdam more consistently, in larger numbers, and directly from Africa in an effort to develop New Amsterdam in a major North American slave port.

The variety of rights and privileges enjoyed by African slaves in New Amsterdam, relatively kind masters, good opportunities to form families, and access to courts and some forms of property-did not mitigate the fundamental facts of enslavement for Africans: involuntary, largely unpaid, life long servitude and ultimate lack of control over one’s individual and family life

Slave Auctions in Dutch New Amsterdam and Colonial America

Slave auctions took place regularly at a market on Wall Street. Between 1700 and 1774, over 7,000 slaves were imported into New York, most of them destined for sale to surrounding rural areas. This figure was dwarfed by the more than 200,000 brought into the southern colonies in these years.

Slave Auctions were advertised when it was known that a slave ship was due to arrive. Ads were placed in local newspapers advertising arrival of ships and slaves for

When the slave ship docked, the slaves would be taken off the ship and placed in a pen. There they would be washed and their skin covered with grease, or sometimes tar, to make them look more healthy. This was done so that they would fetch as much money as possible. They would also be branded with a hot iron to identify them as slaves. There is a folder labeled Slave Auction that includes images. There are two types of Slave auctions. Later on in 1711 the municipal government established a Meal Market on the east side of New York where enslaved Blacks were auctioned to new owners or hired out for a period of time.

British Takeover of New Amsterdam 1664 and policies towards slaves

In 1664 Colonel Richard Nicolls, commanding four British ships and several hundred soldiers, sailed into New Amsterdam harbor. A surprised Governor Stuyvesant surrendered without firing a shot. It was estimated that in 1664 about eight thousand Whites and seven hundred Africans lived in New Amsterdam.  To the dismay of Africans the English soon began to replace the Dutch lenient “half-slavery” with their own profit-driven, mean spirited bondage. Africans in Manhattan faced new hardships and challenges as they pressed their search for liberty and justice. In the British takeover folder are materials including a power point we will examine. Different from the Dutch ownership of slaves in British New York spread widely among the White population.

       Some Restrictions on Slaves:

  1. In 1677 a New York court stated that any person of color brought to trial was presumed to be a slave.

  2. Slaves had to carry a pass and could not leave their owners’ homes on Sundays.

  3. One city ordinance prohibited more than four Africans and Native Americans from meeting together.

Slavery in New York prior to the American Revolution and the resistance movement

Europeans employed slave men in skilled occupations such as carpentry, tailoring, blacksmithing, shoemaking, baking and butchering. Large numbers of male slaves were employed on the docks. Slave women, usually no more than one per household, aided White women with cooking, cleaning, and childcare.

Most Manhattan slave owners actively discouraged their slaves from marrying or having children.

New York lawmakers attempted to limit interactions among slaves in the city. Through regulations, New York lawmakers sought to control the cultural, social, and political independence of slaves.

The biggest fear of masters was that education and conversion to Christianity would encourage slaves to seek freedom. Records show that in New Amsterdam enslaved Africans collectively petitioned for wages as early as 1635 and used incessant colonial warfare. As slavery became more restrictive under the British, slaves expressed their discontent through various forms of resistance during the 18th century. Slaves stole more cash, clothing, and food from masters’ households and ran away more frequently than they had under the Dutch. frightening to which than such small acts of resistance was the threat of slave revolt.

An important theme during the 18th century in New York is the increasing resistance to bondage by enslaved Africans in the colonies.

Organized physical violence was one aspect of resistance, however, that organized, armed violence was a relatively rare occurrence during the 350-year history of slavery in the United States. Why were armed rebellions so infrequent? Slave masters monopolized armed power, severely restricting slaves’ access to weapons. Slave masters also closely monitored their slaves’ activities, limiting their movement and freedom of association. Under these circumstances, organization and planning were next to impossible. On those rare occasions when the enslaved escaped their masters’ purview, they faced yet other mechanisms of White control—militias, local patrols, and vigilantes. Rebels who avoided the net of surveillance and enacted their conspiracies were always dealt with in brutal fashion.

Hard usage” motivated two dozen slaves to stage an uprising in 1712 in which they set fires on the outskirts of the city and murdered the first Whites to respond. There followed a series of sadistic public executions, with some conspirators burned to death or broken on the wheel. The colonial Assembly quickly enacted a draconian series of laws governing slavery. These measures established separate courts for slaves and restricted private manumissions by requiring masters to post substantial bonds to cover the cost of public assistance in the event that a freed slave required it. The discovery of a “Great Negro Plot” in 1741, whose contours remain a matter of dispute among historians, led to more executions and further tightening of the laws governing slavery. As a result, few Black New Yorkers achieved freedom through legal means before the era of the Revolution.

Public hangings and decapitation were common punishments. Other rebels were gibbeted alive, burned alive, or broken on the wheel. In all of these instances, punishment was meant to demonstrate the totalizing effects of White supremacy, terrorizing those who remained enslaved. Remarkably, some slaves still embarked on what they must have known were suicide missions. Were the men and women who confronted their masters with violence so desperate that they preferred death to living in slavery? Or, did they really believe that they could be the exception and overthrow White supremacy? These are important questions to consider.

During the American Revolution resistance also meant joining British forces.

In the South, by the nineteenth century, running away to the North offered the virtue of a tenuous freedom; however, failed runaways also met with serious reprisals. Most did not try to escape. For those who remained enslaved, resistance took on more familiar everyday forms.

Of all the Black activists engaged in the struggle to end slavery and secure equal rights for African-Americans the most prominent with Frederick Douglas of Rochester, New York.

Ownership of slaves was widespread. Most worked as domestic laborers, on the docks, in artisan shops, or on small farms in the city’s rural hinterland. In modern-day Brooklyn, then a collection of farms and small villages, one-third of the population in 1771 consisted of slaves.

On the eve of the American Revolution, the city’s population of 19,000 included nearly 3,000 slaves, and some 20,000 slaves lived within 50 miles of Manhattan island.

Our Founding Fathers and Slavery

The existence of Slavery in the US was taken for granted by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787; there was little or no discussion of abolishing it. The Slave trade, however, was very much in contention.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 provided that an owner of his agent could seize a runaway and bring him or her before any judge or magistrate with “proof” of slave status, whereupon the official would issue a certificate of removal. Any person who interfered with the process became liable to a lawsuit by the owner.

The market for slaves was about to explode in volume and everyone knew it.

Prohibiting the African trade, as the New England delegation wanted to do, would create a grand bonanza for Virginia slaveholders-at the expense of South Carolina.

  • Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution reads: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.

Jefferson framed ending importation of persons as humanitarian act. Ending the African slave trade was protectionism on behalf of Virginia. It kept out the cheaper African imports so as to keep the price of domestically raised people high.

The Great Awakening in New York 1740s through the American Revolution

Beginning in the 1740s, a time of religious revival led New York City Whites and Blacks to reconsider the morality of slavery. National, state and local conventions of Black activists became important weapons in the battle against slavery.

The struggle for freedom and equality required the development of African-American community institutions and indigenous leadership. Quakers began to call upon their members to free their slaves.

Remember the New York economy relied too heavily on slavery for Whites to give up the system so easily. However, the influence of the Great Awakening convinced New York City slaves, and a few Whites more strongly of African-American’s rights to freedom.

The first emancipation proclamation in American history preceded Abraham Lincoln’s by nearly ninety years. Its author was the Earl of Dunmore, the royal governor of colonial Virginia, who in November 1775 promised freedom “all indentured servants, negroes, or others” belonging to rebels if they enlisted in the army.

Gouverneur Morris 1777

“The rights of human nature and the principles of our holy religion call up us to depense the blessings of freedom to all mankind…….It is therefore recommended to the legislatures of New York to take measures consistent with the public safety for abolishing domestic slavery. “

The founding of the New York Manumission Society in 1785 led by group of influential White New York City men gave enslaved Black people new allies in the struggle against slavery. The society offered legal assistance to Blacks seeking freedom, worked strenuously to oppose kidnapping of free Blacks and slave catching in the city, brought to court captains engaged illegally in the African slave trade, and sponsored antislavery lectures and literature.

In 1787 the society founded the first of several African Free Schools for free Black and enslaved children in New York Segments of the New York press also played an active role in the battle to end slavery in the United States.

In 1799, New York’s legislature finally adopted a measure for gradual abolition. It freed slave children born after July 4, 1799, but after they had served “apprenticeships” of twenty-eight years for men and twenty-five for women.

By 1816, the American Colonization Society was founded by American Whites, including many abolitionists. The society directed its efforts toward removing from the country Blacks already free. A number of abolitionists believed that racism was so deeply embedded in American life that Blacks could never enjoy freedom except by emigrating. The Black mobilization against colonization became a key catalyst for the rise of new, militant abolitionism in the 1830’s.

In 1817, the legislature decreed that all slaves who had been living at the time of 1799 act would be emancipated on July 4, 1827.  WHILE SLAVERY NO LONGER EXISTED, NEW YORK’S PROSPERITY INCREASINGLY DEPENDED ON ITS RELATIONS WITH THE SLAVE SOUTH. AS THE COTTON KINGDOM FLOURISHED, SO DID ITS ECONOMIC CONNECTIONS WITH NEW YORK.

The economy of Brooklyn was very tied to slavery. Warehouses along its waterfront were filled with the products of slave labor-cotton, tobacco, and especially sugar from Louisiana and Cuba. In the 1850’s sugar refining was Brooklyn’s largest industry.

During the American Revolution, slaves that sided with the British found employment reconstructing the damaged parts of the city and working for the British army as servants, cooks, and laundresses.  For the first time in their lives, they received wages and were effectively treated as free. When the British evacuated Philadelphia in 1778, moreB refugees arrived.

When the British sailed out of New York harbor in 1783, they carried not only tens of thousands of White soldiers, sailors, and loyalists, but over 3,000 Blacks most of whom had been freed in accordance with British proclamations. They ended up in Nova Scotia, England and Sierra Leone, a colony established by British abolitionists on the west coast of Africa later in the decade.

By 1830, more than a dozen Black congregations rented or owned buildings in lower Manhattan alone, including the African Methodist Episcopal Church, The Demeter Presbyterian Church and the First Colored Presbyterian Church. In 1832 the New York City Anti-Slavery Society was formed.

New York’s African American community supported the first Black newspaper in the United States, Freedom’s Journal.

Horace Greeley, the founder and an editor of the New York Tribune, took a strong moral position favoring the abolition of slavery.

Reverend Henry Ward Beecher was a leading opponent of slavery. Beecher raised money in his Brooklyn church, Plymouth Church, to purchase the freedom of slaves in symbolic protests against the institution.

The battle for social equality in New York led to civil disobedience. African-Americans even when legally free, were continually at risk. In an 1836 letter to the New York Sun, David Ruggles described the kidnapping of a free Black on the streets of New York.The presence of the rapidly growing free Black community ready to take to the streets to try to protect fugitive slaves would make New York a key battleground in the national struggle over slavery. Quickly Black institutions emerged-fraternal societies, literary clubs, and 10 Black churches. New York City replaced Philadelphia as the “capital” of free Black America. Africans can now been seen all over New York, many lived near the docks or in the 5 points.

The Underground Railroad in New York

New York City was a crucial way station to the metropolitan corridor  through which fugitive slaves made their way from the Upper South through Philadelphia and on the upstate New York, New England and Canada.

Women were important conductors on the UGRR. One important station in New York City was the Colored Sailors’ Home, where Mary Marshall Lyons, the owner’s wife, fed and disguised more than one thousand refugees.

The unique socioeconomic structure of Weeksville, a Black township, offered a safety net for fugitives, while Brooklyn itself was [a] Mecca of abolitionist culture, home to several notable antislavery pastors, authors, activists and others who were key to the call for freedom.

Profiting from Slavery

Documents found at the New-York Historical Society shown that the founders of Brown Bros. Harriman, based in New York City, built the bank by lending millions of dollars to Southern planters and arranging for the shipment and sale of slave-grown cotton in New England and Great Britain.

Economic historian Douglas North found that the North provided “not only the services to finance, transport, insure, and market the South’s cotton, but also supplied the South with manufactured goods.

