Gold has very long and important history in many civilizations. Here, Jennifer Dawson looks at the importance of gold in American history.

A man panning for gold during the California Gold Rush.

If people talk about precious metals, gold is probably the first one that comes up. Gold attracts many individuals, and it has always done so. For centuries, people have been in awe of its aesthetic-value; there are only a few things that can top gold’s yellow-colored beauty. Groups such as RME Gold, a gold and silver dealer, concurs that America has produced an enormous amount of jewelry, coins, and bullion. Over time, gold’s relevance was in decline, but in recent years, it has seen a comeback. As fascinating as gold is, it is essential to revisit and learn more about the origins of American gold.

 

The Birth of American Gold

Gold was earlier discovered in the United States near North Carolina — explorers discovered it sometime in the early 1800s. This sent shock waves through American society. The Dahlonega Mint was created in Georgia shortly after, which officially announced the beginning of American gold coinage. But this was just the start. Gold enthusiasts would soon set their eyes on the historic California Gold Rush in 1848, putting US gold on the maps. Most of us have seen the scenes in the movies, but most can’t fathom the scale of the gold that was being produced in those times.

 

The Effects of Gold

Gold’s discovery in Sutter’s Mill, California, was big news. Gold explorers came in from every corner of the globe; everyone was trying to find their own treasure chest! For instance, a brief account on Khan Academy states, in California, mass migration into the region transformed the state’s landscape. The thought of potentially becoming rich transformed a previously unknown region into a bustling hub of mining activity, with thousands of individuals worldwide searching for fortune. This discovery shaped the landscape of the American West and fueled economic growth throughout the nation.

 

A Look into Historical American Gold Coins

Did you know not all bullion is the same? Some gold coins stand out because of their historical significance, others because of their purity. The following coins represent the very beginnings of American Minted Gold.

One of the best coins is the Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle. It was first introduced in 1907 by the famous sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens. The piece is still cherished by gold collectors in the United States. The Indian Head is another similar coin minted between 1859 and 1909. It was designed by Bela Lyon and had a special design. One feature that sets it apart from other coins is that its details are pressed into the coin; they don’t protrude like others.

 

So why go back in time? It’s a reminder of prosperity that the U.S. has been blessed with. To many it’s a symbol of the land itself. It’s a metal that never goes out of style and always remains with us, whatever the economy of the nation is like.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

A rival nationalist government formed on the island of Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War in 1949. This separation from the communist controlled mainland China has been a source of International tension ever since. Here, Victor Gamma looks at how and why mainland China separated from Taiwan. He continues the series by looking at the Chinese Civil War and how China and Taiwan grew apart.

Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong meeting in 1945 in Chongqing, China.

Initially the political left (communist) & right (nationalist) wings of the KMT continued to cooperate in the United Front. But it wasn’t long before the conflict which would ultimately lead to the current China-Taiwan conflict began. On May 30, 1925, a crowd of Chinese students in Shanghai staged an anti-foreign protest at the International Settlement at Shanghai. The incident turned deadly when the Shanghai Municipal Police opened fire on the protesters. This sparked outrage throughout China, including the Canton/Hong Kong Strike. The CCP reaped the greatest benefit from these events and attracted many members. Conservatives and moderates grew alarmed at the growing power of the leftists. Right and left also clashed over policy: the left pushed the strike while the Nationalists wanted to end the strike because much of their financial support was coming from foreign trade. Moreover, Chiang was trying to consolidate his control in anticipation of the coming campaign to unify China and did not want political disunity in the ranks. For this reason, as well as suspicion of a possible communist take-over of the Nationalist movement, on March 20, in what is called the Canton Coup, he purged communist elements from the Nationalist army. Chiang moved to limit the fallout from the purge by taking actions to conciliate the Soviets and the remaining leftists. He still desired Soviet support as well as help from the CCP for the campaign fight against the warlords.  

Shortly thereafter, Chiang launched his long - awaited campaign against the warlords. By March, 1927 Chiang had taken Nanjing. Here the fall of the city was accompanied by widespread looting and rioting with foreign warships bombarding the city. This led to conflict between Nationalists and communists. Chiang believed that the Russians and communists instigated the riots and stirred up anti-foreign feelings deliberately to increase their own power and weaken the KMT. Therefore, on April 12, 1927 he ordered the violent purging of communists in Shanghai. This marked the official beginning of all-out war against the communists and the start of the Chinese Civil War. In addition to Nanjing, the nationalist government had moved to Wuhan. Here leftists took control, acting largely independent of Chiang’s authority. By April the Wuhan government had gone beyond that to actually acting against Chiang. They issued a series of edicts reducing Chiang’s authority. They also began to construct a parallel government in KMT territory.  Chiang clearly could not move forward against the warlords and felt it necessary to halt his advance in order to deal with the communists. This marks a pattern which appeared throughout Chiang’s career; no matter how great the problem, he always placed the communists or internal threats as his greatest threat and would cease all other operations to deal with them. And so in the spring of 1927, he halted the anti-warlord campaign and violently turned on the communists. He began with a purge of communists in Shanghai. 

On August 1, 1927, the Communist Party launched an uprising in Nanchang against the Nationalist government in Wuhan. Around 20,000 communist members of the Kuomintang revolted and took over the city of Nanchang. This incident is called the Nanchang uprising. It resulted in the formation of the People Liberation Army and is still celebrated today as “Army Day.” Ultimately, however, the communists withdrew into a remote location to rebuild their strength. Chiang launched several offensives in an attempt to destroy the communists once and for all, but they managed to elude his pursuing armies to reach the safety of a remote city in Shaanxi Province called Yenan. Once settled in their new base, the communists carried an intensive training and indoctrination program to “correct unorthodox tendencies,” mold the peasantry into the communist model and become an effective force.

Anti-communism

Scholars have debated the reasons that Chiang turned on the communists. There are multiple reasons. Chiang was a reformer but also a traditionalist. Although recognizing the need for modernization, he was deeply connected to the past. He was, in fact, a neo-Confucianist. He was an ardent admirer of Tseng Guo Fan, the 19th century paragon of Confucian virtue. In addition to that, like Chiang, Tseng also was involved in leading the government forces in restoring unity to China through quelling the Taiping Rebellion. One of Tseng’s superiors said  “Taiping Rebellion is a disease of the heart, Russia is a disease of the elbow and axilla, England is a disease of skin; We should exterminate Taiping first, then Russia and England.” Chiang repeated this phrase almost word for word in an interview years later, substituting “Taiping” with “communist” - “Remember, the Japanese are a disease of the skin, but the communists are a disease of the soul.” He was alarmed at ideologies that he felt threatened traditional Chinese culture. Chiang had a chance to observe a communist regime up close when he was in Russia for training and rejected it as an appropriate system of government for China. He felt it to be an alien ideology that undermined Chinese traditions. He attempted to unify China both politically and ideologically. Part of his ideological effort would become the “New Life Movement.” This would be a civic campaign that promoted confucian values as well as cultural reform. It was partly launched as a counter to communist ideology. He also was not interested in sharing power. He believed one of China’s greatest needs at this time was one leader firmly in control. The communists had demonstrated that they would not submit to Chiang. One of the first objectives the communists focused on when they gained power in Wuhan during the Northern Expedition, for instance, was an attempt to strip Chiang of his power.

World War II

The state of civil war continued until 1937, when the Japanese invasion forced the two sides into the Second United Front for the duration of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937- 45) Although technically allies in the struggle against Japan, the Front never functioned as a firm alliance, even at times resembling more a hostile competition than an alliance. In practice, though, cooperation between the two factions was minimal. Chiang, in fact, instead of an aggressive strategy against the Japanese, hoarded his forces for the post-war showdown with the communists.

At the end of World War II, although technically on the winning side, the Nationalists were psychologically the losers in the eyes of many Chinese, especially peasants. They were seen as putting more energy into trying to exterminate the communists than fighting the rapacious foreign invader. Some even blamed Chiang for Japanese depredations by using forces against his internal political foes that could have been used against the Japanese. Chiang, in fact, had to be forced at gunpoint to agree to the Second United Front in the first place. Even before the guns fell silent in 1945, he had lost the war for the hearts and minds of the peasants, who were 90% of the population. His alliance with the mercantile and landowning class helped tie Chiang to conservatism. He had little understanding of the plight of the peasants.  His communist rivals, meantime, worked feverishly and brilliantly to build a powerful following, based largely on peasant support. This included a military force that numbered into the 600,000 range by 1945. While Chiang’s Nationalist movement was riddled with corruption and lack of real reform, the communists won the hearts and minds of vast numbers through the training, land reform and fierce, consistent commitment to the struggle against Japan and whatever injustice the peasants had been traditionally subjected to.

In 1945 both Nationalist and communist forces accepted the surrender of Japanese forces. Sovereignty had been restored, but not unity. Both Chiang and Mao knew that the long-awaited showdown was about to commence. After a brief period of post-war cooperation, the old animosities erupted into civil war again. This time, the communists were the winners. The Nationalists retreated to Taiwan but never surrendered, just as the communists had refused to surrender despite a succession of defeats in the late 1920’s and 1930’s.

After the Civil War

For some time after the Nationalists fled to Taiwan both sides insisted that they were only the official government of China. A strict policy of no contact  followed. Chiang reformed the corrupt Nationalist Party and, with American aid, set Taiwan on the path of economic modernization and growth. After Chiang’s death in 1975, political reforms also took place. By the 1990’s, Taiwan was not only an economic powerhouse but full-fledged democracy. Meanwhile, Taiwan has largely given up its claim to the mainland. In 1991 Taiwan declared that the war with the PRC was over. 

In 2000 Taiwan transitioned to a multi-party democracy when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidency. Although the KMT is still important, it now shares power with other parties. The DPP backs full independence so Beijing viewed the election results with alarm. The PRC backed up its disapproval with the "anti-secession law." The law flatly states that Beijing will use force if Taiwan "secedes" by declaring full independence. The DPP returned to power as Tsai Ing-wen, became Taiwan's first female president in 2016. More importantly for the mainland, she is a firm supporter of independence. In words that are sure NOT to warm the heart of Beijing, Tsai declared "Choosing Tsai Ing-wen... means we choose our future and choose to stand with democracy and stand with freedom."   

China has offered a "one country, two systems" scenario in which Taiwan would enjoy significant autonomy while still under Beijing's control. The mainland also would promise not to use force in resolving the issue. Taiwan turned down the proposal.

Differences

Why doesn't Taiwan want to be under Beijing's control?  it has seemed that the two Chinas have drawn closer together, for example beginning in the 1970s the mainland began economic reforms thus it seemed was becoming more similar to Taiwan. However, the mainland did not change the political one-party state and authoritarian regime which is not a democracy. Taiwan, along with the whole world, watched the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre. Hong Kong was promised a "one country, two systems" arrangement in 1997 as China prepared to take back the British Colony. Included was a 50 year promise that Hong Kong would enjoy its capitalist system as well as political freedoms. In 2020, though, Beijing cracked down on basic freedoms with a Security Act that allows the government to punish or silence critics or dissenters. As of this writing, well over a hundred individuals have been arrested for political reasons. Taiwan at one time was an authoritarian dictatorship, it has now diverged even more from communism, evolving into now a free market and a genuine democracy. 

This contemporary dispute reflects China's painful journey from its time-honored ways of old to modernity. A struggle for stability and prosperity and self-respect consumed that nation in the 20th Century. This journey involved the fundamental question of how China should be organized: the nationalist/traditionalist view - which eventually evolved into today's democratic Taiwan, and the communist (with a semi-capitalist economy) vision, now ruling the mainland. These two paths represent the right and left ideologically, one which looked to the West and its liberal traditions and traditional Chinese culture and the other which turned to distinctly antiliberal doctrines of Marx and hostility towards the past. These two approaches struggled over who's vision would succeed. In a sense, then, this struggle has never truly ended and continues to threaten global stability. The world watches to see how far Beijing will go in achieving its goal of one China. 

What do you think of the China and Taiwan separation? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s article on the explosive history of the bikini here.

References

CHIANG ATTACKS WARLORDS AND REDS - 11. Chiang Attacks Warlords and Reds

Timeline: Taiwan’s road to democracy - Timeline: Taiwan's road to democracy | Reuters

The essence of propaganda is to spread a manipulated message with the aim of influencing the masses. The truth is not the most important thing here.  Over the centuries the tools for making and spreading propaganda have changed quite a bit, but the goal has always remained the same: to influence as many people as possible. Bram Peters explains.

British World War One recruiting poster, 1914.

Already in Roman times, the emperors used propaganda to spread the message throughout the empire who held the power. Roman emperors had themselves portrayed on coins to reach as many citizens as achievable.  In a time without the modern mass media as we know them today, this was quite an effective way to circulate information within an empire the size of the United States (the Mediterranean Sea included). This method is even used to this day: many countries have their heads of state printed on their coins or bills.

The disintegration of the Roman Empire in the early Middle Ages resulted in much more locally oriented society. Cities themselves minted their own coins.  However, the invention of the printing press in the late Middle Ages gave propagandists a whole new opportunity to spread their message.  Texts no longer had to be copied by hand, but could instead be produced by machines.  In addition, the message was proclaimed in the vernacular instead of Latin. This made it possible to reach a much larger audience.

The industrial revolution gave a huge boost to paper production.  With the use of steam engines and the switch from cottonpaper to pulppaper, production costs fell significantly and more people than ever had access to printed information.

20th century

In the twentieth century other mass media made their appearance: radio and film. Sound and motion picture could now be used to spread propaganda.  The Nazi regime is an excellent example of a government that has been able to make optimal use of new technologies.  Famous are the speeches of the specially appointed Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, which the whole country could follow on cheap radios provided by the regime. Citizens could watch propaganda films in cinemas that aimed to influence the masses.  Much attention was paid to national symbolism (with a special role for flags), military parades, cheering crowds worshiping Hitler and theatrical music. In the second half of the twentieth century, the role of film was increasingly taken over by television.  From now on propaganda came straight into the living room.

The Internet made its appearance at the end of the century, revolutionizing the way messages are conveyed to the general public.  Although initially still a fairly static medium, in the twenty-first century the internet has evolved into a platform where new digital technologies have forever changed the way propaganda is created and used.  Smart algorithms offer users personalized content based on their search behaviour.  Manipulation of images in combination with the framing of information has led to the emergence of reporting referred to as fake news.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used to generate deep fake videos capable of making people say things they have never said.  Thanks to AI, anyone with relatively little knowledge can spread propaganda that reaches the entire world. The line between what is real and what is not has become more blurred than ever.

Propaganda has been a way of influencing people for thousands of years.  Propaganda makers want to convince their target group and do not  take the truth too seriously.  What has changed throughout history are the possibilities to reach an ever larger public. With the rise of the internet, the whole world now is the audience.  At the same time, AI is more than ever creating the dilemma of what is real and what isn’t. It is of great importance that young generations learn the purpose of propaganda and how to recognize it.  Who made something and for what reason? Examples from the past can therefore be useful to study. In a time where it is easier than ever to manipulate everything, we all should take an extra critical look at the information presented to us.

What do you think of propaganda history? Let us know below.

Now read Bram’s article on an approach to racism and Black Pete here.

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

Lieutenant Colonel George Custer played a role during the American Civil War on the Union’s side. However, he is most famous for his engagements with the Plains People in the American West. Here, Olivia Jacobs, in her debut article for the site, explores Custer’s legacy.

George Armstrong Custer in the mid-1860s.

Introduction

One of the United States' most notable military figures is Lieutenant Colonel George Custer. His legacy is gilded with themes of Manifest Destiny and the romanticization of the American West. In the past, Custer has been painted as a great hero who sacrificed his life to defend America, and Western media have idolized his story. He has been depicted in at least twenty films beginning in 1912 with the silent film Custer's Last Fight. Many of these depictions portray the lieutenant colonel as the gallant hero that the history books have described him. However, a shadow has been cast on him in a select few pieces of American media.

The musical legend and staple of American culture, Johnny Cash, performed a song called Custer. It details the unspoken dark parts of Custer's story. His likeness is also used in the Dreamworks film Spirit; Stallion of the Cimarron. Unlike most depictions of Custer, the character, only referred to as "The Colonel," is a significant antagonist of the children's film. However, as the character is not referred to by name, it is clear to older audiences who The Colonel should be.

Simply by analyzing the media of Colonel Custer, it is clear that his reputation is hyper-complex. By diving into his military career and reading first-hand experiences of both his friends and victims, historians have attempted to sort out Custer's morality. Despite these efforts, however, the water remains murky.

George Custer's legacy began in 1861 when Custer enlisted in the Union Cavalry. He was present for significant battles, including the most famous American Civil Conflict, Gettysburg. By 1865, Custer had distinguished himself as a successful military man, even finding himself at the surrender of the Confederate military. He earned the Brigadier General rank and supported the Union Army at the Appomattox Court House (Wert 225).

Custer and the Plains People

By mid-1866, Custer was appointed Lieutenant Colonel of the Seventh Cavalry Regiment. Up until 1868, he found himself on the frontier and scouting duty. Later that year, Custer raided the territory of the Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle. The conflict is commonly known as the Battle of Washita River; this 'victory' caused casualties to the Cheyenne peoples and forced a significant portion of their territory under American Control (Hardoff 30).

The Battle of Washita River was not uncommon, as during this age, the United States government was driving people away from their ancestral land in hopes of eradicating the traditions and cultures that differed from their narrative of white greatness. Despite the unfortunate commonality of Custer's actions, he was set on the Plains people like a rabid dog.

Custer's most popularized military feat is the Battle of Little Bighorn. Many films, including the very first, Custer's Last Fight, depict the events of Little Bighorn. However, much of this conflict is shrouded in mystery. What is known is that with the help of the Crow People, the Seventh Cavalry identified a significant encampment. Said encampment consisted of recorded history's most considerable convergence of Plains Peoples. Members of the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho peoples had gathered together to oppose the American government.

On June 25, 1876, Custer divided his forces into two groups. Five companies remained with Custer, while the others were entrusted to Marcus Reno. His tactics at Little Bighorn were similar to his actions at the Battle of Washita River. The strategy consisted of using non-combats as hostages to force the 'hostiles' into submission. These non-combats would typically consist of women, children, elders, and disabled members of the community.

The intention was for Reno's team to lure the active combatants away from the encampment, and Custer would flank the encampment to kidnap the unarmed innocents. Unfortunately for the Seventh Cavalry, they grossly underestimated the size of the indigenous forces. Their presence was also already known by the occupants of Little Bighorn. Due to this, Reno's companies were forced to form a skirmish line instead of luring the warriors away. Marcus Reno's forces could not hold the line and were forced to withdraw as at least five hundred furious Plains warriors counterattacked (Perrett 8).

After taking control of the non-combats, Custer was supposed to reinforce Reno's team, but they have yet to make it that far. At this point, it needs to be clarified on the precise details. What historians do know for sure is that Custer and all of his companies were successfully wiped out. The other details come from the oral accounts told by indigenous survivors.

An Apsáalooke Crow woman, Pretty Shield, recounted that Custer died while attempting to ford the river of Little Bighorn. She remarks seeing the multiple white men in blue attire attempting to cross the river. Pretty Shield's story is countered by the story of Chief Gall, a Lakota, who claimed that Custer did not attempt to ford the river. Chief Gall stated that Custer died near the famous Custer Hill. Other Lakota people corroborate Gall's story, also present at Little Bighorn (Michno 284-285).

The exact circumstances of Custer's idolized death are foggy; however, when his remains were found, Custer had two bullet wounds. There was a bullet in his skull and a bullet in his chest. To make the story more complex, some historians suspect that the wound on the left side of his skull indicates assisted suicide. Current speculation suggests that the right-handed Custer was fatally shot in the chest, and one of his men shot him in the head shortly after. However, that is only speculation, and the Lakota narrative claims that Custer was shot off his horse (Brininstool 60-62).

Frustratingly, events after Reno and Custer split ways are mostly speculation, as the survivor stories do not align. Even the exact location of the encampment and the subsequent is uncertain. Custer's death via gunfire and the length of the conflict (under an hour) is clear to modern-day historians (Graham 88)

The Legacy

In less than a week after George Custer's death, he was immortalized by the American newspapers. The New York Times ran an article titled Massacre of Our Troops, thrusting the hero narrative into Custer's lap (New York Times 1). He was romanticized as a gallant hero who sacrificed himself to protect United States territory.

His wife, Elizabeth Custer, was said to have insisted that her late husband was a war hero and heavily pushed the popular narrative. Her efforts were solidified when the painting Custer's Last Fight by Cassilly Adams circulated throughout the continental United States. Budweiser Beer reproduced the painting from 1888 as a branding effort, further popularizing the Custer story.

George Custer's legacy held firm until World War II, as distrust and skepticism in the government rose in the West. Historians began to dig beyond the gilded legacy, bringing light to the reality of Custer's actions. Undeniably, Custer and his men were active participants in eradicating the Indigenous populations. However, the toxic legacy is not the fault of Custer. Although those around him described Custer as glory-hungry, he did not spread his narrative. He can and should be faulted for the atrocities committed by his hand, but the heroic idolization can not be blamed on Custer.