Despite the efforts of Whites, in New York, the slave system supported the development of New York as a commercial and financial center, by 1860 it was one of the world’s major metropolises.

Nautilus Insurance company, wrote over 300 life insurance policies on enslaves Africans in the American South. Aetna

uncovered 7 life insurance policies taken out by plantation owners for enslaved Africans.

As a result of the cotton trade, the port of the New York exceeded the combined shipping of its two major American business rivals, Boston and Philadelphia, in both volume and the value of goods being processed.

Commercial ties between North and South also provided New York City merchants with other economic benefits. Southern merchants and their families made annual pilgrimages to the city, ordering imported and domestic luxury goods and patronizing hotels, restaurants and resorts.

Many New York merchants championed conciliation with the South and compromise with slavery even after the Southern states started to secede.

The economic ties between the Southern planters and New York merchants were so strong that at the end of the Civil War, prewar commercial arrangements were quickly reestablished.

When the Civil War came to New York

Of course, New York’s role in the Civil War was critical to the Union’s success. New York contributed more soldiers, sustained more casualties, and also contributed more war materiel and financial support for the war than any other state. Remember, New York was arguably the most pro-South, pro-slavery city in the North because it had a very long and deep involvement in the international cotton trade. Even though many New Yorkers were pro-slavery and opposed the Civil War, once it happened, being New Yorkers, they figured out how to make a profit out of it. The banks lent great amounts of money to the Union's war effort, and much of that money was spent right back in New York on uniforms and horses and food and other supplies.

While the Civil War pitted North against South, some locations confounded that stark regional split. New York was one of those places, a city of divided loyalties and complex class, racial, and economic interests. While most New Yorkers supported the war at its outset, significant forces urged conciliation with the Confederacy. From Wall Street financiers, to commercial shippers, to merchants selling manufactured goods to a South that produced little of its own, the New York City economy depended heavily on southern cotton.

When the Civil War began in 1861, large numbers of New York City’s White workers did not embrace the fight to preserve the Union. Many resented the war effort, which brought economic hardship and increasing unemployment to working-class neighborhoods. *Competition for jobs between Irish and Black workers, already intense before the war, increased dramatically, and racial tensions mounted in work places and in working-class neighborhoods throughout the city.

The National Conscription Act exacerbated long-simmering class tensions and the deprivations brought on by wartime inflation; it was especially unpopular among the city’s immigrant White working class. When it was enacted on July 11, 1863 (Draft Riots ), it touched off the worst rioting Americans had ever seen. People and buildings representing Protestant missionaries, Republican draft officials, war production, wealthy businessmen, and African Americans suffered the worst of the crowds’ wrath, and after four days more than 119 New Yorkers were dead. Soon after the riots were quelled by federal troops, the northern war effort finally started to bear fruit and the city’s economy rebounded (aided by the re-legalization of the cotton trade with the rebel states).

Nearly three-quarters of the Black men of eligible age volunteered for the Union army. Because White soldiers did not trust them in actual combat, most Black soldiers were assigned to support roles, though they sometimes engaged with the enemy. New York registered 4,125 soldiers in its three Black regiments, the 20th, 26th, and 31st United States Colored Troops. Trained at Riker's and Hart's islands in the East River in early 1864, they were dispatched to Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas, respectively. The 31st was at Appomattox Court House when Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered his army.

Almost all the commissioned officers in U.S. Colored Troops regiments were White. David J. Pilsworth (1841-1895) enlisted as a private, suffered wounds in 1862, and was promoted to a captain of the 20th USCT after his recovery.

On June 17, 1864, Ellen Anderson, a respectable-looking widow, was ordered to leave the "Whites only" car of the 8th Avenue Railroad. "I said I was sick and wished to ride up home. I said I had lost my husband in the war. The conductor said 'he did not care for me, or my husband either,' and he and the police officer threw me off the car." She sued the railroad company and won. By July, all the streetcars in New York were open to Blacks.

Until the secretary of war intervened, city authorities forbade Blacks from marching behind Abraham Lincoln's body from City Hall to the Hudson River docks. Two thousand Blacks brought up the end of the march, carrying a banner that read "Abraham Lincoln, Our Emancipator." By that time, the body had already left the city.

For Black people, the years after the draft riots and the Civil War meant an increasingly fragmented community scattered through northern New Jersey, Westchester, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, but these distinctive neighborhoods developed their own civic, religious, and social organizations.

In New York, one final battle remained to preserve inequality and prevent Black suffrage. In April 1869, the state legislature ratified the Fifteenth Amendment to the federal constitution, guaranteeing the right to vote to Black men. But a New York State constitutional amendment for equal rights was voted down in November 1869, losing by 70-30% in New York City. In January, the new Democratic majority in Albany repealed the federal ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment by a vote of 69-55.

Despite New York's reversal, enough states did approve the Fifteenth Amendment, which was certified on March 30, 1870. Black Americans took the opportunity to celebrate a momentous victory.

On a self-titled album in 1969, the rock group The Band released “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” a song depicting the final days of the Confederacy in 1865.

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

Now read Richard’s piece on the 1692 Massacre of Glencoe here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post
5 CommentsPost a comment

During the second half of the 19th century, many political powers - European and Asian alike - had their attention concentrated on a kingdom that was famous for being isolated. Its location and resources were the obvious features that would make it an easy target for invasion. The land of Korea was so secluded from the outside world that it had earned the title of the ‘Hermit Kingdom’. As we focus on the happenings in China and Japan, we can’t leave out the land for which they were fighting. What were the circumstances in Korea while China and Japan had been strategizing to gain authority over her?

If you missed them, you can read Disha’s article on the First Sino-Japanese War here, and how the war may have led to the collapse of the Qing dynasty here.

A depiction of the 1882 Imo Mutiny.

Confucianism and Korean society

The foundations of Korean society were laid over the principles of Confucianism. Violation of any ritual practice was considered a greater offense than breaking a law. It was believed that a ruler who did not carry out the traditional rites in a proper fashion was unfit to rule. (1) Soon, Confucianism gained a societal aspect to it, rather than just a religious one. It came to be regarded as a way of life - a system through which all institutions of society could be run smoothly.

Confucianism idealized a society that was organized into classes. As a result, Korea had been a rigidly hierarchical society since the Koryeo times. The demarcation was done into the yangban and the common people. The yangban were the elite classes at the top. They were scholars of Confucianism and were trained from their childhood to become a part of the government. (2) They were entitled to several liberties that the common folks were not - one of them being tax exemption. (3)

Koreans were pleased with Korea’s identity as ‘little China’ because they believed China was the center of all that was under heaven. (4) China was a cultured land unlike Japan which no longer properly executed the venerable practices of Confucianism. This, along with the adoption of western ways, led Japan to be perceived as an inferior state. Furthermore, the Japanese didn't even conduct civil service examinations, so how could they employ good government officials? (5) In other words, they were no better than the barbarians from the West.

The 1881 Mission to Japan

Korea had remained secluded for centuries, earning the title of ‘Hermit Kingdom’. The Treaty of Kanghwa modified this status, as one of the main conditions of the treaty was allowing free trade to Japanese merchants and opening up three Korean ports. As the kingdom gradually lowered its walls of isolation, Japan’s modernization made an impression on Korea. Although, not all of it was positive.

To study the practices of modernized Japan, King Kojong sent a group of courtiers to Japan in 1881. These courtiers were ardent followers of Confucianism and also from the yangban classes. (6) The kind of Confucianism they witnessed in Japan had them scrunching their noses. No matter how unimpressed they were, they couldn’t help but admire the orderliness and prosperity there. (7)

The older members of the mission were not so keen on having the same reforms made in Korea. Contrary to their thoughts, modernization in Japan had a significant impact on the younger members. Having been exposed to new ideas, the urge to bring about change in the governance of their home state became stronger in these individuals. More than eighty books of reports were made that described various features of Meiji Japan in detail. (8) A special unit was also created under Lieutenant Horimoto Reizo, a Japanese official, to modernize the Korean army. (9)

Imo Mutiny

Around the same time, tensions started rising in the Korean army. The Korean soldiers did not particularly like the new reforms done under the Japanese unit. Moreover, there had been a delay in their payment. Rice was used as currency in those days and they found out that they had been given contaminated rice. As a result, the frustrated soldiers started a revolt against the crown in 1882.

The Imo Mutiny acted as a foothold for the Qing dynasty to reestablish its power in Korea. The incident brought Chinese troops into Korea. The Chinese now exerted their dominance by meddling in Korea’s affairs. The incident led to a visible division of the Korean administration into pro-Japanese and pro-Chinese factions.

The pro-Chinese were the older yangban who valued “Eastern learning” and were mostly from the Min clan. They made up the Sadae party meaning “serving the great”, which in this case was China. Interestingly, the Min clan was partial to the opinion that there was a need to modernize Korea with western weaponry while maintaining its comfort as a Chinese protectorate. On the other hand, the pro-Japanese were led by the younger yangban. These reform-pursuing individuals then formed an organization called the Kaehwa Party (or the Enlightenment Party). (10) Kim Ok-kyun and Hong Yeong-sik were some of the prominent leaders of the Kaehwa party.

The Gapsin Coup

The Treaty of Kanghwa omitted to mention Korea as a Chinese protectorate. To counter this move, the Chinese had begun persuading Korea to sign treaties with the West (11) to prevent any Japanese interference. After the Imo Mutiny, they were fairly certain that it was not so easy to snatch Korea away from them after all. So, when China clashed with the French in 1884, some of the Qing troops stationed in Korea since the mutiny were withdrawn.

The leaders of the Kaehwa Party saw this as an opportunity to liberate Korea from external and internal power plays. Their main objectives were the end of the yangban dominance in the administration and ending Korea’s identity as a Chinese tributary state.

A banquet was organized by Hong Yeong-sik for celebrating the inauguration of the new postal administration. (12) It was held in the presence of King Kojong on December 4, 1884. The event gave way to the king being held captive under the eye of Japanese guards and the killing of many pro-Chinese officials. This was the inception of a three-day coup, called the Gapsin coup, supported by Japan. It was executed under the leadership of Kim Ok-kyun.

Though it was quite ambitious, the coup fell short of fulfilling its purpose. The Chinese troops arrived in Korea at Queen Min’s request and vanquished the Japanese forces. The Li-Ito Convention put a pause to the bloodshed by removing both Chinese and Japanese troops from Joseon territory, albeit temporarily.

The Sino-French War concluded with the Qings having to cede Annam (Vietnam). In addition to the constant anti-dynastic rebellions and an inefficient government, another new problem now posed before the declining Qing dynasty was that of losing tributary states. China had lost Annam to the French and Burma (Myanmar) to the British. (13) It would be an utter disgrace for the Qings to lose suzerainty over another territory as the reputation of the dynasty worsened. This proved to be a grave situation as the focus shifted towards Korea which was still on Japan’s radar.

While the coup was suppressed and China had managed to regain Korea as a tributary, it did not remain so for a long time. The Tonghak Rebellion in 1894 went on to challenge Korean authorities. The situation got so out of hand that as a last resort Korea had to ask for Chinese intervention. The intervention, seen as the violation of the Li-Ito Convention, once again brought China and Japan to the battlefield.

What do you think of Chinese and Japanese conflict over Korea? Let us know below.

Now read Disha’s article on the Hitler Youth here.

Bibliography

Chung, Chai-sik. “Changing Korean Perceptions of Japan on the Eve of Modern Transformation: The Case of Neo-Confucian Yangban Intellectuals.” Korean Studies 19 (1995): 39–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719138.

Hahm, Chaihark. “Ritual and Constitutionalism: Disputing the Ruler’s Legitimacy in a Confucian Polity.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 57, no. 1 (2009): 135–203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454666.

Huh, Donghyun, and Vladimir Tikhonov. “The Korean Courtiers’ Observation Mission’s Views on Meiji Japan and Projects of Modern State Building.” Korean Studies 29 (2005): 30–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719526.

Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905.” Chapter. In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, 11:70–141. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Seth, Michael J. A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.

References

1 Chaihark Hahm, ‘Ritual and Constitutionalism: Disputing the Ruler's Legitimacy in a Confucian Polity’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454666.

2 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Choso˘n Society’, 176-177.