Conclusion

Lieutenant Colonel George Custer was seared into the American history books regardless of if he was a hero or a hedonist. To readjust the scales, stories about Crow woman Pretty Shield or Cheyenne man Chief Black Kettle deserve to be immortalized. The fantasy of American greatness and the "sacrifice" of Custer comes at the cost of ancient cultures deeply rooted in the land. The stories of victims deserve to be known and reach far beyond Custer's untruthful blaze of glory.

What do you think of Lieutenant Colonel George Custer’s legacy? Let us know below.

Now, if you enjoy the site and want to help us out a little, click here.

References

Brininstool, Earl A. Troopers with Custer : Historic Incidents of the Battle of the Little BigHorn. Stackpole Books, 1994. p. 60–62.

Graham, William A. The Custer Myth : A Source Book of Custeriana. Stackpole Books, 1986. p. 88.

Hardorff, Richard G. Washita Memories: Eyewitness Views of Custer's Attack on Black Kettle's Village. University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. p. 30.

Linderman, Frank B., et al. Pretty-Shield: Medicine Woman of the Crows. University of Nebraska Press, 1931. pp. 135-136.

Michno, Gregory F. Lakota Noon, the Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat. Mountain Press, 1996. pp. 284-285.

Perrett, Bryan. Last Stand: Famous Battles Against the Odds. Arms & Armour, 1993. p. 8.

Taft, Robert. "The Pictorial Record of the Old West 4." Kansas Historical Society, www.kshs.org/p/the-pictorial-record-of-the-old-west-4/13042. Accessed 27 May 2023.

The New York Times. "MASSACRE OF OUR TROOPS.; FIVE COMPANIES KILLED BY INDIANS.GEN." The New York Times, 6 Jul. 1876, p. 1.

Wert, Jeffry D. Custer: The Controversial Life of George Armstrong Custer. Simon & Schuster, 1996. p. 225.

The American Revolution sent shockwaves around the world, but how did the rebel Americans beat the British, arguably the most powerful military in the world at the time? Richard Bluttal explains by looking British weaknesses and American strengths.

A painting entitled The Battle of Long Island. By 21st century artist Domenick D'Andrea.

“The time is now near…” wrote Commander-in-Chief George Washington, which will “…determine whether Americans are to be Freemen or Slaves.” Over the course of the Revolutionary War, as many as 400,000 men from the ages of 16 to 60 fought against the British—about 25,000 gave their lives. Basic training was short, rations inadequate, and pay was poor. Some enlisted out of patriotism, some joined for the adventure, and others were drafted. Length of service varied from a few months to the duration of the war. Leaders like Washington soon discovered that instilling discipline and keeping an army of volunteers on the battlefield and off the wheat field (many soldiers were farmers who returned home during harvests without permission) was no easy feat. In 1778, the royal army consisted of nearly 50,000 regular troops combined with over 30,000 German (Hessian) mercenaries. George Washington, in contrast, never had more than 20,000 troops under his command at any one time. Most of these American soldiers were young (ranging in age from their early teens to their mid-20s), landless, unskilled, and poor. Others were indentured servants and slaves who were serving as substitutes for their masters and had been promised freedom at the war's end. Also in the Continental army were many women who cared for the sick and wounded, cooked, mended clothes, buried the dead, and sometimes served in combat.

The British seemed unbeatable. During the previous 100 years, the British had enjoyed triumph after triumph over nations as powerful as France and Spain. At first glance, the odds were clearly against the Americans. A closer look provides insight into how the underdogs emerged victorious.

Britain's military was the best in the world. Their soldiers were well equipped, well disciplined, well paid, and well fed. The British navy dominated the seas. Funds were much more easily raised by the Empire than by the Continental Congress. Some of those funds were used to hire Hessian mercenaries to fight the Americans.

The Americans had tremendous difficulty raising enough funds to purchase basic supplies for their troops, including shoes and blankets. The British had a winning tradition. Around one in five Americans openly favored the Crown, with about half of the population hoping to avoid the conflict altogether. Most Indian tribes sided with Britain, who promised protection of tribal lands.

So, we ask the question, how was it possible that the Americans could defeat the British. It certainly was a long shot, let’s see.

BRITISH WEAKNESSES

The British fought a war far from home. Military orders, troops, and supplies sometimes took months to reach their destinations. The British had an extremely difficult objective.  Distance was a huge, huge factor. And it wasn’t just about getting orders across the ocean. The British supply chain was simply too long. They could only compensate by looting the local people—which certainly didn’t help the public opinion of “the King’s men.” They had to persuade the Americans to give up their claims of independence. As long as the war continued, the colonists' claim continued to gain validity. The geographic vastness of the colonies proved a hindrance to the British effort. Another weakness of the British army was fighting on the wooded and hilly terrain of the American colonies. The British sought flat, open ground so that they could fight in the European style they were accustomed to, with lines of men blasting away at each other with muskets from 50-75 yards. (Although the British had defeated the French in the French and Indian War, their most crucial victory had been at Quebec, on the Plains of Abraham, where the two foes battled as they might have in France). American soldiers were much more willing to fight from concealment and retreat to fight another day, leaving the British, their supply lines growing ever attenuated and more perilous, chasing after them.

The British had just fought a difficult war with the French and their native American allies in the French and Indian War. The cost to Britain was enormous. There were constant debates in the British Parliament about the funding of this new conflict, thousands of miles from the homeland.

A related weakness for the British was the fact that it was difficult for the government to recruit men into the army, since there was no military draft, and few able-bodied British men wanted the hard and dangerous life of the army overseas. In order to fulfill Gen. William Howe’s wish for 50,000 men to defeat the colonials, the British government was forced to turn to German mercenaries from the then-province of Hesse-Cassell (whom the Americans therefore called Hessians). Thirty-thousand British and Hessian troops were in fact sent to North America 1776, but since mercenaries felt no loyalty beyond a paycheck, they were prone to desertion.

Another weakness of the British, especially at the outset of the war, was its disdain for the colonial fighters it was facing – Burgoyne would famously call the Americans “a rabble in arms" -- and be defeated by them at the battle of Saratoga. Gen. Thomas Gage, commanding 2,200 British soldiers at the Battle of Bunker Hill (really Breed’s Hill) in June of 1775, sent his men in frontal charges against this “rabble,” only to see the American stand their ground and kill or wound half of the British forces. Finally, the British faced a failure in coordinating strategic objectives -- their commanders, King George III and his ministers in England, were never quite on the same page as to the best way to defeat the Americans, in part because the same distances that made resupply difficult kept communication uncertain and lacking in timeliness.

AMERICAN STRENGTHS

With so many Americans undecided, the war became in great measure a battle to win popular support. If the patriots could succeed in selling their ideas of revolution to the public, then popular support might follow and the British would be doomed.

Even with military victory, it would have been impossible for the Crown to regain the allegiance of the people. Revolution would merely flare up at a later date.

In the long run, however, the patriots were much more successful attracting support. American patriots won the war of propaganda. Committees of Correspondence persuaded many fence-sitters to join the patriot cause. Writings such as Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" stirred newfound American nationalism.

As to the war strategy, the Native American allies taught the Americans a whole different kind of warfare, guerrilla or snake warfare. The greatest use of guerrilla warfare during the American Revolution took place during the Southern Campaign. Led by American general, Nathanael Greene, and aided by Baron Friedrich von Steuben, guerrilla warfare was used extensively in the later years of the war. In the forests of the South, Greene was able to draw British forces away from their supplies and then engage them with small fighting units in order to inflict damage. By dividing his forces, Greene was able to spread his soldiers across a wider area. As a result, British General Charles Cornwallis and the Southern detachment of the British Army often found extreme difficulty finding the Americans and successfully contending with them in skirmishes. Also, the Americans knew the country. They’d been fighting the Indians (sometimes accompanied by the French) for decades before the Revolution. They knew how to take advantage of terrain, and they did. And then, of course, you had the backwoodsmen, who generally had Kentucky rifles—which were an entirely different order of weapon from the smoothbore Brown Bess muskets the British had: they shot longer and straighter. Now if you’re a Patriot in a buckskin jacket, lying in the brush and aiming at a block of men wearing bright red coats in the woods, crammed together in Napoleonic squares (which was how European armies fought even before Napoleon), trying to shoot from daylight into shadow… who do you think is going to hit the target? Was this why the Americans were called ragtag soldiers?

Many politicians were calling this group of colonists, ragtag soldiers. I think James Volo (MA in Military History and Wars, American Military University) addresses this concept of ragtag soldiers very well. “The American were not a rag-tag bunch of farmers. They had been exposed to and part of the defensive forces of the several colonies since their founding. Most of the soldiers who fought for the English colonies prior to the final cataclysm of the French and Indian War were colonials. Only after 1759 were large numbers of regulars sent to the English colonies. However, these colonials were not formed into a simple citizen army but rather were regular provincial troops—formed into regiments and paid by the colony. From this point provincial regiments were established to replace the less formal militia units in major operations. In many colonies they became permanent organizations known as the Governor's Foot Guard, or Horse Guard. In later times, they became the Royal Americas or the Queen's Rangers. There remains in America the cherished romantic concept of the militia as "minutemen," a mythical army of self-trained and self-armed warriors springing from the colonial soil in times of trouble. This is not completely true. Most of the American officer of the Revolution — like Washington himself — had been officers or NCOs in the French Wars, and many of the Rev War NCOs (excepting the youngest) had served as soldiers in that war — Putnam, Stephen, Hazen, Pomeroy, Wooster, Stuart, Schuyler. Virginia established a system of paid, mounted rangers in the 17th century of almost 1,000 men. They patrolled the frontiers, held down depredations, and tried to keep abreast of the attitudes of the natives for a century. The New England colonies established a similar but less extensive system of rangers along their northern borders in the French and Indian War to protect the outlying settlers from the ravages of sudden attack. The best-known group of rangers was that raised by Robert Rogers from among the tough woodsmen of the New Hampshire frontier. Israel Putnam, one of the later and now a general in the American Revolution, had helped to inform the establishment of British Light Infantry. The British at the end of the war could not believe that a bookseller (Knox), and blacksmith (Greene) and a tavern keeper (Putnam) had beaten them.“

AVOIDING A KNOCK-OUT BLOW

Washington's strategy of avoiding large-scale confrontations with the royal army made it impossible for the British to deliver a knock-out blow. Only once during the Revolution (at Charleston, S.C. in 1780) did an American army surrender to British forces.

The direct assistance of France and Spain, and the indirect assistance of the Dutch was of great importance to the revolution. It also gave the Americans a fighting chance against the Royal Navy, battles like Penobscot proved that the Americans hadn’t much of a chance against the British navy. However, the intervention of French and Spanish navies changed this. The Americans also had the help of privateers. With the French and Spanish against them as well, Britain ended up fighting a war that they couldn’t win. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington’s forces in Virginia. French assistance was crucial in securing the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781. Prior to the onset of the American Revolution, the original 13 colonies had no real naval force other than an abundance of merchant vessels that were engaged in domestic and foreign trade. The colonies' merchant service had vast experience with the open sea and with warfare, which included British naval expeditions against Cartagena, Spain, and Nova Scotia during the nine years of war with France (1754–1763). Thus, the importance of naval power was recognized early in the conflict. On 13 October 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the Continental Navy and established the U.S. Marine Corps on 10 November. By 1776, the colonies had 27 warships—in contrast to the powerful Royal British Navy, which had about 270 warships. Also problematic was that American commanders were often confronted by sailors and Marines who had not been adequately trained and lacked discipline.

Perhaps the single most important reason for the patriot victory was the breadth of popular support for the Revolution. The Revolution would have failed miserably without the participation of thousands of ordinary farmers, artisans, and laborers who put themselves into the line of fire. The Revolution's support cut across region, religion, and social rank. Common farmers, artisans, shopkeepers, petty merchants were major actors during the Revolution. Ex-servants, uneducated farmers, immigrants, and slaves emerged into prominence in the Continental Army.

The growth of popular participation in politics began even before the Revolution. In the years preceding the war, thousands of ordinary Americans began to participate in politics--in non-importation and non-exportation campaigns, in anti-Tory mobs, and in committees of correspondence linking inland villages and seaports. Many men joined groups like the Sons of Liberty to protest British encroachments on American liberties. Many women took the lead in boycotts of British goods; they also took up the spinning wheel to produce homespun clothes. During the Revolution itself, some 400,000 Americans, including at least 5,000 African Americans, served in the fighting for at least some time.

CONCLUSION

The Revolution had momentous consequences. It created the United States. It transformed a monarchical society, in which the colonists were subjects of the Crown, into a republic, in which they were citizens and participants in the political process. The Revolution also gave a new political significance to the middling elements of society-- artisans, merchants, farmers, and traders--and made it impossible for elites to openly disparage ordinary people.

Above all, the Revolution popularized certain radical ideals--especially a commitment to liberty, equality, government of the people, and rule of law. However, compromised in practice, these egalitarian ideals inspired a spirit of reform. Slavery, the subordination of women, and religious intolerance--all became problems in a way that they had never been before.

The Revolution also set into motion larger changes in American life. It inspired Americans to try to reconstruct their society in line with republican principles. The Revolution inspired many Americans to question slavery and other forms of dependence, such as indentured servitude and apprenticeship. By the early 19th century, the northern states had either abolished slavery or adopted gradual emancipation plans. Meanwhile, white indentured servitude had virtually disappeared.

What do you think of American strengths and British weaknesses during the American Revolution? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s series of articles on trauma and medicine during war, starting with the American Revolution here.

The stereotypical image we have of a pirate comes from the silver screen and the works of Robert Louis Stephenson, and while piracy has existed since ancient times it really came into its own in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Golden Age of Piracy saw countless pirates out at sea, rampaging across the waves and looting wherever they could.

Despite the bloodthirsty and violent nature of the average pirate, their image is something we’ve come to look upon with fondness, with children dressing up in costumes of them and many considering the romanticized Captain Jack Sparrow as a bit of a hero. The average pirate was far from the good-looking and eccentric rogue we imagine and delving a little into their history gives a truer picture of these seafarers.

Jennifer Dawson explains.

A painting entitled A Barbary pirate. By Pier Francesco Mola, 1650.

Pirates in Popular Culture

From Batman comics to Hollywood and classic literature to fun social games, there are modern representations of pirates in many different forms of art and media. Since Treasure Island, the adventure and excitement of a pirate’s life and experience has captured and captivated our interest. Not many groups from history have managed to remain so popular and interesting in the same way, so exploring the history of pirates never gets old.

Columbus attracts Caribbean Pirates

The famed explorer Christopher Columbus connected and created communication between Europe and the lands we have come to know as the Americas in the 15th century. Columbus worked for the Spanish monarchy and the new lands he discovered were quickly claimed by Spain as their own. As explorations continued, they found plentiful bounty, with their new lands awash with sources of silver, gold and gemstones.

Spanish galleons began transporting their bounty back to Europe and it’s no surprise that pirates quickly saw their chance and were drawn to these humongous vessels packed with precious goods.  Pirates consistently began to attack any Spanish galleon they came across, leading to large armadas being formed, with galleons sailing in groups and protected by armed vessels. Spanish people who moved over to the Caribbean islands and American mainland also found their new settlements under attack from pirates.

Buccaneers, Corsairs or Privateers?

Many kinds of pirate roamed the seas at different times. A buccaneer was often seen as a 17th century pirate from the Caribbean Islands of Hispaniola and Tortuga. They began life as hunters but soon became employed by governors of Spanish islands who would pay them to attack those Spanish galleons carrying treasure. To begin with, buccaneers carried out their orders with little argument but over time, they became more self-serving and began to attack any valuable looking ship, whether considered the enemy or not.

Corsairs were usually Mediterranean pirates operating from around the 15th to 18th centuries. Most famous amongst their members was Barbarossa and there were both Muslim and Christian corsairs operating around the Mediterranean.

Finally, privateers were privately owned ships which were fully armed and able to operate in times of war. The British Admiralty of the time would issue these private owners with assurance they could attack and capture merchant vessels with no risk of being charged with piracy.

Piracy today

Contemporary piracy is still very much a problem. Seaborne piracy against transport vessel is said to cost around $16bn per year and there are particular issues in certain areas of the world such as the Strait of Malacca and the waters between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean near the Somali coast.

While the legend and history of piracy is fascinating, there is tyranny and violence at its heart, and it is still a problem which we’re battling to this day.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

A rival nationalist government formed on the island of Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War in 1949. This separation from the communist controlled mainland China has been a source of International tension ever since. Here, Victor Gamma looks at how and why mainland China separated from Taiwan. He starts by looking at early 20th century China.

A 1920s portrait of Sun Yat-sen.

When Vladimir Putin recently claimed that Taiwan belonged to the People's Republic of China (PRC), he triggered a withering rebuke from Taipei. In response to Putin's remarks, the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs fired back, "the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) is an independent, sovereign nation… The ROC and the autocratic PRC are not subordinate to each other. The regime of the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled over Taiwan for one day and does not enjoy any sovereignty over Taiwan'' …The future of Taiwan can only be determined by the Taiwanese people and Taiwan will never surrender to any threats from the PRC government.”

The communist (PRC) regime, on the other hand, like Putin, sees Taiwan as part of its territory. Thus, in their view, they have every right to demand reunification - by force if necessary. Why are there "two China's" anyway? What lies behind this threat to peace that has even Japan ramping up its military muscle? Let’s see what history has to tell us.

Background

The current Taiwan-China conflict grew out of the crisis of the "Century of humiliation" as the Chinese call it. This was a period from roughly 1840-1949 when China fell victim to foreign aggression and internal division. By 1900, after 50 years of one disaster after another, it was clear to many that the Imperial Qing Dynasty was hopelessly inept and corrupt. It had long proven itself incapable of coping with the challenges of modernization. 

With chaos and humiliation swirling around them, increasing numbers of Chinese became convinced that they needed major change. Numerous reform and anti-Qing movements arose with the goal of solving China’s problems. Many Chinese realized the need to copy Western techniques if China were to survive. As reformer Kang Yu Wei put it in 1906, “We need, too, governmental and political reforms and a reorganization of our political machinery.” 

Among the many organizations seeking to help was the Revive China Society (Xingzhonghui). Today’s Kuomintang Party or Guomindang (GMD) traces its history to this movement, founded on November 24, 1894. The next year the Society adopted an official flag, the blue sky with a bright sun. This emblem remains the Kuomintang flag and adorns the national flag of Taiwan to this day. In 1905 the Revive China Society was merged into the Revolutionary Alliance aka Tongmenghui. By this time Dr Sun had enunciated his famous “Three Principles of the People;” Nationalism, Democracy and the welfare of the people. The Three Principles were partly influenced by his travels in the United States. Especially influential was Lincoln’s philosophy of government “by the people.” The Principles included civil rights or limited government. termed ``popular soveriegnty'' in the US.  Dr. Sun explained that the people should control their government through means such as elections, referendum, recall and initiative. These principles remain as foundational elements to the Kuomintang and the Constitution of the Republic of China. These are the values Taiwan espouses today. Taiwanese revere Sun Yat Sen as "father of the nation. '' Dr Sun's portrait, in fact, hangs in the main legislative chamber in Taipei.

Revolution

Finally on October 10, 1911 (“double tenth”) an uprising triggered an anti-Qing revolution. There was nothing remarkable about an uprising, but then something incredible occurred: Within a few short months, a system that had lasted 2,000 years collapsed like a house of cards. The ROC (Republic of China) was established by the Chinese people through the Provisional Presidential Election held on December 29, 1911. Dr. Sun won a whopping 94% of the vote to become the first president in his country’s history. On January 1, 1912 he was sworn in and announced the official beginning of the Republic of China. On February 12, 1912 the last Qing monarch abdicated the throne, formally beginning China’s troubled venture as a republic. 

At the time of the Revolution, Sun Yat Sen was the acknowledged leader of the Chinese revolutionary movement. In 1912 the Revolutionary Alliance and several other parties merged to form the Kuomintang (Nationalist) Party, KMT for short, aka “National People's Party.” It evolved out of the revolutionary league that had worked to overthrow the Qing. But it was one thing to overthrow a government, quite another to assert authority. By 1913 Sun had lost the power struggle and fled to Japan in exile, not to return until 1916. China’s infant experiment in parliamentary democracy collapsed. In practical terms,  this meant the dissolution of China into a state of anarchy with regional rulers exercising control.

Mao

Meanwhile, another pivotal event took place in 1893: the birth of a son to a prosperous farmer of Hunan Province, named Mao Zedong. Although reared in the ways of traditional China, including the Confucian Classics, Mao rebelled against all this at an early age. He was expelled from more than one school and ran away from home briefly. When he was 14 a marriage was arranged for him and the young women moved into the family home. Mao refused to even acknowledge her. Instead, he moved to Changsha to continue his studies. When the 1911 Revolution came, Mao quickly joined the Anti-Qing military and did everything he could to overthrow the hated Manchu. Having tasted the wine of politics, Mao became insatiable. Between 1913 and 1918, as a student at the Changsha Teacher’s Training College, he devoured works on political ideologies. Especially impressive to him was the 1917 Russian Revolution and the ancient Chinese Legalist philosophy. Upon graduation he took a job at the Beijing University Library. It just so happened that his boss at the library, Li Dazhou, was a budding communist and soon exerted a major influence on the young Mao. He was one of many who became convinced that the solution to China’s problems lay in Marxism.