3 Ibid, 167.

4 Chai-sik Chung, ‘Changing Korean Perceptions of Japan on the Eve of Modern Transformation: The Case of Neo-Confucian Yangban Intellectuals’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719138.

5 Ibid.

6 Donghyun Huh and Vladimir Tikhonov, ‘The Korean Courtiers’ Observation Mission’s Views on Meiji Japan and Projects of Modern State Building’, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719526.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Korea in the Age of Imperialism, 1876-1910’, 235-236.

10 Ibid, 238.

11 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 102.

12 Michael J. Seth, A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, ‘Korea in the Age of Imperialism, 1876-1910’, 238-239.

 13 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 101.

A number of pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower from England to America and the New World. The foundations that the American republic was built on can be traced back to these people, and the sacrifices they made, when they came ashore just over 400 years ago on November 11, 1620. Noel Maldonado explains.

Embarkation of the Pilgrims, 1857. By Robert Walter Weir.

Why Did the Pilgrims Come to America?

The origins of the Mayflower Voyage date back to the early 1600s, when a group of Christians — labeled “Separatists” (the term Pilgrim wasn’t used until much later) — decided to leave the Church of England to form their own congregation in Scrooby, England. As a result, the group was constantly watched by the King’s guard, since it was illegal to hold their own services. They were fined, imprisoned, harassed, and scorned. This persecution continued until the group decided to flee to Holland. After two escape attempts, they finally succeeded, reuniting in Holland where they could worship freely.

What Was the Mayflower Voyage? 

However, after staying in Holland for 12 years, the Pilgrims weighed the cost of remaining there. The hard factory work they were required to do to sustain their families was taking a toll on their health and the health of their children. They were proud Englishmen, so watching their children become Dutch in language and marriage was not ideal. War with Spain was imminent, and, while the country allowed them to worship freely, the Pilgrims believed they were called to share the Gospel with the natives of the New World. It was at this point that the group made the decision to leave and forged their plans to cross the vast ocean to start over in the northernmost parts of Virginia.

By this time, the group had become a congregation of 300 people, led by John Robinson, a pastor, and professor in one of Leiden’s universities. In the end, only 102 people would take on the journey. There were children as young as one year of age and elderly as old as 64. About half the people on board were from the Scooby congregation that had moved to Holland, and the other half were from England. The Mayflower was a simple wine ship that was hired specifically for this journey. 

While there were supposed to be two ships making this voyage, the second ship, the Speedwell, began to leak, so all passengers had to travel in the tight cargo compartment of the Mayflower. Unfortunately, because the Speedwell had delayed the group twice, they set sail in September, which was a stormy season on the Atlantic Ocean. A trip that should have only taken 33 days took about 66 days because they encountered bad weather. 

Waiting for a Chance to Land

After the group had endured miserable conditions at sea, the Mayflower finally approached land on November 9, 1620, which was confirmed to be the Cape Cod area. They were further north than what their patent allowed, but after attempting to sail further south, they anchored the ship in Provincetown Harbor. The ship had almost wrecked in the dangerous waters of Pollack’s Rip, so they had turned back towards the harbor. There was talk of separation between the Scrooby congregation and the others on board, so the groups compromised with an agreement called the Mayflower Compact. This document established the first civil body politic in America, and would become the basis of the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.

Unfortunately, the group was greeted by the arrival of winter. This meant that there wouldn’t be any crops to harvest until the following year, and they only had the food aboard the Mayflower to last through the winter. 

That first winter, the group fell very sick; roughly half of them did not live through the cold winter. When the worst of the winter came during January and February, around two to three people would die every day, so they had to bury their dead in unmarked graves at night. Today, you can find a sarcophagus in Plymouth that protects the bones of those who died during the first winter.

Encounters With Native Americans

As time passed, the Pilgrims were able to nurture a mutually beneficial and friendly relationship with the natives. Through Squanto, the Pilgrims were introduced to the chief, or Great Sachem, of the Wampanoag, Massasoit.

This agreement would work to the benefit of both parties. While the natives shared resources and methods of farming, the Pilgrims provided protection to the tribe, resulting in both communities thriving. Because a plague had devastated the Wampanoag tribe, they were eager to form an alliance with the Pilgrims to protect them in times of war. Both groups agreed to defend one another in case of an attack. The treaty lasted an astounding 50 years.

Settling the Massachusetts Bay Area

The 51 surviving Pilgrims celebrated their first harvest with the Wampanoag during the fall of 1621. This is the event that we now commemorate as the first Thanksgiving. As the colony grew, other ships came. As their numbers grew, the Englishmen purchased land from the natives, and in 1630, Boston was founded by Puritan Governor John Winthrop.

The Puritans would eventually settle the Massachusetts Bay area. This era was known as the “great migration” because thousands of Puritan settlers made their way from England to the New World.

Uncovering the Legacy of This Important Event 

The real history of the Pilgrims is certainly one to be remembered. The Pilgrims are just one group of people in history who provide us with important lessons such as steadfastness, good character, caring for and valuing others, and treating each other with kindness and respect. The Pilgrims were able to stay true to their beliefs despite persecution, starvation, trials, and death. They were great examples of ordinary men and women that God used for His plans and purposes. As such, this group we call Pilgrims should be remembered as Christians who acted with godliness and genuine concern for those around them.

Conclusion

The true story of the Pilgrims is one of sacrifice and honor which paved the way for the freedoms we enjoy today in America. To ensure that they were free to serve and praise God in complete freedom without persecution, they made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that we could do the same today.

What do you think of the first American pilgrims? Let us know below.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

US President Woodrow Wilson was less than well towards the end of his presidency (1913-21). This led to a powerful role for his wife, First Lady Edith Galt Wilson. Here, Richard Bluttal explains her role of ‘stewardship’ that could arguably make her the first female US president.

First Lady Edith Wilson’s official White House portrait.

It was a grueling period for both. First Paris among diplomats worldwide, then a cross country trip, 8-10,000 miles.  They passed through scorching temperatures of the West, without any air conditioning.  He complained of splitting headaches, at one stop experiencing blurred vision.  She called for his doctor and said that her husband’s face was twitching and he was gasping for breath, similar to an asthma attack.  Dr. Grayson, his doctor, drew up a series of mandates, stating “Complete rest, total isolation from his job, and no one should interfere with his health.” They returned home. On October 2, 1919, his wife went to check to see how her husband was doing. He said to her, “I have no feeling in my hand,” motioning to his left hand. Minutes later, after calling his doctor from downstairs, she heard a thump like a body falling from his bed.  Running back upstairs, she found her husband unconscious and bleeding on the bathroom floor. Edith Galt Wilson had to make a quick decision - the country, or the life of her husband, President Woodrow Wilson. And why did he decide to arrange this tour, in support of the League of Nations?

From the standpoint of his October 2nd attack, what would the world know of this, let alone his administration and members of Congress. Very simple, nothing was to be said about the severity of his condition. The cover up had begun, and would continue until the end of his administration, close to two years later.  One of his doctors told Edith that the President must not be disturbed so that nature can repair the damage. Edith’s response was, “How can I protect him from problems when the country looks to him as the leader? What do we tell the world?” On October 3rd, Dr. Grayson issued a bulletin, “The President is a very sick man. Diagnosis is a nervous exhaustion”. In the remaining days and weeks, additional bulletins said that the President was recovering nicely.

Wilson’s condition

How bad was the President’s condition? In Woodrow Wilson: A Medical and Psychological Biography Edith Weinstein writes, “The symptoms indicate that Wilson suffered from an occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery, which resulted in a complete paralysis of the left side of the body, a loss of vision in the left half vision of both eyes, weakness of the muscles of the left side of his face, tongue and jaw and pharynx accounted for his inability to speak.” All additional physicians that were allowed to see him remarked, “He looked as if he was dead.”

I think it’s important to understand what might have been the issue causing the anxiety and strain that led to this medical condition. Let us review the first World War, the United States entry and the League of Nations.

In the summer of 1914, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, ignited a continental war between the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Italy. By the war’s end in 1918, the war would span the globe, claim more than 16 million lives, and change the world forever.

Germany planned to quickly defeat the British and French to the west before turning its full force east to Russia, but its initial thrusts into Belgium and northern France were checked. By the end of 1914, 400 miles of trench lines – the Western Front – stretched from Switzerland to the North Sea.

The United States initially remained neutral. But reports of German atrocities and submarine attacks on shipping bound for Britain and France – most infamously the 1915 sinking of the Lusitania, which killed 128 Americans – began to change American opinion.

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson won re-election on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” But in April 1917, Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, along with its offer to help Mexico recover territories lost to the United States in 1848, led Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany. American entry came none too soon. The British were running out of men, almost half of the French army had mutinied, and the Russian Revolution in 1917 would lead to Russia’s withdrawal from the war, allowing Germany to shift troops to the Western Front.

American troops conducted their first major action on May 28, 1918, when the 1st Division rolled back a German salient at Cantigny. Soon after, American forces were deployed along the Western Front, fighting in battles that have become part of American military lore. In early June, the 2ndDivision, including a brigade of U.S. Marines, drove German forces out of Belleau Wood after weeks of savage fighting. At Chateau Thierry the 3rd Division won the name “Rock of the Marne” for its stand on the Marne River. More Americans joined Allied counterattacks in summer and fall 1918, fighting with British, Canadian and Australian allies in Flanders and the Somme, and with the French at Soissons and across the Marne, Aisne, and Oise rivers.

On September 26 American forces launched the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, the largest battle in American history. Over 47 days, 1.2 million American troops drove the Germans back 40 miles to the vital railway hub of Sedan. More than 26,000 American soldiers died.

As American troops moved through the Meuse-Argonne, it became apparent that Germany had lost the war. An armistice was signed on November 11, 1918, effective at 11 a.m. – the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

After the war

In January 1919 the allies met in Paris to negotiate peace. Leaders of the victorious Allied powers—France, Great Britain, the United States and Italy—would make most of the crucial decisions in Paris over the next six months. For most of the conference, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson struggled to support his idea of a “peace without victory” and make sure that Germany, the leader of the Central Powers and the major loser of the war, was not treated too harshly. On the other hand, Prime Ministers Georges Clemenceau of France and David Lloyd George of Britain argued that punishing Germany adequately and ensuring its weakness was the only way to justify the immense costs of the war. In the end, Wilson compromised on the treatment of Germany in order to push through the creation of his pet project, an international peacekeeping organization called the League of Nations. President Wilson sought a piece based on his “Fourteen Points,” meant to foster international peace and cooperation. While some of the terms were included in the final treaty, including creation of a League of Nations, the pre-war colonial system remained in place. The Allies also compelled Germany to accept responsibility for starting the war, giving up territory and colonies, and pay crippling war reparations. His prime objective was to include his 14 points in the League of Nations.

It helps to examine the medical history of Woodrow Wilson. Historian Edwin A. Weinstein notes that Wilson had a history of cerebrovascular disorders dating back to 1896, sixteen years before he was elected president. Weinstein writes in his biography of Wilson, that the young Woodrow was a slow learner, and this could be a sign that he was dyslexic. He was always a high-strung person and subject to illnesses that were probably psychosomatic in nature. His letters often contain references to poor health, and his rhetoric frequently used metaphors regarding the body. Wilson was serving as an instructor at Princeton in 1896 when he suffered his first stroke. As Weinstein puts it, “Wilson’s first known stroke, in 1896, manifested itself in a weakness and loss of dexterity of his right hand, a numbness in the tips of several fingers, and some pain in the right arm. Aside from the pain, which was transitory, the symptoms and manner of onset indicate he had suffered an occlusion of a central branch of the left middle cerebral artery. This vessel supplies the regions of the left cerebral hemisphere that control movement and sensation for the contralateral extremities. The subsequent course of the disease suggests that the branch was blocked by an embolus from the left internal carotid artery.” In 1913, Wilson suffered another stroke, only this time, it was his left arm that was affected. Weinstein writes: The episode which affected Wilson’s left arm was particularly ominous from a clinical standpoint. The most likely diagnosis is that he had developed an ulcerated plaque in his right carotid artery from which an embolus had broken off. This meant that the cerebral circulation has been impaired on the right, previously unaffected, side of the brain. This evidence of bilaterality of involvement not only increased the risk of future strokes, but also created the possibility that enduring changes of behavior, based on insufficient blood supply and impaired oxygenation of the brain, might eventually occur.” Wilson seemed ill in 1915 and De Schweinitz was called. The doctor found evidence of hypertension and a hardening of the arteries, warning signs that his state of health was precarious. He informed Grayson, but Wilson continued his state of denial. Dr. Weinstein in his book also notes the following additional ailments: Wilson had multiple other neurological events that were presumably vascular in origin, November 1907 -- Developed weakness and numbness of fingers or right upper limb that lasted several months, July 1908 -- Two attacks of "neuritis" affecting the right upper limb, December 1910 -- Transitory weakness of the right hand. April 1913 -- Attack of "neuritis" involving right upper limb, May 1914 -- Abnormal retinal arteries observed, May-Sept. 1915 -- Episodes of transient weakness in his right hand.