By 1919, while Mao was still a lowly librarian, a new revolutionary ferment broke out. Seven years after Dr Sun had proclaimed the Republic, China was still mired in political and economic chaos. Warlords and bandits ruled their own territories in defiance of any national government. Sun returned to China in 1916 but his authority was limited to a small area around Canton. To make matters worse, although China had joined the Allied cause in hopes of attaining an end to its semi-colonial status, China was betrayed at the Versailles Peace Conference; Japan was allowed to keep the territory in Shandong Province it had captured from Germany in 1914. This was a massive slap in the face to China. On May 4, 1919 a crowd of students gathered at Tiananmen Square to voice their frustrations. This was part of a resurgence of nationalism. Among other results, leftist ideologies gained momentum. Movements like Sun’s now expanded into a more grass-roots effort. Leaders such as Li Dazhao and Chen Duxin emerged from the May 4 movement. These two, like many others, began to abandon Western-style democracy and turned to leftist ideology. They looked to the new Bolshevik government in Russia as an example. In 1920, Li was head of the library at Peking University and professor of economics. Captivated by the Russian Revolution, he began to study Marxism. Many were impressed with the apparent success of the Bolsheviks. Li founded a study group to discuss Marxism. This evolved into the Chinese communist party, founded in July 1921. Mao Zedong was among the founding members.  

Sun

Meantime Sun and his Kuomintang, lacking military support, had been unable to build a strong enough political organization to assert their authority. Sun began to realize that his movement needed help if he were to unify China - they had proved to be no match for ruthless warlords and helpless to end the foreign concessions. Sun had tried to enlist the aid of Japan and the West. He even wrote to Henry Ford, imploring his help.  In a  letter to the famous auto manufacturer he wrote; “There is much more to hope, in my opinion, from a dynamic worker like yourself, and this is why I invite you to visit us in South China, in order to study, at first hand, what is undoubtedly one of the greatest problems of the Twentieth Century,” The request came to nothing. Rebuffed by the West, he took a step that would have momentous consequences. By 1921 the Bolshevik in Russia revolutionaries had proven they could take and hold on to power. They had established themselves and were carrying out their reform program. They had accomplished this in four short years while the Chinese revolution had now been floundering for a decade. He invited Russian help in building his party. The Russians were only too glad to help but they attached a price tag: Sun must allow the communists to join his kuomintang. Mikhail Gruzenberg, known as Borodin, was sent to Canton in 1923 to advise Sun. Here was a seasoned agent of the newly-formed Comintern. He had already been to several countries to spread bolshevism. He and Sun established a formidable partnership as Borodin put his considerable political skills to work. It would hardly be an overstatement to say that he almost single-handedly turned the Kuomintang into an effective force. He gave them a tight party organization, drafted a constitution for them and taught effective revolutionary and mobilization techniques. Borodin also convinced Sun to admit the small (300) communist party into his nationalist movement and create the first United Front between the KMT and CCP. This was a potentially powerful move to bring unity and stability to China. This United Front thus combined the conservative and leftist political movements of China. Unity was essential to overcome the warlords, who dominated all of north China. Nonetheless, this is where the conflict between the two China’s begins. For all their cooperation, the two ideologies, communism and nationalism, would prove absolutely incapable of working together for long. Some consider this to be Sun’s greatest mistake. Once given legitimacy, the communists would be very difficult to control.

Additionally, Sun and his followers established a military academy to train officers in the struggles to come. Known as the Whampoa Military Academy, it played a critical role in the centuries major conflicts. In 1924 Sun Yat Sen appointed the general Chiang Kai Shek to be the first commandant of the Academy. Chiang had met Sun in Japan and became a devoted follower. Over the years he had proved his faithful commitment to Sun, even at the risk of his own life. Subsequently, several Academy members, including Chiang, were sent to Russia for training. He remained, at least in word, dedicated to Dr. Sun’s principles throughout his career. In a 1942 message to the New York Herald Tribune Forum on Current Problems Chiang asserted “(our) Revolution is the attainment of all three of Dr Sun’s basic principles.” After the death of Sun Yat Sen in 1925, Chiang continued his rise to power. He became commander in chief of the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) and in June, 1927 began the long-awaited “Northern Expedition” with the objective of destroying the warlords and reuniting the country.

What do you think of the early 20th century in China? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s article on the explosive history of the bikini here.

This three-part series takes on one of America's most important founding fathers, John Adams. John Adams’ contributions to the founding, development, and success of the United States was unrivaled by others of his generation. In this series, Avery Scott examines John Adams’ life and contributions to the United States from three perspectives. First, John Adams the patriot here. Second, John Adams the diplomat. Third, John Adams the Statesman.

Here, Avery looks more closely at John Adams as a diplomat across Europe.

A portrait of John Adams in 1785 (shown here in black and white). By Mather Brown

Introduction

John Adams served his country in the diplomatic service for much of his life. Eventually, becoming the most experienced foreign diplomat in service, he was called upon to negotiate some of the new nation's most difficult situations. Despite Adams future successes, his diplomatic career began with a torrent of failures.

Lord Howe

After the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the war took a turn for the worst with British forces commencing hostilities on New York. The troops under control of General Washington showed their inexperience and lack of discipline when attacked by professional soldiers. Many soldiers ran from their post, deserting the field and in their wake, leaving behind weapons and powder already in short supply. Fortunately, brave Marylander’s under the command of Lord Stirling guarded the retreating army, making a retreat possible - despite suffering heavy casualties.

Washington knew that his men had to reach safety quickly, as he expected a British armanda to arrive shortly to blockade his overwhelmed Army. Gen. Washington brilliantly developed a plan to retreat across the East river under cover of darkness and fog thanks to brave Massachusetts seafarers who conducted the soldiers' safe passage throughout the night. While the defeat was difficult, the escape was a small silver lining to an otherwise dark cloud. Washington saved the bulk of the Army to fight another day, but learned how weak the force was that he was defend the nation. Soon the news of the battle and escape arrived to Congress, as did paroled General John Sullivan bearing news of Admiral Lord Howe’s desire to speak with a delegation from the colonies regarding an “accommodation.” Adams stood firm that no such meeting should occur, however he was overruled by the greater majority of Congress. Ironically, despite his objections, Adams was selected as one of three members who should meet with Howe on Staten Island. The other two members selected were Benjamin Franklin and Edward Rutledge. So on September 11, 1776 the three commissioners met with Admiral Lord Howe to discuss Howe’s proposal of “re-union” of the colonies to their rightful allegiance to the crown. It was here that Adams began a diplomatic career that would change the fate of America.

France

After the meeting with Admiral Lord Howe, which proved to be a worthless endeavor, and the sting of the loss at New York fresh on their mind, Congress began deliberations to find new ways of recruiting and maintaining a professional Army. It quickly became apparent that America was in an untenable position, and needed an ally to assist in winning the war. Specifically, Congress needed an ally with access to men, supplies, and money. The delegates knew France was their best hope to be victorious. Adams was wary of this alliance, and stood firm that it must be purely militaristic in nature, and not entangle America in the future problems of France (a country that spent more time at war than at peace). Seeing France as their best option, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson commissioners to France with the goal of assisting Silas Deane in negotiating a treaty of alliance. Thomas Jefferson was replaced by Aruthur Lee when Jefferson declined the appointment due to personal reasons.

Adams soon returned home to Braintree, and then back to Baltimore for another session of Congress. It was during this session that Adams was given the most dispiriting news of the war yet. Washington’s troops were bested by Howe’s forces at Brandywine Creek. Who could then march, unabated, the short distance to Philadelphia - routing Congress. Fleeing to York, Congress convened but many members, including Adams, soon departed for home. After enjoying the comforts of home for some weeks, Adams traveled to represent a client in his capacity as a lawyer. During his absence, Abigail received Adams commission to serve with Benjamin Franklin and Arthur Lee in France. He was being called to serve in place of Silas Deane who was recalled to answer to Congress for his actions as commissioner. Abigail, upon reading the commission, was furious with Congress and their attempt to make her life “one continued scene of anxiety and apprehension.” Despite her effort, he quickly accepted the appointment as he felt it his public duty. Adams would depart for France leaving behind his entire family - except John Quincy who would journey with his father. In secrecy, to avoid spies or attack, father and son departed their home waters aboard the Boston. Captain Samuel Tucker was to be responsible for transporting the Adams’ safely to France. Tucker accomplished this mission, albeit not without some difficulty on the way. Namely, the capture of the British cruiser Martha. But after six weeks and four days aboard ship, Adams was rowed ashore, leaving the Boston behind, and beginning what would become one of the greatest diplomatic careers in the nation's history.

Immediately after Adams arrival, he began to be introduced to French society by Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, being the most popular American in France, had many friends that he advised Adams befriend as well. Adams quickly became enamored with the culture and excitedly wrote Abigail regarding the experiences thus far. However, Adams also met Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, the King’s Foreign Minister, who would become a thorn in the side of Adams’ diplomatic hopes. However, the first problem Adams encountered had nothing to do with diplomacy or the French. Rather, it was the ongoing turbulence between Franklin and Arthur Lee, which led both men to complain of the other to Adams in private. Despite personal differences, the men shared the common goal of an alliance with France. And the first step to this was to introduce the new Minister to King Louis XVI. In which Adams was struck by the importance of King Louis on the future of the Nation.Adams spent much of his time in France feeling as though he was accomplishing little, because the treaty of alliance he was sent to negotiate was already agreed upon prior to his arrival. And the Comte de Vergennes seemed disinterested at best or unwilling at worst to do anything additional to help America. Because of this, he spent the remainder of his first stay in Paris struggling with his fellow commissioners, the Comte de Vergennes, and frustration from Abigail regarding his continued absence. However, Abigail need not worry long, as Adams soon received the news that Franklin was appointed by Congress to be the sole Minister to Paris, with no direct instructions being given to Adams as to future assignments. Deeply hurt by the betrayal, Adams planned to sail home.

Home Again

Adams, despite frustration at Congress for the lack of communication, was deeply relieved to be home with the family he loved and his farm. He would not have much time to enjoy retirement as he was soon selected as a delegate to the Massachusetts state convention in order to form a state constitution. Once Adams completed his work for the state convention, and the new constitution was ratified, Adams was called back to Paris to serve as a Minister Plenipotentiary to negotiate treaties of peace with Great Britain. Adams was frustrated at the way he was treated by Congress, with Henry Laurens writing an apology to Adams stating he was “dismissed without censure or applause.” So as it were, Adams now set sail again to France, John Quincy in tow as he was before, but with the addition of his other son, Charles.

Holland

His time in Paris began with the first of many battles with Vergennes regardings his commision, and the appropriate time to reveal his intentions. This would not be the final battle between the two, as Vergennes eventually attempted to effect the recall of Adams. Even going so far as to employ Franklin in the attempt. Despite the treachery, it became a turning point in Adams’ career, as this is when he made the decision to visit Holland in an attempt to gain financial assistance. Adams trip to Holland was one of “militia diplomacy” in which he bent the rules of his new nation, and the customs long followed by all nations to affect his change. He had not been called to do so by Congress, but instead went on his own free will. Eventually, Congress officially voted for Adams to serve in this role. Which proved vital as Adams was very successful with the Dutch, with the Hague voting to recognize him as the Foreign Minister to the Netherlands on April 19, 1782, and the independence of America was also recognized. Eventually, trips to Holland would lead to a multitude of Dutch loans to America that allowed for the continuance of the war effort, and the ability to pay the balance of prior loans, and began to build American credit abroad. Additionally, on October 8, 1782, Adams negotiated, and signed, a Treaty of Commerce with the Netherlands.

Treaty with Britain

After negotiating the Dutch treaty, Adams was dispatched back to Paris for final peace negotiations. Unfortunately for Adams, he lost his appointment as sole Minister to France following the letters to congress from the Comte de Vergennes and Franklin. However, he was still on the team of diplomats responsible for such negotiations. This team included Adams, Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, and Henry Laurens (Jefferson being absent for the time, and Laurens being in the Tower of London). Adams was in little rush to attend the negotiations, and ensured that he wrapped up all open business at the Hague prior to leaving - even doing some sightseeing on the way. Upon his arrival in Paris he was dejected to learn of Congress secret instructions to the negotiators to only push for concessions approved by the French government. Even Franklin, the member most beholden to the French, found this to be an untenable position to negotiate from. Eventually agreeing with the other delegates that they would proceed contrary to Congress instruction, and strike the best deal possible with Britain without prior approval from France. The men worked well together, gaining land for the US and reaching peace terms the British found agreeable. It was only on the point of private debts that the commissioners deferred. Jay and Franklin felt that private debt agreements between Americans and British merchants should be forgiven due to the damage the British inflicted upon their former colonies. However, Adams strongly argued, eventually winning, that private debts should be paid notwithstanding injuries from war. This was, however, more of a personal victory than a practical one. Because few individuals would make much attempt to repay the debts, and both state and national congress’ would do little to enforce it.

Adams' final stand came on the rights of American fishermen to fish in the waters off Nova Scotia. Adams was a Massachusetts man, and though not a seafaring man himself, grew up watching the value of cod and other fish to his region's economy - refusing the British to take away this right.

A preliminary treaty of peace was signed with the British on November 30, 1782. With the official treaty being ratified on September 3, 1783 thus ending hostilities. Following the treaty, in August of 1784 - Abigail joined her “dear Mr. Adams” in Paris. After a blissful reunion in Paris, Adams was eventually named the Ambassador to the Court of St. James. The goal of this post being to resolve outstanding issues between America and Britain following the Treaty of Paris. With sadness, Abigail and John left Paris to assume their new post as the first minister from America to King George III.  Adams' diplomatic career would continue for many years following the signing of the Treaty of Paris and his call to London. However, in the years following his arrival to France, Adams proved that he was no longer an inexperienced diplomat, and had now become a statesman….

What do you think of John Adams as a diplomat? Let us know below.

Now read Avery’s article on the role of privateers in the American Revolution here.

Anaconda was the strategic plan proposed by General Winfield Scott early in the US Civil War. Scott’s concept was to defeat the Confederate States of America (CSA) through economic measures rather than a land war. Its purpose was to devise an approach to prevent imports and exports, which would squeeze and strangle (like the snake) the Confederacy into submission. Scott thought that by depriving the South of foreign trade and the ability to import or manufacture weapons and military supplies, the war could be won with a minimum of battlefield casualties.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

First, if you missed it, read Lloyd’s piece on how the Confederacy funded its war effort here.

A cartoon-esque map of General Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan to defeat the Confederacy in the American Civil War.

Scott reasoned that the vulnerability of a southern nation was its absence of manufacturing, supplies, and weapons production in the region. He recognized that the seceded states depended on bringing military and consumer imports in, and trading cotton and agricultural exports out. Since the CSA trading partners were overseas and there were no land connections, its economy depended on open rivers and seas. Scott devised a plan for a naval blockade of the ports of the Confederate Atlantic shoreline, an invasion and occupation down the Mississippi River, and the consequent strangulation of the South by combined Union land and naval forces. Scott expected that a land war would be a long, arduous undertaking despite the general opinion that it would be over in weeks.

The two objectives of the blockade were: 1) to prevent war material, manufactured goods, and luxury items from reaching the South to boost their war effort and morale at home and 2) to stop the exportation of raw cotton to foreign manufacturers, which would bring cash to the Confederate economy. By blockading the southern ocean ports and the Mississippi River, its military would slowly suffocate as supplies dwindled and the country became isolated from its trading partners.

Southern Economic Realities

The ante bellum economy of the South relied on bringing manufactured goods from the Northern states and trading raw agricultural products with foreign countries. The South grew crops and raw materials, which were then sold to industrial centers and in return, manufactured goods were purchased. In addition, the South needed markets to sell its cotton and other cash crops. Before the war, the South relied on coastline ports to ship goods and products to other regions and countries.

More specifically, southern economy was dependent on exporting cotton to Great Britain and to the Northeastern states, where clothes and other items were manufactured. The revenue from cotton sales were used to purchase finished products and goods. Food was purchased from Texas and Arkansas or the Midwestern states. Southern reliance on cotton sales and the absence of manufacturing centers in the region delineated why the prewar Southern economy was dependent on maritime trade.

The only way to transport these goods to the consumer were by rail. The blockade overburdened roads and the railroad system in the South, which were not designed to transport troops north-south where the troops needed to go but rather west-east towards the ocean. This increased the cost of transporting goods, raising the prices on agricultural products and stressed the Southern economy. The main role of the railroads before the war was to bring goods to port; the opposite direction was rarely used for transporting heavy loads from the ports to the cities or countryside. This pattern would have to be modified rapidly to stay in the war.

Moreover, the South in 1861 has limited facilities to produce the weapons of war. Only one iron works existed that could produce artillery weapons and armaments, and few manufacturing centers of guns and bullets. All of these would have to be imported to engage in war once those stolen from federal armories in the South had been used.

Proclamation and Management of the Blockade

US Secretary of State William Henry Seward recommended adopting the blockade immediately following the firing on Fort Sumter. Union military commanders were not sanguine about the idea, preferring a rapid attack strategy to a slow suffocation, believing that the war would be rapidly over.

On April 19, 1861 President Abraham Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports, putting the Anaconda Plan into effect. The blockade was extended to include North Carolina and Virginia on April 27. The Union Navy had established blockades of all major southern ports, notably New Orleans and Mobile, by July 1861. Other important ports included Norfolk, Charleston, Wilmington and Savannah.

To manage the blockade, a commission called The Blockade Strategy Board was created by the United States Navy at the direction of Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus Fox. The group was comprised of: Samuel Francis Du Pont, who acted as chairman; Charles Henry Davis; John Gross Barnard; and Alexander Dallas Bache.  They first met in June 1861 to determine how best to stop maritime transport to and from New Orleans and Mobile. Their analysis of the Atlantic ports was very good from the start but that of the Gulf Coast was not. At that time, detailed oceanographic knowledge was not available for the Gulf.

Legal Implications and Foreign Response

Lincoln was immediately confronted with the question of whether the secession of the South should be regarded as rebellion or as war. The fact that the CSA had a government elected by representatives of the people made declaring it a rebellion appear politically motivated. The US continued to insist that the parties to the contest were not belligerents, and that rebellion was not a war. From the legal point of view, the action had to be regarded as armed insurrection. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles advised an undeclared blockade; his idea was to prevent foreign governments from granting the Confederacy belligerent status or recognition as an established nation.

Others suggested that the southern ports be declared closed, which was a legal act. Legally, governments have the right to close its own ports, and to impose penalties upon ships attempting to enter. Only an executive order would be necessary, and would not raise these thorny issues. However, such an order could only be enforced in US waters, which would not allow for stopping ships on the high seas. Additionally, violations would only be breaking a US revenue law, which were only to be adjudicated in a federal court in that state. And, European nations would not have to follow this order because it wasn’t an international law. Convincing foreign governments to view the blockade as legitimate was crucial.  The search and seizure of foreign vessels on the high seas, even though bound for the embargoed port, is an act of war, unless there is a declared and established blockade. But, once that happens, the nations are legally belligerents.

As Welles anticipated, Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861, Spain on June 17, and Brazil on August 1. Other foreign governments issued statements of neutrality. These governments acknowledged the right of the US to stop and search neutral ships in international waters, but were concerned that the methods being used went beyond what international law allowed.  Lincoln specifically noted in his announcements that the US would “follow the law of nations; this meant that the blockading ships would first issue a warning and would only capture the suspected ship on its next attempt to evade the blockade. Union ships decided arbitrarily which ships in Caribbean ports were preparing to run the blockade, waiting outside the territorial limits for those ships to clear port and then board and search.

After the war, Raphael Semmes insisted that the blockade carried recognition of the CSA since countries do not blockade their own ports. Semmes was captain of the blockade runner CSS Alabama, the most successful commerce raider in maritime history, taking 65 prizes. Late in the war, he was promoted to rear admiral and also acted briefly as a brigadier general in the Confederate States Army.

US Naval Maritime Strategy

The basic blockade strategy was simple. The Navy used lightly armed former merchant vessels close to shore, faster and more heavily armed steam frigates patrolling offshore, and cruisers that searched around the globe to interdict Confederate blockade runners and commerce raiders on the high seas.

Actually putting into practice a blockade of the southern half of the United States and a huge transcontinental river, however, was not an easy task. The Atlantic ports had numerous defenses and entrances, and the Mississippi River defended in a number of locations. To succeed, the blockading navy had to patrol 12 major ports, 189 harbors and 3,500 miles of coastline.

In fact, the US Navy was unprepared for this mission at the beginning of the war. The Union had only thirty-five modern vessels, just three of which were steam powered. Accomplishing this task required a huge building program to build ships to cover Southern seaports. Eventually, the Union produced 500 ships for the sole purpose of creating an effective blockade.