Stewardship

What few people knew was that the President had kept his wife in the loop about all matters of state, including her sitting in on the League of Nations meetings. As noted above, the cover-up was Edith assuming complete reins of power. How was she to govern? In her memoirs she states very clearly, “The only decision that was mine was what was important and what was not, and the very important decision of when to present matters to the President.  I asked the doctors to be frank with me, that I must know what the outcome would probably be, so as to be honest with the people. The recovery would not be hoped for, they said, unless the President was released from every disturbing problem, during these days of Nature’s effort to repair the damage done.  ‘How can that be?’ I asked the doctors when everything comes to the executive is a problem. One doctor, Dr. Dercum leaned into me and said, “Have everything come to you, weigh the importance of each matter, and see if it is possible by consultations with respective heads of the Departments to solve them without the guidance of your husband.”

In the mornings, Edith Wilson would get up and begin her “stewardship,” the word she used to refer to her relative takeover of the West Wing. She would attend meetings in place of her husband, and when information needed to be passed to him, she would insist that she be the one to do it. In the evenings, she would take all necessary paperwork back to the residence, where Woodrow was presumably waiting, and inform him of what he needed to know. The next morning, she would return the paperwork to its original owner, complete with new notes and suggestions. She would also vet the carefully crafted medical bulletins that were publicly released.  Continually she would say that the President needed bed rest and would be working from his bedroom suite. If it seemed like an odd arrangement, the people closest to the matter didn’t comment on it. They lined up at Edith’s door day in and day out, waiting for the notes that she passed back and forth between them and their leader. They went no further than the first lady, if they had policy papers or pending decisions for him to review, edit or approve, she would first look over the material herself. If she deemed the matter pressing enough, she took the paperwork into her husband’s room where she would read all the necessary documents to him.

While Edith maintained that she was simply a vessel for information and that all notes passed back to presidential staff were Woodrow Wilson’s own words, White House officials soon began to doubt the authenticity of the notes. For one, they had never seen the president himself write the words, and for another, they didn’t entirely trust the First Lady. William Hazelgrove in his book Madam President goes further,” the issue of a presidential signature is a vexing one. Presidents must sign many documents and the operation of government can be held up for want of signature. But here was a man paralyzed on his left side going in and out of consciousness. Edith “helped” the president by “steadying his right hand in guiding his pen.”  Now his signature has changed, senators took this as evidence that the first lady was either signing documents or that she was guiding the president’s hand.  Hazelgrove continues, “Edith did sign documents, probably many of them. The President was a paralyzed man who could barely talk, had lost control of his bodily functions, and lived in a post-stroke-twilight.  There is no doubt Edith signed when necessary.”

Decision-making

The essence of Mrs. Wilson's usurpation lay in the absence of decision-making. She permitted only a handful of officials to see the president, and that only in the latter phase of his illness; and these audiences were often weirdly stage-managed in his darkened White House bedroom, usually in her inhibiting presence and that of Admiral Grayson. Many issues (e.g., the infamous "Red scare" raids of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were not brought to the president's attention, and it is uncertain whether he had the capacity to act even if he could have focused on them. When it became absolutely necessary to indicate what Wilson thought about a pending question, Mrs. Wilson would occasionally issue in her own handwriting a kind of bulletin from the sickroom reading "the president says" thus and so -- an unacceptable substitute for real decision memoranda.

She became the sole contact between the President and the cabinet. In fact, when Senator Albert Fall was sent by the Republicans to investigate the President’s true condition, Edith helped arrange Woodrow in bed so that he appeared presentable and alert. The President passed the test. The New York Times reported that “the meeting silenced for good the many wild and often unfriendly rumors of the President’s disability. “The essence of Mrs. Wilson's usurpation lay in the absence of decision-making. She permitted only a handful of officials to see the president, and that only in the latter phase of his illness; and these audiences were often weirdly stage-managed in his darkened White House bedroom, usually in her inhibiting presence and that of Admiral Grayson. Many issues (e.g., the infamous "Red scare" raids of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were not brought to the president's attention, and it is uncertain whether he had the capacity to act even if he could have focused on them. When it became absolutely necessary to indicate what Wilson thought about a pending question, Mrs. Wilson would occasionally issue in her own handwriting a kind of bulletin from the sickroom reading "the president says" thus and so -- an unacceptable substitute for real decision memoranda. It was a bewildering way to run a government, but the officials waited in the West Sitting Room hallway.  When she came back to them after conferring with the President, Mrs. Wilson turned over their paperwork, now riddled with indecipherable margin notes that she said were the president’s transcribed verbatim responses. To some the shaky handwriting looked less like that written by an invalid and more like that of his nervous caretaker.

25th Amendment

The question of the 25th Amendment now comes into play. Why didn’t the Vice President immediately assume control? Amid delicate political negotiations over the League of Nations, as well as the multitude of items faced by every administration, hiding the health crisis of the president was something that could not be easily done.  But it seems that this is exactly what the small circle around Wilson did, especially the first lady. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, a man who was with Wilson in Europe and an important part of the negotiations over the League of Nations, was the first to raise the alarm that the president was in an incapacitated state.  Lansing pressed Dr. Grayson about the reports that the president had fallen ill.  Dr. Grayson lied to Lansing, telling the secretary of state that Wilson was only suffering from “a depleted nervous system” and that the president’s mind was “not only clear but very active.” However, Joseph Tumulty was more candid and suggested to Lansing that the president had suffered another stroke.  Lansing immediately declared that Wilson should transfer presidential power to Vice President Thomas R. Marshall.  Loyal to Wilson, both Tumulty and Dr. Grayson objected.

Robert Lansing called a cabinet meeting on October 6, 1919, something he was not supposed to do without President Wilson’s knowledge.  It was an important meeting because no administration had had to address a situation when a president was alive but incapacitated.  The United States Constitution’s only words for such a situation before the passage of the 25th Amendment in 1967 are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6.  It states as follows:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Wilson was not dead, had not resigned, and was disputing, at least through a proxy, that he could not discharge the powers of the presidency.  Vice President Marshall did not want to appear too eager to become president, so he declared he would not act unless Congress declared Wilson incapacitated. Also, the first lady never wanted Marshall to be President. The problem with the constitution, as it was written then, was that there was a plan for succession of the vice president in case of death, but not of disability, as said by Dr. Markel.

The cabinet meeting on October 6th did little to define or answer any Constitutional questions.  Nothing was decided except to see how Wilson’s health progressed.  Robert Lansing resigned the following year on February 20 for an “assumption of presidential authority” by calling the cabinet meeting without Wilson’s approval.

Groundbreaking

William Hazelgrove, author of Madam President: The Secret Presidency of Edith Wilson notes the following, “Edith Wilson’s presidency was short – less than two years – but it was groundbreaking. Woodrow Wilson after his stroke could not perform the duties of the presidency and Edith stepped in to fill the role. Edith's guiding principle as president was to keep her husband alive by taking over his job and restricting access to him. Edith’s presidency fits the constitutional definitions of the duties of president. The Constitution defines the president’s first role as commander-in-chief of our military. World War I had just ended but the peace had not been settled. Edith was in the middle of the negotiations to get the Treaty of Versailles ratified and to implement the League of Nations with the United States as a member. Edith exercised five out of the six duties of the presidency. But history is not just facts. It is an accumulation of events and circumstances that interact with individuals upon the grand stage of life. Verisimilitude is by definition that which appears most true, but it is only through the exigencies of shared experience that we see truth. It is the journey after all and not the destination that matters most. It is hard for people to believe the United States had a woman president in 1919. Back then, women didn't take over struggling jewelry businesses or buy and drive cars, certainly not women who had only two years of formal education. But Edith Wilson did all of these things. We cannot know exactly what transpired in the Wilson White House, but since communications were by letters, there is a paper trail that gives us an indication. It is in those letters that we see Edith Wilson's involvement in running the United States from October 1919 to March 1921. “

Yet by deferring to her cabinet officers, and tackling a handful of high priority issues, Mrs. Wilson managed to keep the ship of state afloat. What rendered this possible was the institutional momentum of the executive branch. In the absence of direct guidance from the White House, officials filled the void with their own best judgment, and muddled through.     

A few Republican critics of the president, such as Sen. Albert Fall (R-N.M.), railed against “petticoat government,” but the President’s Democratic allies largely circled the wagons, ignoring his obvious impairment, while adversaries in his own party, including Vice President Thomas Marshall, remained conspicuously silent.

Legacy

Unfortunately, in the absence of authoritative White House leadership, institutional forces could only keep the government machine well-oiled for so long. Eventually, Mrs. Wilson’s method of temporizing and triage proved inadequate. Wilson’s illness exacerbated his more negative qualities of stubbornness and his need to be right.  He absolutely refused to compromise on the Versailles treaty to get it through Congress. Wilson was so far out of the loop due to his illness that he didn’t comprehend the extent of the opposition in the Senate and that the only way to get the treaty passed was with Henry Cabot Lodge’s reservations. Edith tried to convince him to change his mind. Because of his unwillingness, the Democrats didn’t have enough votes to ratify the treaty, and the United States ended up not joining the League of Nations. Had Wilson resigned at the outset of his illness when he had suggested it, and Vice President Marshall succeeded as President, or at least assumed the role until Wilson was better, a compromise would have been reached with Lodge and the treaty passed. The United States would have joined the League of Nations and played an active role in the international peace organization in the years leading up to World War II. If Edith had put the nation’s needs ahead of her husband, Wilson’s dream of America playing a significant role on the international stage would have come to fruition.  As it was, his successor Warren Harding took America back to its isolationist stance.

What do you think of First Lady Edith Galt Wilson’s ‘stewardship’ of the American presidency? Let us know below.

Glencoe, in the Western Highlands of Scotland, is one of the most serene places in the British Isles. The valley is buttressed by soaring peaks reflecting off the shore of Loch Leven granting the modern traveler a comforting feeling of tranquility.  But the events of a February night in 1692 taint this glen with an eerie sense of horror.  Here, Brian Hughes tells us about the 1692 Massacre of Glencoe.

After the Massacre of Glencoe by Peter Graham, 1889.

O Cruel is the Snow

That sweeps Glencoe

And covers the Grave O Donald

And cruel was the foe

That raped Glencoe

And murdered the House of MacDonald

The Corries, The Massacre of Glencoe.

Scottish history is especially marked by tragedy, slaughter, and violence. From the arrival of the Roman Legions to Prince Charles Edward Stuart’s ill fated attempt to recover the throne of his father in the 1745 Uprising. With no shortage of extreme violence it is a wonder that this particular event receives a greater degree of notoriety. The reality is all too disturbing in that this government sanctioned massacre was in fact murder under trust. For almost two weeks soldiers ate, drank, exchanged stories, and played games with the men, women and children who agreed to quarter them in accordance with the sacred laws of hospitality so prevalent in Scottish Highland culture. To betray this was a mortal sin. In a horrific display of treachery, soldiers of the Earl of Argyll’s Regiment of Foot who then were billeted in settlements running up and down the glen began to ruthlessly butcher their hosts as per the orders of their commanding officers. The people of Glencoe were victims of a maniacal political plot designed to efficiently instill fear and command obedience of the often problematic clans. The Massacre of Glencoe contributed significantly to a new wave of Jacobitism greatly affecting British politics for the next half of the century. To this day the massacre is commemorated in Glencoe, where small crowds gather around an evocative monument honoring the victims who were killed in cold blood in their homes and beds whilst a February blizzard howled.

Prelude

In 1692 Glencoe was inhabited by a branch of Clan Donald. Control of the glen was granted to the MacDonalds following Robert the Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn in 1314. For centuries Clan Donald ruled a maritime empire encompassing the Hebrides and other Western Isles in addition to a significant portion of the mainland. Over the years Clan Donald’s preeminence as the most powerful clan within the Western Highlands and Isles had been waning. The Macdonalds of Glencoe were a rather impoverished sept, often resorting to raiding against their wealthier neighbors as a means of survival. They were regarded by many as a persistent nuisance especially by the Campbells in nearby Argyll.

The current Chief of the Glencoe Macdonals was Alisdair Ruadh MacIan MacDonald, known to his contemporaries as MacIan, the hereditary title of the chiefs. By now MacIan was an old man believed to have been in his sixties. His people lived in settlements along the River Coe and probably numbered about five hundred.

The 17th century was a tumultuous time in Scotland. The country was nearly torn apart by a series of rebellions, civil wars, and regime changes as the country became drawn increasingly within the orbit of her larger neighbor to the south, England. Following the Glorious Revolution, William of Orange and his wife Mary ousted the last Stuart King James the Second after the decisive Battle of the Boyne in July 1690. With William now King and James in exile, the complex geopolitical landscape of the day shifted drastically as William’s primary concern was the safety and well being of his native Netherlands who was consistently drawn into conflict with a bellicose France under Louis the 14th. Many Highland chiefs including MacIan were supporters of the Stuart cause and currently found themselves in an awkward state of royal allegiance. King William shrewdly deferred to his ministers in both London and Edinburgh, granting them sway in how to best deal with the nettlesome clans, most of whom were eager to assuage prior hostilities. In August of 1691 the government offered the clans exoneration so long as they swear an allegiance to the new King William before the end of the year. Some of the clan chiefs opted to delay their submissions for various reasons, some of whom like MacIan demanded some sort of clarification from James the Second, now in exile.

Although James did eventually consent to the chiefs submitting their oaths, word would not reach MacIan until close to the end of the deadline. On December 31st in a treacherous snowstorm MacIan crossed the mountains to Inverlochy, today Fort William, to declare his allegiance. Informed by the commanding officer John Hill that he was unable to receive MacIan’s compliance, MacIan  thus became forced to travel to Inverary in Argyll many days' ride to the south and after the deadline. MacIan was desperate. Likely weeping on behalf of his people his oath was eventually accepted on the 6th of January by Sir Colin Campbell. MacIan then returned to Glencoe, likely assured of safety and government protection. Little did he know that his tardiness would have fatal consequences for himself and his people.

Preparation

For John Dalrypmple, First Earl of Stair, MacIan’s delayed oath was the catalyst he needed to enact a harsh and vindictive policy of capitulation. Unbeknownst to the clans, the Crown now had the necessary impetus for retribution. Despite the fact that certain clans such as the MacDonalds of Glengarry(Cousins of Glencoe) had yet to swear their oaths, the government now had their ideal prey, The MacDonalds of Glencoe.

Glencoe’s terrain makes it a natural fortress but likewise a prison. It can be easily sealed off from a few approaches and with very few men. The MacDonalds were not numerous in eligible fighting men and maintained no fortified keep or castle. They likewise were in the epicenter of Lochaber, a region long associated with particularly troublesome clans.

The man chosen to carry out this macabre task is a curious one. Robert Campbell of Glenlyon was sixty years of age. Poverty-stricken in addition to being an inveterate drunk and gambler, Glenlyon had entered military service as an old man probably as a means to pay off his massive debts. Being well connected to the powerful Clan Campbell, he was able to obtain a commission as Captain of the Duke of Argyll's Regiment of Foot. In 1692 the cream of the army was abroad in Flanders and precious few men were available to pacify troublesome districts such as the Highlands. Glenlyon's command served a dual purpose aside from the orders he would soon receive. Knowing full well that the task of slaying the MacDonalds would invite mass condemnation, the government now had the perfect scapegoat in Glenlyon, a man with seemingly very little to lose. In addition, Clan Campbell and Clan Donald maintained a bitter and famous rivalry that permeated over the centuries. This could simply be spun as yet another brutal incident between rival clans.

At the end of January 1692, two companies of approximately one hundred and twenty men under Glenlyon entered Glencoe. Surely their unexpected approach would have triggered confusion as well as suspicion prompting the MacDonalds to stow away any weapons in their possession. Glenlyon issued quartering papers to John MacDonald, eldest son of MacIan stating that there was no space in the fort at Inverlochy to accommodate his men who were soon to march on MacDonald of Glengarry. Hospitality was a sacred obligation within Highland culture. So much so that it was recognized and practiced even amongst feuding clans. Furthermore, providing billeting for the King's soldiers was often a responsibility of subjects in lieu of taxation. Whether the Fort was at capacity or not remains uncertain but MacIan surely was eager to prove his loyalty to King William. And what better way than to host the King's soldiers.

The people of Glencoe lived in small settlements or townships throughout the Glen from the mouth of Loch Leven to Achtriachtan. Soldiers would likely have been billeted in small groups of three to five in the various crofts and farmhouses. Glenlyon’s choice of quartering is peculiar, inviting speculation that he may or may not have had prior knowledge of the order in which he would be obliged to carry out. Instead of lodging at MacIan’s spacious and well furnished residence at Carnoch, close to Loch Leven, Glenlyon chose instead to reside at Inverrigan, roughly the middlemost of the townships. This would serve as the ideal command post if and when a military operation was to be undertaken. In any case, Glenlyon found himself a frequent guest of MacIan night after night drinking himself almost unconscious. The soldiers similarly enjoyed what little offerings the people of Glencoe provided in the midst of winter. For almost two weeks the soldiers drilled and would spend their leisure hours sharing food and drink with their hosts, who otherwise may have been seen as enemies.

Orders arrive

On the 12th of February orders had arrived from Major Duncanson to Glenlyon as he sat playing cards with two of MacIan’s sons(MacIan’s youngest son Alasdair Og was married to Glenlyon’s neice) when the grim order arrived.

You are hereby ordered to fall upon the rebells, the McDonalds of Glenco, and put all to the sword under seventy. you are to have a speciall care that the old Fox and his sones doe upon no account escape your hands, you are to secure all the avenues that no man escape. This you are to putt in execution attfyve of the clock precisely; and by that time, or very shortly after it, I’ll strive to be att you with a stronger party: if I doe not come to you att fyve, you are not to tarry for me, but to fall on. This is by the Kings speciall command, for the good & safety of the Country, that these miscreants be cutt off root and branch. See that this be putt in execution without feud or favour, else you may expect to be dealt with as one not true to King nor Government, nor a man fitt to carry Commissione in the Kings service. Expecting you will not faill in the full-filling hereof, as you love your selfe, I subscribe these with my hand att Balicholis Feb: 12, 1692.

Glenlyon proceeded to dismiss himself from his guests without giving away the slightest suspicion. He declared that he and his command were at once to march against Glengarry and that there was much to be done.

As the tell tale signs of a blizzard swelled in the skies above Glencoe orders began to be discreetly passed down to the soldiers informing them of their orders. It is widely assumed that the Highland soldiers within the ranks were horrified upon receiving their orders in which they were obliged to execute. Some stated that they bore no transgressions upon meeting the MacDonalds in a fair fight but objected to the simple and horrifying truth admitting that their task was nothing more than murder.

Massacre

As the early winter darkness began to set in and the inhabitants of Glencoe retired to their crofts, a ferocious blizzard swept through the valley. This was no night to be in the elements, but for the first time in two weeks an immense amount of activity stirred the glen. The soldiers were out and about cleaning their weapons while others fixed bayonets. More than one sentry stood guard at the various outposts talking amongst themselves. For Alasdair Og this was too much. Already skeptical, he soon ventured from his warm quarters to MacIan’s home describing with ardent concern his suspicions to his father. MacIan, doubtful of his son's concerns, dismissed him but gave him permission to further investigate. This he did, arriving at Glenlyon’s headquarters at Inverrigan there finding the Captain awake and loading his pistols. Expressing his concerns, Alasdair demanded to know why so many soldiers were out and about at a most abnormal hour and in such ghastly conditions. Glenlyon proceeded to ease Alasdair’s reservations by once again explaining his false orders to march on Glengarry and stating would he really intend harm on the family of his niece? While not wholly satisfied, Glenlyon's explanation was enough for Alasdair as he returned home. But unbeknownst to him in the very house in which he had exited, nine inhabitants sat bound and gagged as the hour of five which would greenlight the massacre had not yet arrived.

The first killings probably appeared near Invercoe, where the River Coe meets Loch Leven. Nearby at MacIan’s home in Carnoch a small group of soldiers under Lieutenant Lindsay knocked on the door asking to see MacIan stating that they intended to be off soon and wanted to thank him for his hospitality. A servant soon roused MacIan explaining the situation. Not forgetting his manners, MacIan instructed the servant to bring a dram to the soldiers as he began to rise from his bed and dress. Suddenly the soldiers forced into the house and  through the door firing two shots into MacIan with the killing blow passing through his head.(This was probably fired by Lindsay) Shortly thereafter his home was looted of valuables as the savage band left. All throughout the glen small fire teams went from house to house shooting and butchering their former hosts, scattering livestock, and torching structures in a coordinated yet barbaric effort. It is said that the Lowland soldiers took particular pride in their grizzly task having not a care for Highland culture as they proceeded to violate the sanctified practice of hospitality. Many in Glencoe would have been prematurely awakened by the musket fire and thought it wise to escape into the nearby hills even without proper clothing or provisions being completely at the mercy of the elements. Both of MacIan’s sons John and Alasdair in fact escaped the slaughter, likely leading many of the refugees away from harm.

When it was over, it is said that thirty eight people of Glencoe lay dead. Although many more probably succumbed to the elements, this number remains rather small in proportion to the quantity of people within Glencoe. Also, the reinforcements from Duncanson and Hamilton arrived late, failing to seal off the exits to the glen thus enabling many more to escape. Were Duncanson and Hamilton similar victims of the weather? Or, did they purposefully delay in order to escape culpability of their dreaded order? Whatever the questions it matters not as MacIan was  dead while his house and villages to which he lorded appeared burned and derelict at the first light of dawn, and his people now dead or displaced from their homes had fled to the braes.

Aftermath

It was not long before word began to spread of the horrid butchering. Many were quick to blame the Campbells for this breach in Highland trust with some believing this to be true even in the present day, but this was no unique crime of Clan Campbell. The MacDonalds of Glencoe had been made examples of in a most gruesome manner, fully sanctioned by King William’s Government. In the end the short term goal of the massacre had been achieved in that many of the Western Highland clans behaved in a less belligerent manner, though they were none the more placated. News of the massacre invoked anger amongst many in Scotland, not only Highlanders. Official commissions of inquiry were launched but ultimately no individuals were indicted. Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, the intended culprit, had passed away in 1696 in Bruge as the Earl of Argyll’s Regiment had soon afterwards been posted to Flanders. Many of the escapees would go on to rebuild their homes and crofts attempting to reclaim some semblance of their old lives. MacIan’s body was found and brought to Eilean Munde, a small island in Loch Leven and the traditional burial site of the Glencoe Chiefs. There he rests to this day, somewhere beneath the soft ground surrounded by the placid waters and soaring peaks of Glencoe.

What do you think of the terrible events in Glencoe in 1692? Let us know below.

Sources

https://digital.nls.uk/scotlandspages/timeline/1692.html

Glencoe: The Story of the Massacre, Prebble John

Glencoe: The Infamous Massacre 1692, Sadler John

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The British Empire did not suddenly start its decline in the post World War Two period; instead it was an event that began much earlier. The British Empire had been expanding and stretching out across the globe since the 1600s. After the American War of Independence Britain began to build a new empire with a new urgency. The British Empire grew to some thirteen million square miles and to govern over five hundred million subjects. This article focuses on Britain’s decline after World War 1 by looking at Egypt, Iraq, Ireland, and India.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq. He was King from 1921 to 1933.

The Decline of the British Empire

The contraction of the British Empire had already begun in the nineteenth century starting with Canada. Up until to 1921 Britain’s presence in the world was occupying a quarter of the planet’s land surface. Certain countries at distinct stages within that empire enjoyed a more independent status than others. Australia and New Zealand achieved their independence peacefully but others like Ireland would be forced to take a more violent approach in fighting Imperialist domination.

Independence was driven by motives such as the general desire of those nations to run their own affairs and the need to detach themselves from colonial repression and bloodshed (such as in Ireland and India). There was also the inequalities of trade in India, Iraq was piqued that they had found themselves rid of Ottoman only to have lost that freedom to British rule and subsequently lose control of their natural resources, and then just as important colonial rule often involved being dragged into the conflicts of far off European nations.

The Dominions

Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand independence came in the form of Dominion status which was achieved by a more diplomatic avenue. Dominion status was defined as ”autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

Britain granted a Dominion Status in the 1907 Imperial Conference to a select number of nations. Australia and New Zealand were enjoying this privileged status since 1900 and 1901 respectively. South Africa would follow in 1910 after a series of unifications within its borders. Canada had already enjoyed this status since 1867. The Irish Free State would follow in 1922.

In 1926 the Imperial Conference revisited Dominion status with the Balfour Declaration which would be formalised and recognised in law with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The British Empire now was now known as the Commonwealth of Nations. The Imperial hold had loosened but Britain initiated the change to allow complete sovereignty for the Dominions. The First World War left Britain with enormous debts, and reduced her ability and in turn her effectiveness to provide for the defence of its empire. The larger Dominions were reluctant to leave the protection of Britain as many Canadians felt that being part of the British Empire was the only thing that had prevented them from the control of the United States, while the Australians would later look to Britain for defence in the face of Japanese militarism. Except for the Irish Free State this change did not stop these dominions from supporting Britain in her declaration of war against Germany in 1939.

But between the interwar years there were further challenges to Britain’s Empire from various parts of the world. By the time the Great War was over India, Egypt, Ireland, and Iraq were all taking a less than passive approach in their demand for independence.

Egypt

Britain had partially governed Egypt since the 1880s under a veiled protectorate primarily to look after her interests and investments. It was never officially part of the British Empire in the same way for example as Rhodesia, Malaysia, India, or Cyprus. As soon as the Great War ended Egypt was demanding her own independence. By 1919 a series of protests had morphed into uprisings against British rule known as the 1919 Revolution. In that same year at the Paris Peace Conference, Egypt had sent representatives to seek independence from Britain. The sheer volume of international issues following the war distracted the allies and put Britain’s particular attentions elsewhere and Egypt left empty handed.

In 1920 an Egyptian mission led by Adli Pasha was invited by Britain to address the issues in Egypt. This mission arrived in the summer of that year and presented a set of proposals on independence for both Britain and Egypt to agree but after a return visit in June 1921 to ratify the agreement the mission left in “disgust”. No agreement could be reached on these proposals by Parliament or the Dominions at the Imperial Conference, notably over the control of the Suez Canal. More unrest in Egypt would follow resulting in martial law and by December 1921 the British realized that the situation was clearly unsustainable, and so they declared the Unilateral Independence of Egypt in February 1922. This independence would be in a limited form as the British still had control of the railways, police, courts, army, and the Suez Canal. By 1936 British rule had unwound further as King Farouk agreed an Anglo- Egyptian Treaty leaving just a garrison of troops to guard Britain’s commercial interests in the Suez Canal. This unwelcome presence was enough to involve Egyptian territory in the Second World War to the chagrin of the Egyptians.

Iraq

In 1932 Britain granted Iraq independence after a brief post war mandate that presided over the newly formed nation after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. From as early as 1920 Iraq had revolted against British occupation. Iraq now broke free of Ottoman rule only to find it had been substituted by their new British masters. The British military quickly quashed the revolts but like Ireland and other areas of the empire military repression was not the lasting solution, and the British continued in vain in Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra.

Part of the answer was giving the throne to a British friendly monarch King Fayṣal, with British control in the background. A plebiscite in August 1921 augmented his position. A treaty of Alliance replaced the formal mandate obligating Britain to provide advice on foreign and domestic affairs, such as military, judicial, and financial matters - but the matter was not yet over.

King Faisal would still depend on British support to maintain his rule. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 provided for a close alliance which essentially meant Iraq had limited control on matters of foreign policy and would have to provide for an ongoing British military presence on her territory. The conditions granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country for a twenty-five-year duration. Despite being a sovereign state by 1932 this treaty would find Iraq being involved in World War Two as the British fought against Nazi infiltration.

Ireland

Ireland, like India and Iraq, was another violent struggle for independence, and this was closer to home shores. The conflict would inflict wounds that both sides would not easily forget and forgive at least well into the twenty-first century.

The desire for home rule was long anticipated and had been on the negotiating table since the nineteen century premiership of William Gladstone. All efforts to push the Home Rule Bill of 1886 had been thwarted by the political opposition because it was feared an Independent Ireland would pose a security threat providing an opportunity for Britain’s foes. Also, for the diehard Imperialists this might prompt other demands for independence across the Empire.

The patience of the Irish nation would grow thin. A third Home Rule Bill was almost formalised in 1914 but the outbreak of war suspended its implementation. The ever long wait and the lack of clarity over the fate of Northern Ireland’s Six Counties caused an escalation in violence. The most notable event was the Easter Rising in 1916 but more violence and further escalations occurred in the post war years as the British tried to reassert control with military means. It was by then too late for such measures.

Ireland would make unsuccessful attempts to gain support at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris and in particular President Wilson. In 1920 the Government of Ireland Act (fourth Home Rule Bill) was introduced by the British Government. It was far from satisfactory as far as Ireland was concerned as they wanted to completely break away from its relationship with Westminster and its unpopular allegiance to the Crown. It also divided off the Northern Ireland from the rest of the country which remained part of the United Kingdom.

In 1922 dominion status was granted but it was not enough for the independence movement. The newly Irish Free State wanted total severance from the crown and the removal of the oath of allegiance. Dominion status was not satisfactory in the immediate post war years, and the Irish made strenuous representations to the League of Nations that they had the capability to become a fully independent nation, which they would achieve by 1937.

A number of laws that were passed, including the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936 and the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act 1937, removed the Imperial Role of Governor General. Then, using religious grounds following the outrage from King Edward’s abdication, Ireland finally severed all remaining ties with Britain to become a fully independent nation. The Irish experience and the way they achieved their independence constitutionally would be noticed and emulated by other colonies much later.

India

India was also challenging British rule in this interwar period. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1917 that became the 1919 Government of India Act was an early attempt to establish a self-governing model for India. Indian nationalists felt that it fell short of expectations after their commitment to Britain in the First World War. The post war period had been hard on India, the flu epidemic and Imperialist free trade had affected society in all kinds of ways. The Rowlatt Act also fuelled the nationalist anger and allowed for the detention of any protesters and suppression of unrest. Protests encountered a typical coercive and violent reaction by Britain. This use of force was particularly heavy handed in Amritsar in April 1919 when Brigadier General Dyer had his troops open fire on a crowd killing almost four hundred local protestors. It was sufficiently bloodthirsty to cause even the bellicose Churchill to deem it “utterly monstrous,” but a subsequent enquiry failed to deliver justice to the perpetrators and exacerbated the situation. The British response was all in vain and in fact it fuelled Gandhi’s Non-Co-operation campaign. The issue would not go away but it would take another twenty-seven years to achieve independence.

Conclusion

The decline of the Britain’s Empire only accelerated in the post war period. The “Wind of Change” that Harold Macmillan spoke of on his visit to Africa in the 1950s was the just a continuation of the Empire’s sunset from many decades earlier. By the 1970s little of the Empire remained save for a few scattered islands around the world.

What do you think of the decline of Britain’s Empire after World War One? Let us know below.

Now read about Britain’s 1920s Communist Scare here.

References

Britain Alone – David Kynaston – Faber 2021

AJP Taylor – English History 1914-1945 – Oxford University Press 1975

The Decline and Fall of The British Empire – Piers Brendon – Vintage Digital 2010

Nicholas White – The British Experience Since 1945 – Routledge 2014

Losing Ireland, losing the Empire: Dominion status and the Irish Constitutions of 1922 and 1937 - Luke McDonagh

International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 17, Issue 4, October 2019, Pages 1192–1212

The surprise World War 2 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, caused many Americans to shift their focus from wondering and worrying about the well-being of other countries’ residents to fear that another attack on the United States might be forthcoming.

To quell those fears, the United States government allowed Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens living in the United States to be sent to internment camps. The U.S. also assisted European allies in their battles against Germany and planned and carried out the Doolittle Raid against mainland Japan.

Janel Miller explains.

One of the U.S. planes after landing in Vladivostok, USSR following the Doolittle Raid in April 1942.

Multiple Raid Scenarios Considered

The idea of the Doolittle Raid – the first-ever raid on Japan – was hatched within weeks of Pearl Harbor. High-ranking members of the United States military spent several months fine-tuning an aerial attack on the Asian country’s industrial centers of Tokyo, Tokyo Bay, Yokohama, the Yokosuka Navy Yard, Nagoya, Ōsaka and Kōbe.

Air Force member James Harold Doolittle, who had previously set several aviation records and also had become one of the first men in the United States to earn a Doctor of Science degree in aeronautics, volunteered to lead the attack and was chosen to do so.

The hope was that the Doolittle Raid on Japan would cause anxiety among the country’s residents, damage many of its resources, slow its production and military advances abroad, enhance the United States’ relationships with its allies, and receive the support of the American public.

Several types of planes were considered for use in the raid. However, various characteristics of some of the aircraft were deemed unsuitable for the mission. Specifically, the Martin B-26 Marauder had “unsuitable handling characteristics” and the Douglas B-23 Dragon’s wingspan was “too great … to be comfortably operated from a carrier deck” that would carry the planes to a location off the Japanese coast). Ultimately, the North American B-25 Mitchell (hereafter referred to as B-25s) was chosen for the raid.

Different times of conducting the raid were also considered. One proposal called for the B-25s taking off from a carrier (ultimately, the Hornet was chosen for the mission) several hours before daybreak. This offered the pros of hitting the Japanese targets as daylight approached, providing the maximum amount of surprise and good visibility but the cons and dangers of the B-25s taking off at night and illuminating the Hornet while out at sea. Another proposal involved the raid occurring while there was a significant amount of daylight while flying over Japan. However, to do so would have eliminated the surprise element of the raid.

Doolittle recalled in a 1983 interview that several different ways of escaping should the Japanese catch up to the B-25s in the air before the raid could begin were also considered.

“The plan was that if we were within range of Japan, we would go ahead and bomb our targets, fly out to sea and hope, rather futilely, to be picked up by one of the two submarines that were in the area,” he said. “If we were within range of the Hawaiian Islands — say, Midway — we would immediately clear their decks and proceed to Midway so they could utilize the [fleet of ships supporting the raid] properly.”

“If, on the other hand, we weren't within range of anyplace we could go, we would push our aircraft overboard so that the Hornet's deck would be cleared, and they could protect themselves,” Doolittle added.

Details Of Raid Described

The final Doolittle Raid plan called for the Hornet to take the B-25s approximately 600 miles east of Tokyo. Then, on April 18, 1942, the B-25s would disperse and their crews drop bombs on their respective Japanese target, flying at treetop level on the approach to the target, climbing to 1,500 feet while dropping the bombs, returning to treetop level and flying to the Chinese city of Chuchow.

Those who would be in the B-25s were all volunteers who were thoroughly trained in cross-country flying, night flying and navigation, as well as “low altitude approaches to bombing targets, rapid bombing and evasive action,” according to the U.S. Navy. Doolittle told a 1983 interviewer that the bond between those flying the planes and those controlling the carrier was not immediate.

“We felt a little out of place on a carrier, and they felt a little out of place having us there,” he said. “But when we went under the San Francisco Bridge, over the radio said, ‘Hear ye, hear ye.’ Everybody aboard was told not exactly where we were going, not exactly what we were going to do, but that this was a mission against Japan. From then on, there was complete rapport,” Doolittle added.

Richard Cole, who occupied one of the B-25s on April 18, recalled in 1957 that “everyone prayed but did so in an inward way. If anyone was scared, it didn’t show.”

Each B-25 carried four 500-pound bombs, two .50-caliber machine guns, a .30-caliber machine gun, spare fuel tanks and two dummy wooden machine gun barrels. Although the B-25 planes from the United States took off from the U.S.S. Hornet earlier than planned, they still managed to drop about 14 tons of explosives on their Japanese targets.

Japan had been monitoring the United States Navy’s radio in the days leading up to the Doolittle Raid. Although it did not have the specific date of the raid ahead of time, it felt an attack was imminent. The Asian country received word from a fishing boat on the day of the attack of the U.S. raid that was coming. Despite these warnings, Japan’s success in fighting back was limited. The country also sent bombers and carrier fighters in a fruitless attempt to search for the fleet of U.S. ships supporting the raid. A member of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration stated roughly six months after the raid that the U.S. participants in the raid was carried out on military targets "with remarkable accuracy."

A lack of fuel kept the B-25s from landing at Chuchow. Fifteen of the B-25s crash-landed in Japanese-occupied territory or abandoned their aircraft in the waters near Japan and China. Another B-25 landed in the Soviet Union. Not all of those in the B-25s returned to American soil alive. Three were killed in the crash landings or while parachuting, three were executed after being captured by the Japanese and another died of disease and starvation while in captivity.

Mission Largely Accomplished

The Doolittle Raid “was important to morale both here and in Japan,” its namesake said at a 1983 event.

About one month after the attack, United States Senator and member of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee Millard E. Tydings (D-Md.), reported that the raid was causing Japan to develop a new plan for winning the war.

"This lesson will not be lost on the Japanese, and their present apparently altered strategy is an indication that there is no greater fear in Japan right now than the fear of repeated bombings such as was inaugurated by General Doolittle," he continued. Thus, another Japanese attack on United States’ soil seemed highly unlikely, and the raid also saved the Soviet Union from a Japanese attack, Tydings said.

In Context

The concept of retaliating, rather than sitting passively by and doing nothing, is all too common, especially in wartime.

For example, in 1773, colonists protested British taxes by famously dumping tea – one of the most popular beverages of the time – into Boston Harbor prior to the American Revolution. During the Civil War more than 90 years later, General William T. Sherman and his troops blazed a deadly path across Georgia in response to the South seceding from the Union several years earlier. Much more recently, in 2003, the United States declared that the major battles the U.S. had engaged in while in Iraq in response to the tragedies of September 11, 2001, were over.

In the years since the Doolittle Raids, the United States’ relationship with Japan has improved beyond recognition. Perhaps, just perhaps, one legacy of the Doolittle Raids may be that with time, bitter arch-rivals can become friendly non-competitors.

What do you think of impact of the Doolittle Raids? Let us know below.

References

Loproto, Mark. “How America Changed After Pearl Harbor.” https://pearlharbor.org/america-changed-pearl-harbor/. Published February 1, 2017. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Pippert, Wesley G. “The National Was Gripped by Hysteria and Fear When …” https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/14/The-nation-was-gripped-by-hysteria-and-fear-when/2681363931200/. United Press International. Published July 14, 1981. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Loproto, Mark. “America’s Response to Pearl Harbor – An Unexpected First Target.” https://pearlharbor.org/americas-response-pearl-harbor-unexpected-first-target/. Published January 8, 2018. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Krebs A. The New York Times. “James Doolittle, 96, Pioneer Aviator Who Led First Raid on Japan, Dies.”https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/29/us/james-doolittle-96-pioneer-aviator-who-led-first-raid-on-japan-dies.html. Published September 29, 1993. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html.  Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Encyclopedia Britannica Editors. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Doolittle-Raid. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Interview with United States Air Force General James Harold (Jimmy) Doolittle (Ret.). https://www.usni.org/press/oral-histories/doolittle-james.  Recorded February 1983. Accessed January 17, 2023.

Encyclopedia Britannica Editors. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Doolittle-Raid. . Accessed January 11, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html. . Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Interview with United States Air Force General James Harold (Jimmy) Doolittle (Ret.). https://www.usni.org/press/oral-histories/doolittle-james. Recorded February 1983. Accessed January 17, 2023.

Goldstein, Richard. “Richard Cole, 103, Last Survivor of Doolittle Raid on Japan, Dies.” The New York Times.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/obituaries/richard-cole-dead.html. . Published April 19, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Fish, B. Additional Historic Information [on] The Doolittle Raid (Hornet). https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAQQw7AJahcKEwiQ-tvOvcr8AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuss-hornet.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FWebsite-Extended-Info-Doolittle-Raid.pdf&psig=AOvVaw2s2f85P-1fNrjzIr2XnAmm&ust=1673902936487101. . Accessed January 15, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html.  Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

"Losses During April Are Admitted Today." Spokane Daily Chronicle, page 1. Published October 22, 1942. Accessed January 15, 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/564334859. .

Goldstein, Richard. “Richard Cole, 103, Last Survivor of Doolittle Raid on Japan, Dies.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/obituaries/richard-cole-dead.html.  Published April 19, 2019. The New York Times.

Krebs A. The New York Times. “James Doolittle, 96, Pioneer Aviator Who Led First Raid on Japan, Dies.”https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/29/us/james-doolittle-96-pioneer-aviator-who-led-first-raid-on-japan-dies.html. Published September 29, 1993. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Reynolds, HK. "Nippon Is Out To Capture Chinese Bases." The El Paso Times, page 3. https://www.newspapers.com/image/429555500.. Published May 25, 1942. Accessed January 15, 2023.

History.com Editors. History.com. “Boston Tea Party.” https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party. Published October 27, 2009. Accessed January 15, 2023.

History.com Editors. History.com. “Sherman’s March to the Sea.” https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march. . Published February 22, 2010. Accessed January 15, 2023.

White House Archives. “President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.” https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html. Published May 1, 2003. Accessed January 15, 2023.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. “Japan-United States of America Relations.” https://www.mofa.go.jp/na/na1/us/page23e_000329.html. . Published September 14, 2022. Accessed January 15, 2023.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at what happened during the Mexican War of Independence with the important figure of José Morelos - and how things didn’t turn out quite as the rebels intended.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here, the start of the Mexican War of Independence here, and how Hidalgo continued the war here.

An 1865 painting of José Morelos. By Petronilo Monroy.

The beginning of the Mexican War of Independence was dominated by the person and personality of Miguel Hidalgo. Even today, in both the historiography and the popular imagination, the character of Hidalgo and his role in starting the journey to independence is glorified and memorialized. The role of a “great leader” would characterize the history of the War of Independence, and its phases can be broken down into eras with the name of the preeminent leader attached to them. With the passing of the first phase of the war, now the second phase began, and with it, a new leader.

Morelos’ Formative Years

The second phase also began the way the first did, with a priest. José Morelos was born in Valladolid, a town later renamed Morelia in his honor. He grew up in a family of limited means, and upon being old enough, was put to work. He learned to be a teamster, driving mules along local roads. Like most children born in conditions of near poverty, he dreamed of something more. Unlike most, he did something about it. He would read every book he could find. He taught himself skills that no teamster would dream of needing. He was preparing himself for something more.

When old enough to work for himself, Morelos saved all the money he could to educate himself. Surviving on scraps of food, and taking all the work that he could find, he was able to save enough money to receive a formal education. He enrolled in the local institution of higher learning, the Colegio de San Nicolás Obispo in his hometown. It was while here that he would come into contact with the most influential figure of his life. Teaching at the Colegio at the same time was Miguel Hidalgo.

While learning at the knee of Hidalgo, Morelos took in all of the Enlightenment learning that would later get Hidalgo into so much trouble. Ideas about freedom, the superiority of reason over superstition, and resentment against social distinctions. Morelos became enraptured by these ideas and would use them as guides for all his future endeavors. Like Hidalgo, he would accept Enlightenment ideals while still maintaining support for the Catholic Church and accepting its beliefs. Morelos would attack what he saw as superstition, like Hidalgo, but he would remain a Catholic until the end.

There was one way in which Morelos would differ from his teacher, and it would be a major, defining point in their characters. Hidalgo had a mind that was undisciplined. He was interested in everything and wanted to learn everything. This lack of discipline would lead to disaster when he neither had the desire nor the capacity to exert control over the baser instincts of his uprising. Morelos, however, was very disciplined. Perhaps it was the discipline required of being a self-made man, or perhaps it was something else. Whatever it was, when Morelos learned, he was able to systematize knowledge and apply it usefully. The importance of this would be seen to full effect later.

After graduating from the Colegio, Morelos was ordained a priest. However, due to his social standing, he was given the lowly position of curate at an even lesser backwater than Hidalgo ended up, the town of Carácuaro. For over ten years, from 1799 until 1810, Morelos would live and work in obscurity, eventually rising to the position of a parish priest. Living in the poor colonial town further fed into the resentment against the colonial authorities that his Enlightenment ideals helped foster. Morelos saw the same inefficiency and oppression in Carácuaro as Hidalgo saw in Dolores. Working and living next to the poor indios and mestizos gave Morelos a personal connection with these groups of people that only proved in his mind the philosophies he believed in.

Joining Hidalgo

When he heard of the rising under Hidalgo, Morelos rushed to join his old mentor. Here was the revolution that men like him had been waiting for. When he finally found Hidalgo, he was just as overjoyed as Hidalgo was. Hidalgo knew the restless genius that lay within Morelos; indeed, Hidalgo had done so much to foster and encourage Morelos’ intellectual upbringing.

Hidalgo was smart enough to know that he could not be in all places at once. He needed trusted lieutenants who could rally the people in the same way he could. Morelos was just such a man. Needing a man to raise the country in the south, Hidalgo directed Morelos to raise an army and operate along the Pacific coast. Setting out from the main army with only 25 men, the core of the next insurgent army grew.

Building a Movement in the South

In building this army, Morelos would show his true genius, building a movement. Hidalgo had raised an enormous army, the size of which New Spain had not seen since the days of the Aztecs. Unfortunately for the revolutionary cause, this army was poorly disciplined and even more poorly equipped. As any person of genius knows, more can be learned from negative examples than from positive ones. Seeing the chaos in the insurgent army convinced Morelos that a strong discipline was necessary for success, a belief that was only reinforced when Hidalgo’s army was destroyed. Further, Morelos knew that if a soldier was unequipped with the necessities of a soldier, he would be worse than useless. That unarmed soldier would simply be a wasted mouth to feed, draining the supplies of the army to no positive effect. Therefore, Morelos would allow no one into his army whom he could not provide arms for.

Morelos knew that a revolution could not be made from vague promises and lofty slogans. Order had to prevail, and law had to be established. On August 19, 1811, Morelos and Ignacio Rayón would establish a junta, the Junta de Zitácuaro. This junta would provide the new Mexican state with a government. It would create the Constitutional Elements, a set of principles that were meant to guide in the creation of a future constitution for the Mexican state. There were expressions for individual rights and the abolition of slavery. It was also still tied to the person of King Ferdinand VII, calling for an independent Mexico with Ferdinand VII as its king. The nation would be governed, not by the king, but by the people through a Congress.

People are led by principles as much as they are led by great leaders. Morelos, a believer in enlightenment philosophy, understood that the movement he was building had to have concrete principles that others could rally around, but also be broad enough to attract the fence-sitters and not chase away the indifferent. This is what the Constitutional Elements did, and they would become the basis of virtually every constitution in Mexico’s history.

Another lesson he learned from Hidalgo’s army was to select the right people to lead with him. Hidalgo had attracted a wide array of dissatisfied elements to his banner. Many of those had radically divergent views of what they wanted from the revolution. This led to the leadership of the insurgent army being at cross-purposes, and when that army began losing, it fell apart quickly. Morelos would not make the same mistake. He was a master at recognizing dormant talent and bringing out the best in others. Men like Vicente Guerrero and Mariano Matamoros were discovered and fostered by Morelos. Rising from humble origins, especially Guerrero, those with true talent were given progressively greater responsibility. Building this leadership cadre would help Morelos’ movement survive its creator.

Morelos Strikes the Royalists

While building his army, Morelos kept active. He would take his men and occupy large swaths of the south, including the city of Oaxaca. He would attack and defeat small units of the Spanish army, providing experience for his troops. Experience with hard marching, field living, and standing in the face of fire would discipline Morelos’ army and give them confidence and pride in themselves. Morelos knew that they would need these qualities when the day came to face the weight of the Spanish army.

Morelos left Hidalgo’s army in 1810. By the beginning of 1812, about 9,000 men were under his command. This was not Hidalgo’s disorganized mob. This was an army of disciplined and well-armed troops ready for campaign. They needed to be ready since it was at this time that the sword of the viceroy, General Félix Calleja, was ready to turn his attention to rooting out the insurgents in the south.

The mere presence of Morelos’ army in the south threatened one of the largest revenue streams of the government of New Spain, the trade with the Philippines. Long a Spanish colony, the Philippines provided Spain with a way to tap into the vast amounts of wealth in the Far East. Since going through the Indian Ocean and around the Cape of Good Hope would be too dangerous, the trade from the Philippines had always been routed through the city of Acapulco, on the west coast of New Spain. It was in this area that Morelos operated, and if he could interdict the wagon trains that brought goods and treasure from Acapulco through Mexico City and then on the Veracruz, the tenuous financial supports that held up the viceroyalty would crumble.

Calleja: the Antithesis of Morelos

The man who would be Morelos’ nemesis and lead the campaigns against him, Félix Calleja, was also a man of exceptional talent. It was he who finished off Hidalgo. He had also defeated Hidalgo’s rebels in the north and he had fought in dozens of campaigns against the Indians. He was also a man of iron discipline and believed in supporting his soldiers with better food and equipment. In many ways, Morelos and Calleja were reflections of each other through a dark mirror. The best Spain had to offer would face the best Mexico could offer.

In February 1812, Calleja would strike. Morelos had fortified the town of Cuautla, and Calleja wanted to destroy this base. He further hoped that he could pin down the insurgents and destroy them in one siege. What Calleja did not count on was that he was not facing insurgents anymore, but a rebel army that could stand up to him. Both sides recognized the importance of the city and their respective positions. Calleja brought in 7,000 reinforcements to support his main army of 5,000 men. Morelos brought in as many troops as the rebels could muster, about 16,000, and fortified the town further. For Calleja, this was perfect. If he could catch the rebels in a siege, he could destroy them all at once. After surrounding Cuautla, he ordered a direct assault, believing that insurgents like those in Hidalgo’s army could not stand up to his trained regulars. The assault failed after a bloody back and forth. Morelos had trained his troops well and had even brought cannons for support.

Calleja was still unconcerned. Time was on his side since he was not the one surrounded. For the rebels, conditions inside Cuautla deteriorated. Food began to run out. As time went on, fear amongst the civilian populace set in. Calleja had a well-deserved reputation for brutality. By the common rules of war at the time, the longer a city resisted, the worse the city would be punished if the invader conquered. Murder, plunder, and rape were the least of what could be expected when the Spanish took the city. Morelos knew that he had to do something, but he was not willing to just give up and surrender.

The only possible solution for Morelos was to break out from the city and attempt to get away. At 2:00 am on May 2, 1812, after a siege lasting almost two months, the rebel army attacked Calleja’s lines. Complicating matters was that many of the civilians of the city, fearing Calleja’s wrath, broke out with the rebel soldiers. While most of the soldiers and men of Cuautla managed to escape, the women and children were not so lucky and would be killed indiscriminately by Calleja’s men. Unfortunately for Morelos, one of those men who was captured was Leonardo Bravo, one of his most trusted lieutenants.

Morelos Brings Success Militarily and Politically

Freed from defending a fixed position, Morelos showed his brilliance as a strategic commander. He operated in the mountains hitting Spanish positions repeatedly. In only a few months, he was able to return to Cuautla and push further toward Veracruz. Understanding the economics of warfare, Morelos occupied the tobacco-growing regions west of Veracruz and destroyed the government storehouses full of tobacco. The monopoly on tobacco was one of the main revenue sources for the viceregal government, damaging Calleja’s ability to logistically support his army.

The mentality of the two men facing each other, Morelos and Calleja, can be seen in the fate of two hundred prisoners taken. A detachment under Nicolás Bravo captured two hundred royalist troops in a lightning strike. Morelos, desirous of getting his friend back, and understanding the poetry of the son freeing the father, offered to Calleja to exchange the two hundred prisoners in exchange for one man, Leonardo Bravo, who had been sentenced to death for treason. Calleja refused and had Bravo executed forthwith. Morelos, finding this out, ordered the younger Bravo to execute all two hundred of the royalist prisoners. Bravo, however, would show himself more merciful than either of the antagonists and release all the prisoners.

Defeat brings dissension, and among the royalists, everyone was blaming the viceroy for their troubles. Calleja was victorious wherever he was, but he could not be everywhere at once. The army was beginning to suffer from insufficient pay and supplies. The government seemed to be collapsing. The Audiencia complained to the latest Spanish government in Cadiz, which authorized the replacement of Viceroy Venegas with the only man who seemed to have the spine to defeat the rebels and end the war once and for all, Calleja himself.

Taking control, Calleja would reorganize the entire New Spanish army, providing more consistent pay and supplies. Inefficient people were purged from the government. Needing more money, he seized the assets of the Inquisition, which had been abolished by the Spanish Junta, but this had never been enforced in New Spain. Wasteful spending was cut, and corruption was punished in the exceptionally cruel way that Calleja was known for. All people of any amount of European descent would now be subject to conscription. More than creating efficiency, Calleja was showing the people of New Spain that the royalist government could support the country and the army, and was a viable alternative to the rebels, offering order in place of the rebel’s freedom.

In 1813, Morelos’ army would see further success. Launching repeated hit-and-run attacks, time and again the royalists would be routed. He would even take Acapulco itself, depriving the viceregal government of its base on the Pacific. Clearly, Morelos was taking advantage of the opportunity presented by Calleja’s focus on governmental reform and not on the army. During this time of success, Morelos felt emboldened and wanted to begin creating not just a rebel government, as had been done earlier with Rayón. As Morelos put it “it is time to strip the mask from independence.” Until this time, the rebels, even under Hidalgo, had been fighting under the assumption that Ferdinand VII would still be king of Mexico. Morelos was never happy with this formulation, and now, at the peak of his success, he began pressing for a republic. He called the Congress of Chilpancingo, which met on September 13, 1813, and directed reforms, including removing all aristocratic and priestly privileges, racial equality, universal manhood suffrage, fair taxation, and opening service to men of all ranks. For the time, this was a radical formulation to base a government upon. Most importantly, the Congress passed Mexico’s declaration of independence. Unlike Hidalgo, who gave himself grandiloquent titles, the most Morelos would accept was “servant of the nation.”

Calleja Hits Back Hard

When Calleja had finally built the army he wanted and reorganized the government, he did not directly confront Morelos in the south. The rebels in the south were beginning to act as if they had already won. Calleja was down, but not out. Like Morelos, he knew that his newly raised army would have to be bloodied before the real confrontation took place. So, instead of attacking south, Calleja led his army north and struck at those who had thrown in their lot with the rebel leader.

The campaign in the north was no contest. The drive and ruthlessness of Calleja could not be stopped. The silver mines were immediately captured, providing an instant infusion of cash for the viceroy. Any and all groups of rebels were dealt with ruthlessly, with the commanders almost invariably being executed. When word reached Calleja that some Americans had crossed the border into Texas, he sent troops north and the Americans were crushed, scurrying back across the border. Anyone living in the province who had supported the Americans, Calleja ordered their throats to be cut. The 1813 campaign for Calleja was a long one and covered vast distances, but in the end, it was successful and by the new year, Calleja was ready for the final showdown with Morelos.

Morelos, consumed with the Congress of Chilpancingo, had not initially responded to Calleja’s advances. Rising from political concerns, Morelos decided to take his army and march on Michoacán. The target of Morelos’ campaign was Valladolid, which Morelos intended to proclaim his capital. Due to the royalist garrison in the city, he was obliged to surround it and proceed with a siege. Calleja, in response, sent an army to relieve the garrison.

It All Comes Tumbling Down

Upon arriving at the rebel camp, the royalist army prepared to strike. One member of the royalist army was a young colonel of cavalry, almost as ruthless as Calleja himself, Agustín de Iturbide. Iturbide, learning from spies and prisoners that the rebel troops were to blacken their faces so they could identify themselves during battle, Iturbide had his troops blacken their own faces. Then, violating his orders, Iturbide led his troops in an insane attack into the heart of the rebel army, aiming straight for Morelos’ headquarters, located at the top of a hill. The chaos and confusion caused by this attack broke all discipline in the rebel army. The attackers could not be royalists, some thought, no one would be stupid enough to attack like this. They had to be rebels who were betraying their own. Groups of rebels began firing into each other, and others broke and ran. Matamoros, Morelos’ best commander, tried to rally some troops but was defeated, captured, and shot. The army that Morelos had spent so much time building and training was gone.

Calleja, not one to pass up an opportunity, struck. He immediately began ordering his various forces throughout New Spain to attack any rebel forces they could get their hands on. City after city fell, including Chilpancingo, the site of the rebel Congress. Acapulco fell without a shot being fired. Hermenegildo Galeana, Morelos’ best commander now that Matamoros was gone, was captured and beheaded by the royalists.

Morelos had been the driving force behind the creation of the Congress of Chilpancingo. Now, it would be his downfall. As the most prominent and important leader of the rebels, he received all the honors when things were going well. Over two years, Morelos had taken a broken group of insurgents and transformed it into a movement that had declared itself an independent republic and had achieved many military victories. Now, it was Morelos who would receive all of the blame. The congress, now calling itself the Congress of the Republic of Anáhuac, demanded that Morelos resign from command of the army. He did, and the most brilliant of the rebel leaders was removed in this most trying time.

To handle the crisis, the political leaders of the Republic did what political leaders do best, issue meaningless proclamations backed by little but words. A new constitution was issued in October of 1814 but would never be implemented. The proclamation of new rights did not deter Calleja. He advanced further faster. Michoacán fell in its entirety. The royalist army was closing in. Congress had to flee. They needed troops to protect the congressmen. None were available since the bulk of the army was either fighting the royalists or had deserted and were at home. The members called on Morelos to escort them. Being an honest man with a sense of duty, Morelos agreed.

While escorting the congressmen, royalists found the convoy at Texmalaca. Morelos told his companions to save themselves and scatter. He took a few men and acted as bait for the royalists to let everyone else escape. Morelos was captured soon after by a man who had once fought in his army and changed sides. Morelos was brought to Mexico City under guard. Calleja would not make a spectacle of his new prisoner and had him smuggled into the city quietly.

The End

Just like Father Hidalgo, Morelos was a priest, and therefore, his captivity would be governed by the church, not the viceregal government. He was examined and interrogated for forty-six days. Morelos was not a man who took his vow of celibacy as a priest seriously and confessed to a few minor priestly infractions. The Inquisition had him defrocked, just like Hidalgo, and turned over to the secular authorities for punishment for treason. He was executed by firing squad on December 22, 1815.

The death of Morelos was a tragedy for Mexico. He was the genius of the Mexican War of Independence. Whereas many leaders of revolutions have goals that they want to attain, Morelos had a vision. He had a vision of a nation free of racial and class distinctions, free of foreign domination. A vision of a free people, with rights granted by God that no one else could take away. A vision of an orderly government that was balanced and not under threat from strongmen. When ordered to resign, he did. He was consistent in proclaiming the rights of the people of Mexico and understood the importance of merit, regardless of background.

With the death of Morelos, men of fewer principles would control the war of independence. Without Morelos, the vision of Mexico, strong and free, would melt away. A towering man without a desire for personal enrichment or power, he was the only person with the ability to stand above the rest and lead Mexico to something more. Instead, it would be to men of the next, lower, rank in ability, men who were jealous of each other, and feckless in their pursuits of wealth and power. The death of Morelos was the death of the vision. The greatest tragedy though was that no one quite knew it yet.

What do you think of the time of José Morelos in the Mexican War of Independence? 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.