The Mississippi River comprised an entirely different problem. The Navy developed a combined-arms strategy with the Army in amphibious and coastal/riverine operations. Both forces were necessary to control of riverways and ports.  River warships had to have sufficient power to run battery fire from the shore and enemy ships in an enclosed space. The river experience to that time had been all about commerce and there was no experience building boats to maneuver and carry heavy artillery in a river. These ships had to be designed and built.

Blockade Runners

Maintaining international commerce by overcoming the blockade was crucial to the CSA. Because it lacked sufficient manufacturing centers in the South, the only way to supply its military needs and keep its economy going was by international commerce. Therefore, among all of its other priorities, the CSA had to build a navy with the purpose of evading the US ships blockading its ports. Freighters were much too slow and lacked the ability to outrun or outmaneuver the Union gunboats.

By the end of 1862, the efficiency of the blockade required that only specially designed vessels could attempt to run it. The nature of their operations was risky because they are the targets that blockading fleets try to corner or fire upon. However, the potential profits and benefit were tremendous. Nonetheless, over 80% of attempts to evade the Union blockade were successful.

A blockade runner was a ship built expressly for the purpose of evading a blockade of a port or strait.  Steam engines made these ships fast and difficult to trap.  These ships were designed to be fast with a light draft, with exceptional maneuverability.. They were lightly armed and armored to save weight and space; their purpose was to “outrun the blockade” not fight the defending naval vessels. To remain undetected, usually the ships made their runs at night. Once sighted, the runners tried to outmaneuver or outrun the Union ships.

However, these necessary characteristics were the opposite of their purpose of carrying heavy weaponry and large amounts of supplies. Consequently, it became necessary to make multiple trips, further increasing the risk. For this reason, most were ultimately captured or sunk. In all, 1,504 blockade runners were captured or destroyed during the war. By the end of the war the Union Navy had captured 1,149 blockade runners, and had destroyed or run aground another 355 vessels.

Blockade runners were privately owned.  They typically operated with a letter of marque issued by the Confederacy. These vessels carried cargoes to and from neutral ports.  The four principal intermediary points were: Bermuda, Nassau, Havana, and Matamoras. There, neutral merchant ships, usually based in England or other points abroad, would exchange their cargoes. Inbound, the ships brought military supplies and other goods to the Confederacy while outbound ships exported cotton, tobacco and other goods for trade and for sale.

Great Britain played a major role in blockade running. Liverpool was especially prominent; its shipbuilding businesses were ideal for designing and building commerce raiders and blockade runners. The British developed steamships that were longer, narrower and faster than the conventional steamers guarding the American coastline, enabling them to outmaneuver and outrun blockaders. Many British businesses had investments in the South, and were suffering due to the Lancashire Cotton Famine. Furthermore, Great Britain controlled many of the ports in the Caribbean, making it an ideal partner in defeating the blockade.

Blockade runners faced an increasing risk of capture as the war continued. In 1861 and 1862, only about 10% of attempts ended in capture; but by 1863 and 1864, one in three. By war's end, imports had been choked to a trickle as the number of captures came to 50% of the sorties. Some 1,100 blockade runners were captured (and another 300 destroyed). British investors frequently reinvested their profits in the trade; when the war ended they were stuck with useless ships and rapidly depreciating cotton. Ultimately about half the investors made profits  while half sustained losses. Although a large proportion of blockade runners did evade the Union defense, the strength of the blockade is better measured as the kinds of ships, and their numbers, that never tried knowing they would be caught.

Confederate Threats to the Blockade

Recognizing that the US Navy were building powerful gunboats, the Confederacy initially countered with small, fast and sleek boats called torpedo boats. These were equipped with spar torpedoes, which were easily countered by hanging chains over the sides of the boats. Another problem was that they really couldn’t carry many supplies.

The Confederates initially operated privateers, allowing them to attack Union ships. However, these ships could only sail from Confederate ports under international law; this rendered them ineffective after 1862 as the blockade ramped up. Confederate commerce raiders were very effective countermeasures. These were gunboats built with the specific purpose of attacking the blockading ships. The CSS Alabama and the CSS Florida were highly effective and rendered maintenance of the dangerous. Despite the attacks by Confederate warships, there were few Union losses. After the Alabama attacked and sank the USS Hatteras off Galveston, it was clear that small gunboats could not blockade shallow inlets without support. Consequently, strategy changed so that large flotillas were deployed, by which large numbers of naval vessels were sent to chase these Confederate warships in open seas.

Confederate ironclads were another innovation designed to break the blockade. In March 1862, the blockade of the James River was threatened by the first ironclad, CSS Virginia, often incorrectly named the Merrimac which was its original name before it was salvaged. in the Battle of Hampton Roads, the Union ironclad Monitor battled the Virginia for hours, ending the threat. Two months later, Virginia and other ships were scuttled in response to the Union Army and Navy advances.

Effectiveness of the Blockade

At first, the blockade was ineffective: in the first six weeks after Ft Sumter, the Confederacy exported 30,000 bales of cotton from Charleston in 150 ships. In April 1861, a small Union flotilla seized 16 Confederate ships and privateers in the vicinity of Fort Monroe off the Virginia coastline over two weeks. In May, two blockading squadrons were created by Welles, an Atlantic and a Gulf squadron. In October, the Atlantic Squadron was divided in to a North and South Atlantic division, and in February 1862 the Gulf squadron was partitioned into East and West Gulf division.

As the Union fleet grew in size and sophistication, more ports came under Federal control. The port of Savannah was effectively sealed by the surrender and occupation of Fort Pulaski in April 1862. Only Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; and Mobile, Alabama remained open after this point in the war.

The largest Confederate port, New Orleans, fell early in the war. There were 5 entrances to the Mississippi River, making it a very difficult military target.  In April 1862, Forts Jackson and St. Philip were bombarded by Porter's mortar schooners. Farragut's fleet successfully ran past the forts on the morning of April 24, forcing the surrender of New Orleans.

Charleston was the major Confederate port on the Atlantic Coast until 1863. The city has a wide and deep harbor, with a sand bar about five miles from the harbor entrance.  There were  four large channels into the harbor. The port of Charleston with its excellent rail connections became the prime port due to its location just 780 miles from Bermuda and 500 miles from Nassau. Charleston was severely restricted by Admiral Dahlgren's South Atlantic Blockading Squadron in 1863 as Union ironclads moved into the main shipping channel. Although it remained open until February 1865, it never played a major role after that time.

The harbor at Wilmington North Carolina was small and had none of the natural advantages that Charleston or New Orleans possessed. For this reason, the Union did not include it in the blockade it right away. But the city had good railroads to Richmond, and because of its location it was immune to a direct assault. Its convenience to the Caribbean also made it an attractive alternative. Once this harbor became a prime destination, it required Union warships to patrol as much as 130 miles offshore to stop the trade.

Although the Atlantic coast was initially the main object of the blockade, eventually the Gulf became a very important and extremely large zone to cover. The 2000 mile coast ultimately was never fully blockaded. Only Mobile and Galveston could harbor large seagoing vessels due to the shallow waters and multiple barrier islands. Havana was the main connection to Europe from the Gulf.

Mobile was the major port in the Gulf and remained highly active until it was captured in August 1864 by Admiral David Farragut. The Battle of Mobile Bay between his fleet and the Confederate warships in the harbor closed the last major Confederate port in the Gulf of Mexico.

In December 1864, Union Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles sent a force against Fort Fisher, which protected access to the Atlantic from Wilmington, North Carolina, the last open Confederate port on the Atlantic Coast.  The fort was captured in January 1865, assuring the closure of the final Confederate port.

Impact of the Blockade on the Confederacy

The Union blockade was a powerful weapon that eventually destroyed the Southern economy, at the cost of very few lives, just as General Scott envisioned. War is largely about supporting armies with supplies throughout the various fields of conflict. The river campaigns of 1862-3 in the west crushed the South while the Atlantic blockade raised the costs. The best measure of the blockade's success was that many ships, and none of the very large ones, ever tried. Standard seagoing freighters had little chance of evading the blockade and few attempted. Restricting coastal trade put even more pressure on an outdated railroad system. Lee's army, at the end of the supply line, had to contend with a chronic shortage of supplies in the final two years.

The blockade became more effective as the war proceeded and more southern territory came under Union control. In part, the reason was that there were fewer ports to protect; but also the blockade fleets caught on to the tricks of the blockade runners. Overall, only about 10% of ships trying to evade the blockade were intercepted. However, as the Union Navy increased in size and sophistication as the war progressed, drastic reductions of shipments into Confederate ports were realized. By 1864, only one-third of attempts to run the blockade were intercepted. In the final two years of the war, only blockade runners specifically designed for this task had a reasonable chance of success.

Another  significant achievement of the blockade was restricting the exportation of cotton. Before the war, the South supplied 75 to 80 percent of the world's raw cotton.  Inability to export their cash crop markedly reduced cotton revenue, disrupting the Southern economy.

Unsurprisingly, southern merchants and black markets preferred the importation of luxury consumer goods, which could be sold to the wealthy, rather than weapons and medical supplies. The Confederate government eventually regulated the traffic, so that at least half were armaments and munitions.

Moreover, the southern economy had to react to these stresses, and did so in predictable yet devastating ways. Since the Southern food supply was located in the west and revenue generation east of the Mississippi, the weak and overburdened rail system became the limiting factor of supply. This forced the new Confederate national government, which had little revenue generating power, to spend its money on  infrastructure rather than military or social needs.

Overall, the Union blockade did not come close to stopping all supplies from reaching the Confederacy, but it disrupted the usual flow of supplies into and out of the South enough to severely restrict its ability to make war. However, the reduced flow of goods and food led to severe shortages and higher prices. Along with Confederate currency inflation, civilian discontent became a significant war problem. The blockade demonstrated that war was no longer a matter only for soldiers, and that the effects of the war were no longer confined to the battlefield. Civilians had become combatants in the sense that undermining their morale became a military goal. Thus warfare was aimed not only at destroying armies, but also disrupting the economy and depriving people of consumer goods and food.

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

Now, if you missed it, read Lloyd’s piece on how the Confederacy funded its war effort here.

World War Two caused so much misery and was much more of a truly global conflict than World War One. The battles of that war took place largely across Europe, Asia, and Africa and in seas the world over. Here, Richard Bluttal concludes his three-part series on the impacts of trauma during wars by looking at World War 2.

If you missed it, read part one on the American Civil War here, and part 2 on World War 1 here.

Advert encouraging sign-ups to the Army Nurse Corps during World War 2.

Lawrence McCauley was a member of the 65th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, trained to drive trucks armed with .50-caliber machine guns, halftracks and landing craft, just in case. In England, preparing for the D-Day invasion, he  became fast friends with Otto Lutz, a tall Chicagoan. We were all very close,” he said of his unit when he was interviewed in 2020 at the age of 97 and living in Lewis Center. “You knew about their wives and children — everything you could know about your buddy, because there was nothing else to talk about.”

He and Otto were next to each other on a landing craft as it approached Omaha Beach. The front door dropped open and a bullet hit Otto in the forehead. McCauley remembers looking back and seeing his friend’s face sink beneath the water. “There was no stopping,” he said. “Our orders were `Don’t stop,’ because you’re better off as a moving target. That’s hard.”

The purpose of military medicine during World War II was the same as in previous wars: to conserve the strength and efficiency of the fighting forces so as to keep as many men at as many guns for as many days as possible. What transpired between 1939 and 1945 was a cataclysmic event made worse by the nature of the weapons the combatants used. The use of machine guns, submarines, airplanes, and tanks was widespread in World War I; but in World War II these weapons reached unimagined perfection as killing machines. In every theater of war, small arms, land-and sea-based artillery, torpedoes, and armor-piercing and antipersonnel bombs took a terrible toll in human life. In America's first major encounter at Pearl Harbor, the survivors of the Japanese attack could describe what modern warfare really meant. Strafing aircraft, exploding ordnance, and burning ships caused penetrating injuries, simple and compound fractures, traumatic amputations, blast injuries, and horrific burns, to name just a few. Total U.S. battle deaths in World War II numbered 292,131 with 671,801 reported wounded or missing.

Conserving fighting strength and enabling armies and navies to defeat the enemy also meant recognizing that disease, more than enemy action, often threatened this goal. For example, during the early Pacific campaign to subdue the Solomon Islands, malaria caused more casualties than Japanese bullets. Following the initial landings on Guadalcanal, the number of patients hospitalized with malaria exceeded all other diseases. Some units suffered 100 percent casualty rates, with personnel sometimes being hospitalized more than once. Only when malaria and other tropical diseases were controlled could the Pacific war be won.

The military's top priority organized its medical services to care for battlefield casualties, make them well, and return them to duty. The systems developed by the army and navy worked similarly. In all theaters of war, but particularly in the Pacific, both army and navy medicine faced their greatest challenge dealing with the aftermath of intense, bloody warfare fought far from fixed hospitals. This put enormous pressure on medical personnel closest to the front and forced new approaches to primary care and evacuation.

World War II service members lived through an inflection point in the history of medicine and warfare. In all previous US wars, non-battle deaths—related to conditions like smallpox, typhoid, dysentery, yellow fever, tuberculosis, and influenza—outnumbered battle-related fatalities. During the Spanish-American War, more than 2,000 of the approximately 2,400 deaths were due to causes other than battle. During World War I, 53,000 died due to battle versus 63,000 who died due to other causes. World War II marked the first time the ratio was reversed. Of 16.1 million who served, 405,399 died—291,557 of them in battle, and 113,842 due to other causes. A variety of factors contributed to the shift. Crucially, during World War II, the government mobilized expansive public, professional, and private resources to enhance health-related research and development, as well as services offered by the Army Surgeon General’s Office, which oversaw care for soldiers. Also, rather than creating mobilization and treatment plans from scratch, the military health apparatus built on knowledge and administrative infrastructure developed during and after prior conflicts.

Organization of battlefield medical care

The military's top priority organized its medical services to care for battlefield casualties, make them well, and return them to duty. The systems developed by the army and navy worked similarly. In all theaters of war, but particularly in the Pacific, both army and navy medicine faced their greatest challenge dealing with the aftermath of intense, bloody warfare fought far from fixed hospitals. This put enormous pressure on medical personnel closest to the front and forced new approaches to primary care and evacuation.

Army medics or navy corpsmen were the first critical link in the evacuation chain. From the time a soldier suffered a wound on a battlefield in France or a marine was hit on an invasion beach at Iwo Jima, the medic or corpsman braved enemy fire to render aid. He applied a battle dressing, administered morphine and perhaps plasma or serum albumin, and tagged the casualty. Indeed, one of the lingering images of the World War II battlefield is the corpsman or medic crouched beside a wounded patient, his upstretched hand gripping a glass bottle. From the bottle flowed a liquid that brought many a marine or soldier back from the threshold of death. In the early days of the conflict that fluid was plasma. Throughout the war, scientists sought and finally developed a better blood substitute, serum albumin. Finally, in 1945, whole blood, rich in oxygen-carrying red cells, became available in medical facilities close to the battlefield.

If he was lucky, the medic or corpsman might commandeer a litter team to move the casualty out of harm's way and on to a battalion aid station or a collecting and clearing company for further treatment. This care would mean stabilizing the patient with plasma, serum albumin, or whole blood. In some cases, the casualty was then evacuated. Other casualties were taken to a divisional hospital, where doctors performed further stabilization including surgery, if needed. In the Pacific, where sailors, soldiers, and marines were doing the fighting, both navy and army hospital ships, employed mainly as ambulances, provided first aid and some surgical care for the casualties' needs while ferrying them to base hospitals in the Pacific or back to the United States for definitive care. As the war continued, air evacuation helped carry the load. Trained army and navy nurses, medics, and corpsmen staffed the evacuation aircraft.

Combat Related Injuries

The experience of a battle casualty in the Second World War was not radically different to that of the First World War. The most common injuries were caused by shells and bullets, and a casualty was evacuated through a similarly organized chain of medical posts, dressing stations and hospitals. Common combat injuries include second- and third-degree burns, broken bones, shrapnel wounds, brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, nerve damage, paralysis, loss of sight and hearing, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and limb loss.

Non-Combat Related Death and Injuries

Not all wounds are physical. In a previous era, the psychologically wounded suffered from "nostalgia" during the Civil War, and "shell-shock" in World War I. In World War II this condition was termed combat exhaustion or combat fatigue. Although the World War I experience of treating men at the front had been successful, military psychiatrists and psychologists at the beginning of World War II had to relearn those lessons. Nevertheless, the care givers soon recognized that given a respite from combat, a safe place to rest, regular food, and a clean environment, 85 to 90 percent of patients could again become efficient warriors. The more psychologically damaged received therapy in military hospitals.

In the Southwest Pacific, where death rates due to disease were highest, soldiers faced scourges like malaria, as well as tsutsugamushi fever, poliomyelitis, and diseases of the digestive system. In the northern theater—Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland—threats included cold injuries like frostbite and trench foot. Neuropsychiatric disorders and venereal disease were widespread, regardless of where one served, including among those in the United States.

Army doctor Paul F. Russell recalled after the war an earlier statement from General Douglas MacArthur, who had reported that he “was not at all worried about defeating the Japanese, but he was greatly concerned about the failure up to that time to defeat the Anopheles mosquito,” the vector for malaria. By war’s end, more than 490,000 soldiers had been diagnosed with malaria, equating to a loss of approximately nine million “man-days.”

Between 1941 and 1944, more than 10 percent—roughly two million of 15 million examined men—were excluded from service; 37 percent of those dismissals were made based on neuropsychiatric findings. Still, diagnoses of mental “disorders” within the military catapulted well beyond expectations. A total of one million soldiers were admitted for neuropsychiatric illness, constituting approximately 6 percent of all wartime admissions. Within two years of American entry into the war, it was clear that so-called combat stress or “exhaustion” would pose a major threat to soldiers and the army they served—as it had during prior generations. Experiences and realizations of the World War II period had important implications for the future of military medicine.

Army officials began devoting more resources to neuropsychiatric treatment because of an imperative to increase return-to-duty rates, but long-term impacts of care on individual service members were questionable. In early 1943, military psychiatrists noted that men in the Tunisian campaign diagnosed as “psychiatric casualties” were generally lost to their units after being transferred to distant base hospitals. To increase retention, they instituted principles of “forward psychiatry” that had been adopted by World War I-era armies—and henceforth largely disregarded by World War II planners in the United States: treat patients quickly, in close proximity to battle, and with the expectation that they would recover. After army psychiatrist Frederick Hanson reported in the spring of 1943 that 70 percent of approximately 500 psychiatric battle casualties were returned to duty thanks to this approach, it was gradually adopted in other theaters. Still, military psychiatrists acknowledged the method was hardly a panacea. Systematic follow-up studies were lacking, but one contemporary account noted that many who underwent treatment were unable to return to combat, and some who did “relapsed after the first shot was fired.’”

Medical Advancements and Improvements

Battlefield medicine improved throughout the course of the war. At the beginning, only plasma was available as a substitute for the loss of blood. By 1945, serum albumin had been developed, which is whole blood that is rich in the red blood cells that carry oxygen and is considerably more effective than plasma alone. This was the first major war in which air evacuation of the wounded became available.

During the war, surgery techniques such as removing dead tissue resulted in fewer amputations than at any time. To treat bacterial infections, penicillin or streptomycin were administered for the first time in large-scale combat.

Service members with combat fatigue, which later became known as post-traumatic stress disorder, were given a safe place to stay away from battle zones with plenty of food and rest. This resulted in about 90% of patients recovering enough to return to the fight.

War also brought about the mass production of antibiotics, especially sulfanilamide and penicillin. World War II helped both of them find widespread respect, production, and use.

In 1928, when Scottish bacteriologist Alexander Fleming noticed a weird mold had taken over his Petri dishes and eliminated the bacteria on them, his findings didn’t get much notice. But Fleming continued his research and kept talking up what he called “mold juice” (he didn’t come up with “penicillin” until later), eventually winning a Nobel Prize and attracting the attention of drug maker Pfizer. The company soon began mass-producing the drugs for distribution to medics during WWII, and ultimately, to doctors and hospitals across the country.

In 1932, German biochemist Gerhard Johannes Paul Domagk discovered that the compound sulfanilamide could vanquish deadly strains of bacteria, like the streptococcus in his lab mice and in his first human test subject, his gravely ill young daughter. The wide distribution of so-called “sulfa drugs” began when World War II soldiers carried powdered sulfanilamide in their first-aid kits. By the end of the war, doctors were routinely using these antibiotics to treat streptococcus, meningitis, and other infections.

In the tropical islands of the Pacific, malaria was a serious threat. Service members received atabrine — a group of medications used to protect against malaria — before going into affected areas.

Service members were also inoculated with vaccinations for smallpox, typhoid, tetanus, cholera, typhus, yellow fever and bubonic plague, depending where they were sent.

Other improvements during World War II included improved crash helmets, Because of improvements like these and others, the survival rate for the wounded and ill climbed to 50% during World War II from only 4% during World War I, according to Dr. Daniel P. Murphy, who published a paper on "Battlefield Injuries and Medicine."

As medical advancements progress so does the capability of our medical teams to treat our service men and women when injured in the field.

What do you think of trauma during World War II? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s piece on the history of slavery in New York here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones