A Brief History of American Trucking

Picture this - it’s the ’60s and you’re cruising down Route 66 with the terse rumble of a diesel engine humming in your ears and the broad, beautiful expanse of the American highway sprawling before you. This isn't your typical travelogue. Instead, we’re shifting gears into the annals of American trucking history, offering an intimate gaze into the lives of three remarkable truckers and their considerable contribution to an industry that is, quite frankly, the backbone of American commerce.

Jennifer Dawson explains.

A U.S. Post Office truck ready for Christmas in December 1921.

Larry 'L.D' Drake: Pioneering the way

Drake--a driver who knuckled down for forty-five laborious years, starting in Oklahoma in the 1950s--became a sort of folk-hero within the trucking community. Not only did his work aid the exponential growth of the American economy following World War II, but his well-documented safe driving record also proved him to be a paragon on the road.

Hank Good: A tale of unwavering dedication

Next up, there’s Hank Good, an emblem of unwavering dedication and resilience. Good started trucking in the ‘60s and endured for over five decades in the industry, back when trucks were bereft of today's sophisticated amenities. He was a trailblazer who saw trucking evolve, straddling epochal shifts from the mechanical to the electronic era.

Ira 'Big I' Anderson: Living legend of trucking

Then we've got Ira 'Big I' Anderson, a veritable giant in the trucking scene. Big I’s hard-earned lore began in the 60s within the bustling metropolis of New York. Anderson's unyielding commitment to professionalism and his concerted efforts towards supporting other drivers turned him into a living legend. 

Key Learning - It's all in the details

This isn’t just important--no--it’s crucial. Attention to detail is the sine qua non of trucking. The stories of these three exemplar individuals underline the insurmountable importance of precise routing, load calculations, systems checks, and understanding the nuts and bolts of their vehicles. As found in a trucking safety report by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the devil truly is in the details--even a minor oversight can spell disaster on the road.

Unabridged Vision - Embracing the challenges ahead

These three trucking titans' stories are not tales of swift, sublime triumph; rather, they are chronicles of resilience, grit, and relentless work ethic. Trucking, as an industry, isn’t for the faint-hearted. It smacks of profound challenges, significant time away from family, spotting road hazards, managing wonky sleep schedules, and of course, battling harsh weathers. But, as often remarked by Ira Anderson, "Ain't no mountain too high for a determined trucker."

Modern Marvels - The shifting gears in Truck models

Through each of these truckers' stories, one can't help but notice the immense growth and transformation in truck models and technology. Today's semi-truck is far removed from the models of yore. We now have trucks equipped with automated transmissions, advanced aerodynamics, lane correction systems, GPS tracking, and even eco-friendly hybrid models--rendering the journey smoother and safer for the modern-day truckers.

Remember, Precision and Foresight are Da Vinci and Michelangelo of Trucking Art

You see, trucking isn’t just about point A to point B. It's a dance, a delicate ballet of balance, poise, precision, and foresight. Master these, and you'll glide through the vast arteries of America's highways, a stately knight of the road.

Bottom Line: Heed the Past, Embrace the future

So here's the thing that separates the average from the excellent: Attitude. These three American trucking icons weren't just truckers. They were pioneers, trailblazers, innovators. They looked challenges in the eye and surged ahead—undaunted, determined, resilient. 

"To be a successful trucker, you have to have the foresight of an eagle, the precision of a surgeon, and the patience of a monk" --Larry 'L.D' Drake.

Done right, trucking can be an art—an orchestra of man, machine, and the open road. It's about those men and women who commit, adapt, and evolve. And in this grand theatre of logistics, we've just covered three legendary maestros. So remember, folks, it’s not just one thing--it’s many things that merge and marry into one—the spirit of trucking.

So, buckle up. This ride has just begun.

Let us know what you think of U.S. trucking history below.

The Second Battle of Fort Wagner and the 54th Massachusetts Regiment

The 160th anniversary of the Second Battle of Fort Wagner, in the US Civil War took place in July. As we look back, we remember the men who fought and died on Morris Island in South Carolina in this American Civil War engagement in July of 1863. Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

The Old Flag Never Touched the Ground by Rick Reeves. For the state of Massachusetts, 1863

Leading the Union attack was the 54th Massachusetts Regiment of Foot, one of the first African American regiments in the United States army; immortalized in a statue still seen today in Boston Common, and in Robert Lowell’s Centennial poem. The 54th was also the subject of the 1989 film “Glory” featuring Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Matthew Broderick.

The story and legacy of the 54th Massachusetts is one of the most enduring of any Union regiment from the Civil War. Here is why:

The Emancipation Proclamation authorized the formation of the 54th. Its formation was supported by famous Americans such at Frederick Douglass when its recruitment began in February of 1863. One of the men who was appointed to recruit was George Stephens, a military correspondent who assisted with the recruitment of men in Philadelphia and then joined the 54th Massachusetts as the rank of Sergeant.

The 54th was led by a member of a prominent Boston family. Chosen to lead the regiment was twenty-five year old Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.

After studying overseas in Europe, Shaw attended Harvard from 1856–1859. He was married in 1863 and was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in Company H of the 2nd Massachusetts Regiment. He served at the Battle of Antietam among other engagements. In early 1863, Captain Shaw’s father traveled to Virginia with the commission for his son to lead the 54th. The Captain was initially reluctant to take the commission, as he did not wish to leave his regiment.

The attack

The 54th Massachusetts led the Union advance on Fort Wagner. Constructed by the Confederacy in the summer of 1862 and named after Lt. Colonel Thomas M. Wagner, the fort was built to protect the southern end of Charleston Harbor. Fort Wagner was armed by fourteen cannons. Among them was a 10-Inch (250 mm) Columbiad, three 32 lb. Smooth-Bore Breech-Loading Cannons, a 42 lb. Corronade, a 10-inch Coast Mortar, and four 12-Pound Howitzers. Wagner was also protected by land mines buried in the sand dunes, a moat, and rows of abatis.

At 7:45 P.M., the 54th Massachusetts emerged and advanced up the beach. By the time that the 54th reached the parapet of Fort Wagner, they had devastating casualties. Among the 272 men lost from the regiment was Colonel Shaw, whose sword was stolen from his body immediately after the battle.

Wagner was never taken by Union forces until it was abandoned in late 1863. Today, much of the original defenses of Fort Wagner are under sea level. Periodically, a hurricane hits Charleston Harbor and unearths some Civil War artifacts or ordinance that sends the odd tourist running for cover. For years, inaccessibility to the island has kept the galant legend of the 54th Massachusetts buried under the sand.

The bravery of the 54th Massachusetts, however lives on today. In 2017, after being thought to be lost several times, Col. Shaw’s sword was discovered in a Boston attic. In 2008, the 54th was reactivated as part of the Massachusetts Army National Guard Ceremonial Unit and participated in President Obama’s 2008 Inauguration. The new unit is called the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment and provides military honors at funerals.

Many famed Union regiments have been chronicled in the Civil War. Few, however have storied histories that still attract interest today and no doubt will in the future like the 54th Massachusetts.

The descendants of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw donated his sword to the Massachusetts Historical Society for all to enjoy. The Confederacy buried Shaw’s body in a mass grave with his soldiers. After the war, the United States Army requested that Shaw’s body be exhumed and returned to his family. Colonel Shaw’s father would not allow it, saying “We can imagine no holier place than that in which he lies,” he wrote, “among his brave and devoted soldiers, nor wish for him better company-what a body-guard he has.”

Adding to the honor, legend, and glory of the 54th Massachusetts.

What do you think of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment? Let us know below.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington, PA

The Battle of Blair Mountain: Mine Wars

The Battle of Blair Mountain was the result of years of bitter labor disputes between miners and coal companies of southern West Virginia. Here, Richard Bluttal explains what caused the dispute and how it evolved.

A coal miner with his rifle at the Battle of Blair Mountain.

Since the late 1800s, the coalfields of the West Virginia’s Mingo, Logan and McDowell Counties had operated under a repressive company town system. Workers mined using leased tools and were paid low wages in company currency, or “scrip,” which could only be used at company stores. Safety conditions were often deplorable, yet despite the efforts of groups such as the United Mine Workers (UMW), the mine operators had kept unions out of the region through intimidation and violence. Companies compelled their workers to sign so-called “yellow dog contracts” pledging not to organize, and they used armies of private detectives to harass striking miners and evict them from their company-owned homes.

The hostilities only ramped up in 1920, when the UMW finally started to organize workers in Mingo County. On May 19 of that year, members of the Baldwin-Felts detective agency arrived in the town of Matewan to evict union miners from houses owned by the Stone Mountain Coal Company. After catching wind of the detectives’ activities, Matewan Mayor Cabell Testerman and a pro-union sheriff named Sid Hatfield raised a small posse and confronted them near the local train station. A verbal argument quickly escalated into a gunfight, and when the smoke cleared, seven Baldwin-Felts agents had been killed along with Mayor Testerman and two local miners.

The so-called “Matewan Massacre” galvanized support for the UMW, which collected new members and organized a strike in the summer of 1920. The coal companies responded by bringing in non-union replacement workers, and over the next several months, the two sides engaged in a fierce guerilla war. “Murder by laying in wait and shooting from ambush has become common,” Mingo County’s sheriff wrote in May 1921.

Tipping point

The tipping point in the “Mine War” finally came on August 1, 1921, when Sheriff Sid Hatfield was shot dead by Baldwin-Felts agents as he entered the McDowell County Courthouse. The assassination outraged the miners, who considered Hatfield a hero for his involvement in the Matewan shootout. Within days, thousands of union supporters had flocked to the outskirts of Marmet, a small town located near the state capital of Charleston. Led by UMW organizers Frank Keeney and Fred Mooney, they resolved to march on Mingo County to confront the coal companies and free the union men imprisoned in the area. Many of the marchers were World War I veterans, and they came armed to the teeth with military-issue Springfield rifles and shotguns. “It is time to lay down the bible and take up the rifle,” miner and Baptist reverend John Wilburn declared.

The miners’ route to Mingo required them to pass through Logan County, a coal company stronghold ruled by an anti-union sheriff named Don Chafin. Upon learning of the march, Chafin scraped together a 3,000-strong army of state police, deputies and citizen militiamen and prepared for a fight. “No armed mob will cross the Logan County line,” he proclaimed. Chafin and his supporters had soon constructed a network of machine gun nests and trenches around Blair Mountain, a 2,000-foot peak that stood directly in the miners’ path.

On August 24, the main body of coal miners set out from Marmet and headed south toward Mingo County. Keeney and Mooney made a last-minute attempt to call off the march after meeting with the War Department’s General Harry Bandholtz, who warned that any violence would prove disastrous for the union, but the proposed ceasefire collapsed when two miners died in a skirmish with Chafin’s forces. By August 28, some 10,000 union men had massed near the border of Logan County and begun trading gunfire with company supporters. To distinguish one another in the dense forests, many of the miners tied red handkerchiefs around their necks. They soon became known as the “Red Neck Army.”

The first heavy fighting in the Battle of Blair Mountain began on August 31, when a group of around 75 miners led by Reverend Wilburn stumbled across some of Chafin’s “Logan Defenders” on a wooded ridge. Each side asked the other for a password and received the wrong answer, prompting a shootout that killed three deputies and one miner. That same day, the main army of miners commenced a two-pronged assault on Chafin’s trenches and breastworks. Scores of union men streamed up the mountainside, but despite their superior numbers, they were repeatedly driven back by the defenders, who riddled them with machine gun fire from the high ground.

The miners made more progress when the battle was renewed on September 1. That morning, a detachment of union men assaulted a spot called Craddock Fork with a Gatling gun looted from a coal company store. Logan forces fought back with a machine gun, but after three hours of heavy fire, their weapon jammed. The miners surged forward and briefly broke the defensive line, only to be repulsed by a fusillade of bullets from a second machine gun nest located further up the ridge.

For the rest of the day, the hills and hollows echoed with gunfire as the union men repeatedly attacked the defenders’ lines. “Machine guns cracked up there so you would think the whole place was coming down on you,” miner Ira Wilson later recalled. At one point in the battle, the din also included the sound of falling bombs. Sheriff Chafin had chartered three private biplanes and equipped them with teargas and pipe bombs loaded with nuts and bolts for shrapnel. The planes dropped the homemade explosives over two of the miners’ strongholds but failed to inflict any casualties.

End of the siege

In the end, the miners’ siege of Blair Mountain was only ended by the arrival of federal troops. A squadron of Army Air Service reconnaissance planes began patrolling the skies on September 1, and by the following day, General Bandholtz had mobilized some 2,100 army troops on the orders of President Warren G. Harding. Scattered fighting continued between the miners and the Logan Defenders until September 4, but most of the men welcomed the government intervention and laid down their weapons. Roughly 1,000 exhausted miners eventually surrendered to the army, while the rest scattered and returned home. It was later estimated that some one million rounds had been fired during the battle. Reports of casualties ranged from as few as 20 killed to as many as 100, but the actual number has never been confirmed.

The Battle of Blair Mountain is now cited as a pivotal chapter in American labor history, but in the short term, it proved to be a crushing defeat for the miners. The state of West Virginia charged Keeney, Mooney and some 20 other union men with treason, and hundreds of others were indicted for murder. Nearly all were later acquitted, but the legal battles emptied the UMWA’s coffers and hindered its organizing efforts. By the end of the decade, only a few hundred miners in West Virginia were still members. The union wouldn’t reclaim the coalfields until the mid-1930s and the Great Depression when workers’ rights to organize were enshrined in New Deal legislation such as the National Industrial Recovery Act.

What do you think of the Battle of Blair Mountain? Let us know below.

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

The Ever-Changing Nature of Britain’s Health

Britain’s health has changed throughout history and what was considered healthy in the past has been proven to be unhealthy today. Some stark examples are that the average life expectancy at a time in nineteenth century Britain for wealthy adults was around 45, while this was lower in the poorer classes, and the percentage of children reaching the age of 5 was much lower in the 19th century than now.

Amy Chandler explains looks at how health and diet has evolved over time.

Sir William Beveridge in 1943.

In society today, individuals are able to take control of their health, if they wish, through the development of apps and trackers that monitor health and lifestyle. The World Health Organisation (WHO) states “social factors, including education, employment status, income level, gender and ethnicity have a marked influence on how healthy a person is”. (1) While the development and innovation of the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain has offered opportunities of free and equal access to medical services, the strain on the economy still limits the capabilities and progress of creating accessible medical treatment for all in Britain. The NHS celebrated 75 years this July and despite the innovations of the health service, the need for funding, treatment and staff equality, limits the good that the service can provide in Britain. This article explores the social, political and economic changes that impacted Britain’s health throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century to the emergence of the NHS.

Diets, health and lifestyle

The industrial revolution between the years 1760 to 1840 created a boom in industry and manual labour employment in major cities such as Manchester, Liverpool and London. This industrial revolution increased social mobility into the cities and a rise of poverty and disease for the working classes. Despite the rise of infectious diseases and poor living and working conditions, the diet of the working class was not as unhealthy as historians once believed. Those who worked in manual employment, such as factories and docks, were constantly active and needed to consume more calories to sustain themselves during long working hours. The majority of the poorer classes ate food that was in season such as fruits, vegetables and less fatty meats. In comparison, wealthy classes weren’t as active and had access to an abundance of food, alcohol and sugary sweets causing rotten teeth and gout.

For the poor, food supplies were uncertain, basic in diet and didn’t provide the nutrients for a healthy body creating a prevalence of malnourished adults and children. Few had access to personal ovens and relied on open-fires, buying hot food out or eating cold meals. There was limited access to cooking utensils, with many households only using one pot for their cooking. This meant that the access and availability of hot food was scarce or expensive.(2) Many relied on buying off-cut pieces of meat that were rotting or poor quality, and these meals were small and far between. The upper classes indulged in dinners with several courses and had access to the freshest qualities of meat. Usually, household cooks would order their meats, fish, vegetables and other ingredients on the day that they were needed to ensure fresh meals, whereas the poor did not have access to the same expensive food. Furthermore, the overindulgence of rich and decadent food created a rise in obesity amongst the men of the upper class. The obese, rich male figure was seen as a symbol of high status and a display of their wealth because they could afford an abundance of sweet and fatty foods. Wealthy women were not usually obese due to the beauty standards of society, where women wore tight corsets and were expected to be fragile and thin. In modern society, the rise and health implications of obesity are impacting on the NHS.

The British Empire increased the transportation and access to many new foods, sugars and a variety of ingredients such as canned fruits and condensed meat. These new foods became widely available and impacted the health of all classes in Britain. Sugar and fatty foods were only previously available to the wealthy, who could afford the price. (3) The rise in consumption of sugar caused damage to the nation’s teeth and a frequent dental complaint reported by 1900 was the inability to chew tough foods, nuts, vegetables and fruits. The fall in nutritional standards impacted future generations, especially during times of army conscription. Furthermore, the living conditions in poverty-stricken areas created a decline in health with poor sanitary conditions, unclean drinking water and the lack of sunlight in urban slums creating a Vitamin D deficiency. The slums had dense, thick fog as a result of pollution and poor air quality, cramped, filled with rubbish, unsanitary living conditions and contaminated drinking water. These areas were also subjected to communicable diseases such as tuberculosis (TB), cholera and smallpox, to name a few. This also created a large gap between the health of the poor and the wealthy. The wealthy were not immune to these illnesses, but were less susceptible to dying of consumption or poor living conditions, but were more likely to suffer heart attacks from their rich and fatty diets. Therefore, the lives of the working class are considered healthier in terms of fitness levels, eating less fatty and sugary foods, but on the flipside many lived in unsanitary housing, likely to become unwell from the spread of fatal diseases in crowded areas and many could not access medical care.

London’s pollution also contributed to a number of respiratory health conditions coupled with the turn of the century popularity of smoking. The rise of smoking in the 1880s with the growth of industrial cigarette production created accessibility to cigarettes. The preference to using snuff declined and was replaced with cigarettes which was only encouraged during the first and second world war when soldiers were sent cigarettes in their rations. The commercialisation of smoking was seen as a good habit for people and was most commonly used by King George VI to overcome his stutter. The lack of medical knowledge on cancers and what caused these diseases meant that many became addicted to smoking without knowing or understanding the impact on their health. It is only in recent history that the UK government has attempted to tackle smoking in the population, with their strategic plan towards a ‘smoke-free generation’ in England.

The formation of the NHS

After the devastating impact of the Second World War, the health of the nation was deteriorating with rationing, war injuries and the economic burden of the war effort. These factors emphasised the long-term need for a strategy to strengthen the country. The British government needed to find a solution to improve the nation’s health, strengthen the economy and navigate post-war life. In December 1942, Sir William Beveridge compiled a report, Social Insurance and Allied Services, on the health of the nation. Beveridge’s report identified the five evils that permeated society; disease, want, ignorance, squalor and idleness.(4)  In a Parliamentary debate in 1944, Members of Parliament (MPs) suggested the NHS would be a “comprehensive and unified health service for the people”, which is part of a “process of reshaping the background of individual life” in Britain. (5) The NHS was seen as a “counter-process to all the destructiveness of war”. (5)

Throughout history, class and wealth defined people’s health, diet, lifestyle and quality of life and these differences were a continual reminder of social hierarchy. However, war was an equaliser that did not discriminate. Every member of society was impacted from conscription, bombing raids and the emotional and physical scars of war. Arguably those with money could live comfortably and safely, but everyone was equal with a collective desire for the war to end. Services that offered medical treatment like charities were fragmented and not unified. Therefore, there was a sense of openness to the idea of a national health service that was for the many not the few, however there was still opposition to a free health service. As stated in a Parliamentary debate, the service was “no scheme [designed] for giving charity to individuals or state help to particular classes or groups” and it “does not concern itself with poverty or wealth.” (5) This was a scheme that aimed at raising the nation’s health to a “higher plane and keep it there.” (5) This was a step towards equality in post-war Britain under the Welfare State. Under the umbrella of the Welfare State, each member of society was expected to pay a contributory amount of money as National Insurance. (4) The reason that Beveridge insisted on National Insurance was to ensure that the NHS did not damage an individual’s sense of pride, independence and personal responsibility. (4) The NHS created a sense of accountability for one’s health and offered the opportunity for those in poverty to better themselves.

The NHS was officially formed in July 1948 and 75 years later, the NHS is still providing a variety of care and treatment to the public. However, the nation’s health is not where it could be, the COVID-19 pandemic placed a strain on public health services and was economically struggling. NHS workers are striking for better pay and working conditions, while patients are placed on waiting list months in advance. Health issues such as smoking, obesity and mental health are areas that still need improvement, coupled with the changes in lifestyle. Many people work remotely and are not commuting in the same way causing a change in routine and in some cases causing a negative impact on their health. The introduction of the NHS in 1948 was a massive step forward in improving the nation’s health that came after education and housing reforms that cleared the slum areas, that were bombed heavily during the blitz.  Since 1948, many have benefitted from the treatment, care and expertise of health care professionals.

Conclusion

The perception of health has changed throughout history and one treatment that was once seen as effective is now seen as poisonous or ineffective. Illness was prevalent in all areas of society but the type of diseases differed depending on the living conditions, diet, lifestyle and access. What was once seen as healthy, such as smoking is now widely acknowledged as severely damaging to health and quality of life. The advancement in technology in identifying risks to increasing disease and health implications is far greater than in the past. The formation of the NHS was a changing point for Britain’s health and the desire to offer medical treatment to all classes of society in a bid for health equality. Historians often present the poor and working classes as malnourished and in poor health, however in the modern standards exercise and eating less sugar is seen as ideal and due to their lack of accessibility to fatty foods and sugar they were less susceptible to high cholesterol and other illnesses. The health and lifestyle of the working class should not be romanticised as a healthy way to live, as they were far from healthy. A digital age has allowed for more accountability, responsibility and opportunity to take our health into our own hands through fitness apps, healthy recipe boxes and ways to monitor our bodies through forms of artificial intelligence (AI). Progress is still slow in solving major health issues such as cancer, but the rise of technology can provide new ways of treating, curing and progressing our health.

What do you think of Britain’s health over time? Let us know below.

Now read Amy’s article on the history of medicine at sea here.

References

1. WHO, ‘Health inequities and their causes’, 22 February 2018, World Health Organisation, Available at < https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/health-inequities-and-their-causes > [accessed 27 July 2023].

2. A. Whol, ‘What the Poor ate’, July 2022, VictorianWeb, Available at <        https://victorianweb.org/science/health/health8.html >[accessed 27 July 2023].

3. P. Clayton., and J. Rowbotham, ‘How the mid- Victorians worked, ate and died’, Int J Environ Res Public Health, vol. 6 (2009). Available at < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ >[accessed 31 July 2023].

4. The National Archives, ‘1940’s origin of the Welfare State’, 2023, The Cabinet Papers, Available at < https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/1940-origins-welfare-state.htm >[accessed 1 August 2023].

5. HC Deb, 16 March 1944, vol 398, cols 428 - 429.

Logistics Challenges of the Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign

The intelligence and logistical problems of the Army of Northern Virginia emerged as critical determinants during the Battle of Gettysburg. The Confederate Army faced severe resource limitations. The Confederacy struggled with manpower shortages, supply line constraints, and limited access to industrial and transportation infrastructure. Lee recognized the limitations in terms of supplies, extended supply lines, and the difficulties of operating in unfamiliar territory. Lee and his staff understood that their army would have to rely on a lengthy and vulnerable supply line stretching back to Virginia, which could be impacted by weather, terrain, enemy interference, and the strain of transporting essential provisions and ammunition. Despite these challenges, Lee decided to proceed with the campaign. In retrospect, it is apparent that these logistical challenges had a significant impact on the Confederate Army's effectiveness and ability to sustain their operations during the campaign.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

The generals at Gettysburg: Union Major General George G. Meade (left) and Confederate General Robert E. Lee (right).

Confederate Supply Network

The Confederate Army invaded the north despite facing severe resource limitations. The Confederacy struggled with manpower shortages, supply line constraints, and limited access to industrial and transportation infrastructure. These limitations made it challenging for Lee to fully address and overcome intelligence and logistical issues during his planning process. Lee recognized the limitations in terms of supplies, extended supply lines, and the difficulties of operating in unfamiliar territory. Lee and his staff understood that their army would have to rely on a lengthy and vulnerable supply line stretching back to Virginia, which could be impacted by weather, terrain, enemy interference, and the strain of transporting essential provisions and ammunition. Despite these challenges, Lee decided to proceed with the campaign. In retrospect, it is apparent that these logistical challenges had a significant impact on the Confederate Army's effectiveness and ability to sustain their operations during the campaign.

Several potential strategies and actions could have been considered to alleviate problems that could have been expected. Lee could have made efforts to shorten and secure his supply lines. Lee could have used several additional resources history shows that he didn’t have in planning his invasion in June 1863:

1. Spies on the ground to reconnoiter

2. Cavalry in his front and sides to know where the enemy was.

3. Pontoons over the Potomac that he could get across in an emergency.

4. Sufficient long range artillery ammunition to sustain multiple attacks in a long offensive campaign.

5. A functioning supply line to move captured goods retrograde to any advance.

6. Improved command and control, with sufficient staff to maintain communications with corps leaders at all times.

7. With Stonewall Jackson’s death at Chancellorsville, Lee had two new corps commanders. The Confederate Army's command structure was dispersed, with multiple corps and divisions operating somewhat independently. This fragmentation made it challenging to consolidate and synthesize information from various sources and hindered the efficient gathering and analysis of intelligence.

Intelligence Flaws

General Lee faced challenges in obtaining accurate and timely intelligence regarding the location and movements of Major General Joseph Hooker and the Army of the Potomac. The lack of reliable intelligence about the enemy's positions and intentions affected Lee's decision-making and ability to plan his own movements effectively and placed Lee at a disadvantage. Confederate intelligence efforts were hampered by various factors including limited reconnaissance capabilities especially the absence of JEB Stuart. The combination of limited reconnaissance capabilities, dispersed command structure, Union defensive measures, communication limitations, and unfamiliar terrain contributed to the challenges faced by Lee in obtaining accurate intelligence about Hooker's army.

The ANV suffered from limited reconnaissance capabilities. The Confederate Army had limited cavalry resources for conducting reconnaissance and gathering information about the enemy. The cavalry, traditionally responsible for scouting, was stretched thin, and their ability to penetrate Union lines and gather reliable intelligence was hampered. Lee instructed Stuart to keep the Army of Northern Virginia informed of the movements and activities of the Union Army, maintain communication, and act as a screen to prevent the Union forces from gaining intelligence on Lee's own army. Lee's orders emphasized the importance of timely and accurate information. Allowing Stuart to circumnavigate the Union army rather than be his eyes and ears must rank among Lee’s greatest mistakes. Using what cavalry he had in guarding passes behind him was his second biggest mistake.

Lee had no formal intelligence service like General Sharpe and the Bureau of Military Intelligence of the Union army. The CSA had very few covert operatives in the north, as opposed to the south, where the citizens favored him. This is a bit surprising given the large number of KGC and Copperheads; but western Maryland and southern Pennsylvania were solid pro-Union, another factor Lee may have overlooked.

Operational Manifestations

The Confederate Army relied on a limited and overburdened transportation system to move men, equipment, and supplies. The lack of adequate railways and the reliance on horse-drawn wagons slowed down the movement of troops and hindered the delivery of essential provisions. Maintaining a constant supply of ammunition, weapons, and other necessary equipment was a challenge. The long supply lines made it difficult to ensure a steady flow of these vital resources to the troops on the front lines.

The Union used railroads and rivers to transport their supplies. But where Lee wanted to go strategically, behind the Blue Ridge Mountains to screen his movement, there was no railroad and no river. He had to move everything over land. So Lee employed a wagon train. Consequently, Lee had a 125-mile route for supplies to traverse to get to Gettysburg and more to Harrisburg. The massive wagon trains limited Lee’s ability to maneuver and to bring troops from the rear in case of an unexpected need, as happened on July 1. Moreover, the priority he placed on protecting them required the remaining cavalry units after Stuart left, leaving him without the necessary reconnaissance.

Either 4 horses or 6 mules pulled the supply wagons. They could carry 2000-2500 pounds but moved only at marching pace, about 3 miles per hour, and less if the roads were muddy or rocky. Lined up on a road, each wagon took up 60 feet of linear space. Lee’s trains stretched for dozens of miles. Infantry and artillery had to use the same roads as the wagons, resulting in traffic jams and delays. The administration of the order of march to prevent pile-ups at crossroads was labor intensive.

Wagon trains moved at a relatively slow pace compared to other means of transportation, such as railways. This hindered the army's ability to swiftly maneuver and respond to changing circumstances on the battlefield. Long wagon trains stretched over a significant distance and were vulnerable to attacks from enemy forces. Union cavalry units often targeted these trains, aiming to disrupt supply lines and inflict damage on the Confederates. Wagon trains had a limited capacity, both in terms of the amount of supplies they could carry and the number of troops they could transport. This constrained the amount of provisions and equipment that could be transported to the front lines, potentially leading to shortages.

Animals need to be cared for, fed, and rested, which added to the logistical burden and increased the strain on resources. The animals themselves required massive forage. Mules needed 9 pounds of grain 10 of fodder and 12 gallons of water daily; horses needed 14 pounds, 14 pounds and 10 gallons respectively. They needed horseshoes, and men to apply them. The waste disposal problem is mind- boggling: every day, a single animal produced 10 pounds of manure and 2 gallons of urine. Unless animals are optimally cared for, they can’t burden the loads; they move more slowly and carry less until they break down and the army is immobile.

Wagons, like all vehicles, required regular maintenance and repairs. This included fixing damaged wagons, replacing worn-out wheels, and addressing other mechanical issues. Finding the necessary resources and skilled personnel for these tasks added to the logistical challenges.

Lined up on a road, each wagon took up 60 feet of linear space. Lee’s trains stretched for dozens of miles. Infantry and artillery had to use the same roads as the wagons, resulting in traffic jams and delays. The administration of the order of march to prevent pile ups at crossroads was labor intensive.

This was a logistics nightmare. It would directly impact when Longstreet would reach the field, what weapons and armaments would be available, coordination of the 3 corps in battle and of course, the ultimate retreat after the battle. And the fact is, Lee lost this critical battle for precisely these reasons. The logistical limitations faced by Lee's army had a significant impact on their arrival and readiness on the field at Gettysburg. Reliance on slow-moving wagon trains caused delays in the arrival of Lee's troops. The stretched supply lines and the need to coordinate the movements of dispersed units slowed their progress, affecting their timely arrival at the battlefield.

Battlefield Impact

The extended marches and inadequate provisions necessitating foraging combined with the strain of traffic jams and slow movement, took a toll on the Confederate soldiers. Many suffered from fatigue, diminishing their physical condition and overall readiness for battle. Additionally, some soldiers straggled or fell behind due to exhaustion or the inability to keep up with the army's pace. Many Confederate soldiers were sleep deprived and fatigued when they reached the battlefield after night and forced marches, diminishing their overall effectiveness.

July 1. Major General Henry Heth commanded a brigade under AP Hill. He is traditionally assigned blame for unintentionally commencing the Battle of Gettysburg. He did send half of his division toward the town; he later claimed that he was looking for supplies, including shoes.  He apparently did not know that Early’s division had been through the village a few days previously, and any supplies were long gone. On June 30th he encountered mild resistance on the road but it was thought to be a volunteer militia, not regular army. This lack of intelligence would be the real reason the battle would start.

On the morning of July 1, Heth’s division marched down the Chambersburg Pike to perform a reconnaissance-in-force. At about 7:30 am 3 miles outside of town near the McPherson barn, the first shots of the battle were fired. The order of march was not the one a commander would choose if a battle was imminent. Pettigrew deployed his men without cavalry in front; there were no pickets and no vedettes and in fact the first enemy he ran into were Union vedettes. The front of the line was Pegram’s artillery, followed by Archer and Davis’ infantry brigades.

Lee's army was spread out over a significant distance due to the wide deployment of his troops during the march north, from south of Cashtown to Harrisburg. This dispersal made coordination and concentration of forces more challenging, impacting their ability to concentrate their strength. The splitting of the ANV during the march north meant piecemeal arrival of Confederate troops on the battlefield, which affected the initial coordination of Lee's forces. This resulted in a fragmented Confederate attack on the first day of the battle, as units arrived at different times and were not able to coordinate their efforts effectively. The arrival of troops at unplanned times and locations posed challenges to the  reinforcement and maneuverability of troops, resulting in a hindering to exploit opportunities and  limiting the flexibility of his response to Union movements. These issues were most apparent when General Ewell concluded that he lacked the resources (manpower and supplies) to attempt an attack on Culp’s Hill in the late afternoon.

July 2. Improved transportation and supply arrangements could have allowed General James Longstreet's troops to position themselves more swiftly on July 2.  Improved communications would have facilitated better coordination between Longstreet and Ewell. Better communication with his division commanders could have expedited the movement of troops and improved the response to General Sickles’ unwise move to the Peach Orchard.

Adequate logistical support would have facilitated the swift movement of wagons and artillery pieces, enabling them to reach positions in a timelier manner. Had coordinated attacks been organized, the battles in the Wheatfield and Little Round Top might have gone differently.

More effective reconnaissance and intelligence operations would have provided Longstreet with timely and accurate information about the enemy's positions, enabling him to make more informed decisions regarding the deployment of his troops, especially the fact that Little Round Top was occupied by Union forces.

July 3. The supply problems and logistical challenges faced by the Confederate Army had significant repercussions for Pickett's Charge. The movement of the ANV away from its railroads to create a screen with the mountains also caused the loss of the capacity to replenish its long-range artillery ammunition. Recognizing the limited transportation capacity imposed by a wagon train, compromises were necessary regarding the amount of artillery ammunition that could move with the army. The long-range artillery necessary to support offensive action was different from the canister and grapeshot used in defensive battles. Since Lee had no idea what the nature of the battle would be, he brought some of each, but this proved to be insufficient. Lee did order delivery of additional artillery ammunition with the Ordinance department as he moved farther north, but it never arrived. Consequently, the Confederate forces were unable to provide adequate artillery support for Pickett's Charge. The lack of artillery firepower weakened the overall impact of the assault and increased the vulnerability of the advancing Confederates.

The Bormann fuses used by the Confederate Army during Pickett's Charge were also a significant issue that further exacerbated the challenges they faced. The fuses were designed to control the timing of the explosion of artillery shells, and their malfunction or improper functioning had detrimental effects. The origin of the logistical fuse problem was an explosion and fire at the Richmond arsenal on Brown’s Island on March 13, 1863. The explosion resulted temporarily in ordnance supplies originating from Selma and Charleston. These fuses were designed with a resin filler that made them explode about 1 second later than those manufactured in Richmond. This filler softened and mixed with the powder in humid warm weather such as that in the first days of July, causing longer burning fuses and non-detonating shells. These "new" fuses burned slightly slower than what the artillerists were accustomed to.

The CSA artillerymen had no forewarning that there was a difference in these fuses that would make them burn longer than a fuse of the same length coming out of Richmond.

Consequently, in many instances fuses malfunctioning or burning at an unpredictable rate were noted. This meant that some shells exploded too late, reducing their effectiveness and impacting the intended timing of the artillery barrage preceding the charge. The inferiority of the Bormann fuse combined with the intentional overhead trajectory led to the inefficiency of the artillery. If firing overhead and the fuse explosion is delayed by a second, it will not explode until it has gone past the target.

What do you think of the Challenges of the Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign? Let us know below.

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

Suggested Reading

• Brown, Kent Masterson. Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2005.

• Wittenberg, Eric J and Petruzzi, J David. Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart's Controversial Ride to Gettysburg. Savas Beatie, 2006.

• Coddington, Edwin. The Gettysburg Campaign. Morningside Bookshop, 1979.

• Sears, Steven W. Gettysburg. Mariner Books, 2004.

• Woodruff, Joshua D. The Impact of Logistics on General Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1083715.

• Hartwig, D Scott. The Army of Northern Virginia and the Gettysburg Campaign. 2010 Gettysburg Seminar. Pages 40 – 65. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://npshistory.com/series/symposia/gettysburg_seminars/13/essay3.pdf

• https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/workspace/handleMediaPlayer?qvq=&trs=&mi=&lunaMediaId=RUMSEY~8~1~26945~1100244

• https://www.historynet.com/were-maps-lees-real-enemy-at-gettysburg/

• Klein LW. Why Pickett’s Charge Failed. The Civil War Center.  https://thecivilwarcenter.com/2022/06/29/why-picketts-charge-failed-analysis-and-significance/

The German Revolution of 1918: A Failed Revolt

The origins of the 1918-19 German Revolution, or the November Revolution, can be traced back to the face of hubris of the German hereditary system: Wilhelm II. A fierce arms race with Britain covered in German chauvinism threatened the might of the Royal Navy and escalated World War One into the global conflict that it was, whilst defeat in the Great War divided the Kaiser’s subjects. Plagued with mutinies and insubordination, contrasting with the pride of soldiers spouting the stab in the back myth, the First World War provided an intense battleground for an intense battle between democracy and autocracy that fundamentally transformed the German political society.

Tom Cowling explains.

Leftist soldiers during fighting in the Berlin City Palace in 1918 as part of the German Revolution. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1976-067-30A / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

World War One

Armed with 5 naval laws aimed at threatening British dominance of the seas, the Kaiser and his court were gearing up for war. Totalling hundreds of new ships, and an increase of 136,000 in the army in 1912 (1), the naval laws forced Britain and her allies into creating formal alliances in the face of German hostility. Britain had alliances with Japan, Russia, and France. War was inevitable. Victories in the east against a flailing Russian Empire proved irrelevant by the time the American Expeditionary Forces landed in Europe. With hundreds of thousands of men entering Europe each month from the US, the German army was simply awaiting its fate. On the domestic front, the origins of a revolutionary movement were brewing as it became evident that this war was one of imperialism, with Germany occupying vast swathes of Eastern Europe. A split in the SPD, which had initially supported the war effort, saw the establishment of the Independent Socialists, fundamentally opposed to war. Led by the far-left Spartacists, there was a wave of strikes in January 1918, forcing a declaration of martial law (1). The age of insubordination had begun, and a fierce sense of chaos had swept across Germany.

At President Wilson’s indirect request, Germany made itself a constitutional monarchy and kickstarted the Revolution from Above. Governmental positions were granted to members of the Reichstag rather than the Kaiser’s comrades (1). The chancellor was made responsible to the Reichstag, whilst war could not be declared without parliament’s approval (1). His abdication came in November, at the insistence of Wilson’s men (1). The empire had shifted from a feared titan in Europe to a republic at the mercy of democracy. Friedrich Ebert, moderate SPD politician, was named chancellor (1). Wilson and his 14 points had established upheaval in Germany.

The start

Indiscipline marked the beginning of the Revolution from below; the new republic’s first threat to its existence. The left had an insatiable appetite for dictatorship, authoritarianism and control – the gravity of the situation was profound. Orders for an arrogant, and unwinnable, attack on the Royal Navy inevitably culminated in mutinies, which spread unstoppably to numerous ports on the Baltic Sea. With the military refusing to accept orders of the state, revolution was imminent. Communists seized power in Bavaria and workers’ councils snatched control of fourteen cities within days (2). Germany was on the brink of collapse, and submission to the left. Masses gathered in the capital as Karl Liebknecht, a key antagonist of democracy and prominent figure in the Spartacist League, stood on the Reichstag balcony and unabashedly called for a socialist republic (2). In a flurry of panic, the Freikorps, a paramilitary group of veterans desensitised by the experiences of war with loyalties firmly resting on the Kaiser, were sent in by Ebert to quell such left-wing dissent (1). Spartacist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were executed for their revolutionary crimes (2). Their revolution had failed completely to build up the necessary foundations of an undemocratic, communist system. But efforts to change Germany into the ultra-democratic state it existed under in the Weimar Republic were successful enough that the political, governmental and constitutional framework of Germany was revolutionised following the events of 1918.

Success or failure?

From a Marxist perspective, the revolution was an abject failure. Capitalist institutions remained firmly in place, and the bourgeois tendencies of the army raged on. Democracy was entrenched in the new Weimar constitution, with proportional representation and universal suffrage (1). The results of 1918 were a far cry from Marx’s ideal of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Germany was well and truly a liberal state with institutional rejection of communist beliefs. Capitalism was central to the workings of Weimar democracy, with unions making agreements with industrialists not to cause disruption to production – the German workers were barred from seizing the means of production. Industrialists such as Hugo Stinnes presided over a huge amount of German industrial production in the new Germany, much to the dismay of Marxists. To the far-left in Germany, the events of 1918 served only to be scorned at as useless incremental change.

To the social democrats amongst the left in Germany, the revolution and its impact was a resounding success. They had swept away an antiquated system that kept people under the thumb of the monarch, and truly suppressed the will of the people that social democracy so desires. The left, in the form of the SPD, had power, with Ebert as chancellor, and the political extremes had been dealt with. The military system in Germany was committed to upholding democracy, having made deals with Ebert in return for the suppression of violent, extremist uprisings. The Freikorps were a reliable group to counteract left-wing rebellions, albeit through near insanity, but they would never let Germany fall to the communists, as they proved in the crushing of the rebellion that they contributed so significantly to. Democrats across Germany were undoubtedly intoxicated by the newfound democracy the new republic had in such abundance.

The right was naturally infuriated by the news of political change. The conservative doctrine couldn’t accept such sweeping changes, and such a rejection of ‘stability’. They had lost their deity in the form of the emperor, and had surrendered control and power to their natural enemy in the form of the centre-left. Despite this attack on the conservative order in Germany, they begrudgingly accepted the new political framework. They were protected from democratization of the army (1) which meant the most adored, to conservatives, institution was left alone from the transformation underwent in 1918. In spite of the rejection of nationalism by the new government, and the armistice, the conservative right more or less accepted the position they found themselves in.

Conclusion

To many aligning themselves with the political extremes, the revolution was something to look upon with great disdain. Marxists and conservatives alike were sworn enemies of democracy, and both looked upon the revolution as a ‘failure’. But the democrats won. They won democracy and they won freedom from the Kaiser, whilst winning power. To them, the revolution was a blessing, and saw them get what they wanted. As Marxists didn’t get enough change, and conservatives got far too much, social democrats in Germany were granted their wish of democracy and accountability as a direct result of the 1918 revolution.

What do you think of the 1918 German Revolution? Let us know below.

Bibliography

1. Kitchen, M. (2006) A History of Modern Germany 1800-2000. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

2. Sewell, R. (2018) The German Revolution of 1918, In Defence of Marxism. Available at: https://www.marxist.com/the-german-revolution-of-1918.htm (Accessed: 24 July 2023)

The Longest Railway in the World: How the Trans-Siberian Railway was Built

The Trans-Siberian railway was an 8,400km track that was built upon the desire to unite Russia under a single culture and to strengthen the autocratic rule of the Tsar. The idea of building a railway into Siberia was toyed with in the mid-1870s, mainly proposing short routes into Siberia. The Russo-Turkish War put a halt on the development of any railways as funding was diverted to the war effort. Then 10 years later and after the finances of Russia had recovered from the war, discussions had returned. The proposed ideas however were much grander; a train route spanning the entire continent connecting east to west. This was fueled by a new director and the Tsar’s desire to make sure his autocratic rule reached every corner of his empire. This led to the idea of the Trans-Siberian railway coming to fruition.

Kyle Brett explains.

Construction work on the Eastern Siberian Railway near Khabarovsk, circa 1895.

Origins of the Idea for a Railway

The idea of a railway connecting East and West Russia was proposed in the 1870s to connect Siberia to European Russia. This idea was proposed by an American entrepreneur Perry McDonough Collins, to the Minister of Transport Communications, Konstantin Nikolayevich Posyet. Collins wanted to connect America to Russia via telegraph and proposed a route to do that to Posyet. Posyet liked this idea as he was ambitious to develop the far east, but the state had neither the finances nor the infrastructure to facilitate this project.

The Russian state in the latter half of the 1870s decided that the minerals and political benefits of building a railway into Siberia were beneficial and had decided on a short route from Nizhny Novgorod to Tyumen. Posyet had originally proposed a similar length railway to the north and saw this as the Russian state disregarding his position as Minister of Transportation. None of this would matter in the end because of the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War in 1877 which shut down all state-sponsored railways. The state diverted a majority of its finances to the war effort, which left Posyet with the satisfaction of not having to build the railway he disagreed with. The unfortunate side effect of this war was that the war spending combined with the poor harvests in the early 1880s hurt the Russian ruble delaying discussions about a Trans-Siberian Railway until 1884.

In 1881 Alexander III would take power from his father Alexander II after he was assassinated by a socialist terrorist group. His father had passed many radically liberal laws and that had made him a target. Alexander III would spend his time as Tsar undoing many of these liberal reforms and reestablishing Autocratic rule over Russia. One of his main focuses was on Siberia and how he could unite and spread Russification and Autocratic rule throughout Russia. Upon hearing Posyet’s proposal for a Trans-Siberian railway stretching from Samara to Vladivostok he decided that was the best way to accomplish his goals.

The Borki Train Disaster

On October 29, 1888, Alexander III and his family were traveling on the Kursk–Kharkov mainline from Crimea to St. Petersburg when a combination of speeding and faulty track line caused the train to derail from the track at a high speed. After the dust had settled Alexander saw that his family was trapped under the collapsed roof of his dining car. He lifted the collapsed roof of his train car allowing his family to escape with none of them injured. In total around 20 people died and around 15 more were injured in the derailment. The trauma from this crash is what caused Alexander’s kidney failure and his eventual death.

The blame for the crash did not go to the railway manager Sergei Witte, but rather to the Russian government. Alexander wanted to close this case as quickly as possible, and this led to Posyet stepping down from his position as Transportation Manager. The man to replace him would be Sergei Witte. Imperial officials had chastised him prior to the crash, telling him that only the lines he manages are slow and all the other lines run at express speed. His response was he would prefer to not bash in the head of the emperor by increasing the speed of his rail lines. This interaction is why he was chosen to replace Posyet as Minister of Transportation.

The Project Begins

In March 1891 the Russian government announced its plan to build a railway that spanned all of Siberia. They broke ground in Vladivostok a few months later and the building of the railway was underway. The head of the project was Sergei Witte who in the years after the Borki Train disaster had risen in popularity in the government, moving his way up the chain of command. In 1892 he was selected to become the Minister of Finance, on top of being the Minister of Transportation. He would use these positions of power to turn the clunky and slow bureaucracy of the Russian government into a well-oiled machine.

His first order of business was to create the Committee for the Siberian Railroad. This committee was created with one goal in mind; to fast-track decisions that would have been slowed by the clunky bureaucracy. It would accomplish these goals by getting approval from a higher power, like the Tsar, and would then go around local administrators to keep the project moving. This ensured that the project would be kept going at a steady pace.

Witte, as Finance Minister, also had a great way to finance the building of the railway; he could raise taxes as high as the project demanded. As a result, he neglected his position as finance minister, disregarding complaints, and concerns from the peasantry as he was laser-focused on building the railway. Alexander would also turn a blind eye to these affairs as Witte got results which were good enough for him to not intervene.

The Material Cost of the Largest Railway

The Committee for the Siberian Railway had a massive challenge in solving the problem of how to get this immense amount of materials to the far reaches of Siberia. Their solution was to utilize rivers to Transport the materials to the building sites. Many of the rivers would not support the size of the boats used to move the materials. The Committee decided that the rivers were to be widened and strengthened to accommodate these boats. There was a lot of special attention placed upon Lake Baikal because of its immense size, being the deepest lake in the world, and because it would also be used to Transport materials in the near future. They surveyed weather conditions, all the port facilities on the lake, and how the ice formed on the lake to better understand how to utilize the lake for material Transportation.

Production of the railway parts was originally to be done in Siberia for convenience. Witte soon discovered that Siberia had nowhere enough infrastructure to accommodate a project of that size. The production was outsourced to Western Russia, the UK, and Poland. This meant that it took longer for the materials to arrive at the rail lines as they had to travel as far as the UK to make it into deep Siberia.

The Labor committed to the project was also quite immense, estimated by the Committee for the Siberian Railway at anywhere between 57,000 to 80,000 workers that migrated to Siberia to assist in the building. Much of the labor was from Russia, but some of it came from China. There was a good amount of convict labor utilized as well. These convicts were not treated fairly, however, and would be harassed by their leaders routinely. As for bad conditions, many of the laborers would sleep on the cold ground right up until the ground would freeze. Then when it got too cold the Committee would send people out to build mud huts for people to live in. This, as one can imagine, led to many deaths from the harsh elements. It also made it hard for laborers to do complex tasks like building bridges and utilizing dynamite to make way for tracks to be placed.

The Final Stretch

Through all the harsh conditions by 1898, the track was mostly complete. The track began in Moscow, ran to Lake Baikal then a 4-hour ferry ride across the Lake to the next station which was in Ulan-Ude. From here the train went straight through Chinese Manchuria to Vladivostok. To solve the problem of the rail line going through China a different route from Ulan-Ude to Vladivostok was built along the Amur River. This rail line did not leave Russian territory and allowed for passage to Vladivostok without the need of entering Chinese territory in the event of a territory dispute. The desire to keep the railway in Russia resulted in the Amur River route being completed in 1904.

Then in 1904 development of the Railway would hasten with the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War. The Circum Baikal route around the lake was still being brainstormed, some ideas had been played around with getting around the treacherous terrain that surrounds the lake, but nothing definitive had come to fruition. With the outbreak of the war, the need to utilize the railway to move troops and supplies around lake Baikal became apparent. The only way to circumnavigate the lake was with 2 steam ships that took 4 hours to cross Lake Baikal. However, the 2 steamships, one a freight car hauler and one a passenger vessel, were not enough to accommodate the large amount of movement needed to move an army across Russia. The ships were also stuck when the water froze over, rendering them useless. Some solutions to this problem were presented, the most popular being sledges that towed supplies to the Ulan-Ude station on the other side of the lake. There were attempts to build a track straight on the ice, but the first attempt to put a locomotive on the ice caused it to go straight through, plunging into the depths of the lake. This further reinforced sledges as the solution to the problem.

The terrain on the shores of Lake Baikal was treacherous to build a track onto. It was rocky and rigid and had cliffs that were very dangerous to work on. The original plan was to make tunnels through the rocks to the other side, but when it was decided it would take around 30 tunnels to have a place to lay track it was decided that the track would be built along the shore. To make enough progress to lay track along the rocky terrain in one day it took an entire cart of dynamite. This ground down progress to an extremely slow pace, even with the hastening of progress from the Russo-Japanese War. The track, however, was eventually completed in 1905, finally connecting East and West Russia and completing the largest Railway in the world.

What do you think of the Trans-Siberian Railway? Let us know below.

Sources

Marks, Steven G. Road to power: The Trans-Siberian railroad and the colonization of Asian Russia: 1850-1917. Cornell University Press, 1991.

Tupper, Harmon. To the Great Ocean: Siberia and the Trans-Siberian railway. Brown & Company, 1965.

The 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn in Context

The June 1876 The Battle of the Little Bighorn, or the Battle of the Greasy Grass, featured Custer’s Last Stand. Its as a battle between the Plains Indians and the US Army. Here, Richard Bluttal considers how history has viewed the battle - and how it is viewed today.

Custer's Last Stand by Edgar Samuel Paxson, 1899.

Every June Enos Poor Bear Jr. traveled from his home in Martin, S.D., to a wind-swept promenade in southeastern Montana to pay homage to his forebears who fought in one of the seminal battles of the American West.

In June 2003, Mr. Poor Bear, a Lakota Sioux, walked past all the tourists who inevitably congregated at a white obelisk marking the site where Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and members of his 7th Calvary died in the battle. He and his friends, instead, stopped down the slope, where they prayed , performed cleansing rituals, and turned their heads away from the battle reenactments occurring in the distance. On this warm Wednesday afternoon in 2003, Poor Bear and hundreds of other native Americans no longer had to celebrate one of the great military triumphs ever achieved on US soil from the relative shadows. A Native American Memorial commemorated the sacrifice of the Arikara, Apsaalooke (Crow), Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Oyate (Lakota Sioux) tribes in the Battle of the Little Bighorn as they fought to protect their diverse values and traditional way of life. The theme of the memorial, "Peace Through Unity", carried the commemoration further by acknowledging the need for cooperation both among Native American tribes and between tribal governments and the federal government. The relevancy and significance is further highlighted when one considers it is the only memorial to the Native American experience mandated by Congress and constructed with federal funds.

Why would federal funding or any funding be used to construct a monument where Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and more than 200 men from five companies of the Seventh infantry cavalry heroically died on June 25, 1876, in a sneak attack by Native Americans in what’s now Montana.

Monuments

During much of the 20th century, the lion's share of public education at the battlefield focused on the movements of the cavalry, treating Native Americans as nearly invisible. Indeed, with no significant markers to call their own, many Native Americans have felt oddly out of place, even here. The worst indignity, they say, was having to pray all these years in the shrine  erected to Custer and his men.

Slowly, public attitudes about how history should be presented here have evolved. In 1991, the name was changed from "Custer Battlefield" to the more neutral Little Bighorn Battlefield. Also, in addition to the white headstones marking where soldiers fell, a smattering of red granite headstones have appeared to commemorate specific warriors who died. Now native Americans have their own dedicated piece of hallowed ground.

There seems to be more to the background story of the Battle at the Little Big Horn. People are just beginning to see that it isn’t just this black-and-white, ‘cowboys versus Indians’ theme, and that’s the way that it’s been portrayed in popular culture and Westerns,” says Mandy Van Heuvelen, a South Dakota native and enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe who is a project manager at the Smithsonian’s Anacostia Community Museum. Traditionally, the Native American side of the Battle of Little Bighorn has been passed down through families; she learned from her grandfather that his grandmother witnessed the battle. “Maybe we shouldn’t hold [Custer] on as high of a pedestal as we have,” she says. “It’s important to understand the history from multiple points of view  than we were taught in school.”

Not so simple

Students still tend to learn about Custer dying bravely during battle, for example, but not about the bravery of the Native Americans who defended themselves against settlers of European descent who were there illegally. What doesn’t fit neatly into the Custer story of the popular imagination is the 1868 Treaty of Laramie, which had given the area where the battle took place to Lakota. To some historians, the Battle of the Little Bighorn happened because the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie, in which the U.S. government guaranteed to the Lakota and Dakota (Yankton) as well as the Arapaho exclusive possession of the Dakota Territory west of the Missouri River, had been broke. Custer was tasked with relocating all Native Americans in the area to reservations by January 31, 1876. Any person who didn’t comply would be considered hostile .Controversy over possession of the lands known as the Black Hills, and the second 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie were critical factors that pitted Plains Indians tribes against the US. federal government. The refusal of Lakota and Cheyenne tribes to live confined within the boundaries of Native American reservations led to the U.S. government's decision to seize the Black Hills and force the Native American tribes onto reservations. In school we rarely learnt about  the Battle of the Washita, which took place eight years before Little Bighorn and in which Custer led an attack on a village of mostly Southern Cheyenne people and rounded up women and children as prisoners.

In 1873, Custer faced a group of attacking Lakota at the Northern Pacific Railroad Survey at Yellowstone. It was his first encounter with Lakota leaders Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, but it wouldn’t be his last. Little did Custer know at the time the two Indigenous leaders would play a role in his death a few years later.

In 1874, an Army expedition led by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer found gold in the Black Hills, in present-day South Dakota. Once gold was discovered in the Black Hills area where the battle occurred, settlers and miners flocked to the area. At the time, the United States recognized the hills as property of the Sioux Nation. The Grant administration tried to buy the hills, but the Sioux, considered them sacred lands.

Why was the Battle of Little Bighorn significant?

It was a huge victory for the Plains Indians over the U.S. military, but it also spelled the eventual doom of the Native Americans because it ensured retaliation by the U.S. Army. It was both the high point and the beginning of the end to the freedom of the Lakota and Cheyenne tribes.

In hindsight, the Battle of the Little Bighorn has come to symbolize an inevitable clash between two irreconcilably different cultures: the buffalo-hunting, mobile culture of the Northern Plains tribes, and the sedentary, agriculture-based culture of the U.S. settlers. This battle was not an isolated confrontation, but part of a protracted series of skirmishes between settlers and U.S. officials on the one hand, and Lakota and Cheyenne Native Americans on the other.

What do you think of the Battle of the Little Bighorn? Let us know below.

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

The American Revolution Versus the French Revolution

The American and the French Revolutions were similar conflicts in some wats. However, the American Revolution is considered more successful in outcome than that of the French. In this article, Avery Scott breaks down the differences between the two revolutions and some of the reasons in which the American was more successful than the French.

French Revolution figure Maximilien de Robespierre. By Pierre-Roch Vigneron.

The American and the French Revolutions were similar conflicts in some wats. However, the American Revolution is considered more successful in outcome than that of the French. In this article, Avery Scott breaks down the differences between the two revolutions and some of the reasons in which the American was more successful than the French.

The American Revolution was fought from the years of 1775 to 1783. Primarily, tension rose over the representation of colonist in taxation legislation. Colonist rallied behind the banner of “no taxation without representation.” Colonist were not only angry at the lack of representation in taxation, but the governments lack of concern to their genuine grievances. The conflict erupted in the Battles of Lexington and Concord and ended with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown and the successive Treaty of Paris.

The French Revolution began in 1789, with storming of the Bastille prison, and ended in 1799 with the overthrow of the Directory. The Directory was replaced by the French Consulate with Napoleon as first consul. Revolution occurred in French for a variety of reasons such as a weak economy, food shortages, unfair taxation, and a general discontent with the monarch King Louis XVI and his spendthrift wife, Queen Marie Antoinette.

The two revolutions were similar in principle, as they were both fought to free the individual from the authoritative rule of a monarch. But they differed drastically in execution and outcome. The American Revolution was a traditional war under the control of Congress and General George Washington. Ultimately this victory led to a new nation, and a democratic republic that stands to this day.  Conversely, the French Revolution was largely unsuccessful in its goal of removing a single monarch from power, as it led to Napoleon Bonaparte, an authoritative leader, rising to the status of Emperor. The revolution did spark a variety of productive social and economic changes, but this is a small consolation for the wanton bloodshed of innocent lives.

There are two key reasons that the French Revolution was less successful in the end goal than the American Revolution was.

Leadership

At the time of revolution, American colonists were accustomed to their system of government in which states held primary governing control and were only loosely banded together by a “federal” government. Prior to independence, this came in the form of Parliament (and the King). After independence it took the form of congress and General George Washington under the guiding principles of the Articles of Confederation. This was advantageous for the colonist, and the war, because it ensured they would not descend into mob rule when there was no longer a monarch or royal government in leadership. The lives of citizens would change little once a new, non-royal, governor was elected. The governor would, in conjunction with the state legislature, continue to run the state.

The French struggled to maintain order during the revolution as they had no leadership structure outside of the monarch and his appointed officials. They were accustomed to monarchial rule, and therefore had no plans in place to take control when he was removed. This led to mobs sending despotic leaders into power that would steer the country toward violence and/or personal agendas.  Because of this, few leaders retained power for any significant period, and each leader rose to power with a different strategic goal. Leaders’ ideology varied from that of Lafayette to Maximilien Robespierre and everything in-between. Often when a new leader was appointed, a new government was created (i.e., National Assembly, Committee of Public Safety, Directory). This constant turnover made governing very difficult and led to unproductive governments that were not accomplishing the will of the people. The lack of results led to frustration at the government. Then the frustration displayed itself in violent mobs that would often initiate an overthrow of the government – thus starting the process over. To make matters worse, the military was little use in maintaining order as they were frequently apart of the mob and used their weapons against anyone trying to stop them.

Scope

The second major difference in the two was the scope of the revolution itself. The American Revolution sought to separate the colonies from Britain and British rule. Americans wanted to rule themselves, tax themselves, and be free to conduct their personal and business lives without interference from the crown. However, Americans did not desire to change large portions of their laws or culture after independence. Therefore, much of this was left untouched - creating continuity between the two governments. It was not until the ratification of the constitution and the ascension of Washington to the presidency that a truly new form of government was established. However, even though the idea of a democratically elected president was radical, many similarities can be drawn between the British monarch and the American president of the eighteenth century.

The French were much more radical in their revolutionary aims. The sough to rewrite their country and culture from the ground up. Changes to religion, social status, taxation, war, education, politics, business, economy and voting rights were all key issues to the French. While many of these issues are important and needed to be in both countries, the breadth of issues made it difficult for the various French leaders to make any headway. Again, leading to frustration at the leaders and mob uprisings. Eventually the number of issues faced by the country would lead to Napoleon taking absolutist control of France, thus reversing the gains made by the revolution.

Conclusion

The American and French Revolution both achieved different goals at the official end of their conflicts. The American Revolution was very successful in resolving many of the problems that it set out to remedy. In contrast, the French Revolution was less successful in its resolving many of the initial goals. However, there were important changes that arose during the decade of hostilities that likely would not have occurred without the revolution. Because of this, I do not feel that either conflict was a failure. Rather, the revolution was a catalyst for years of change that would occur throughout the 19th century leading to the changes that were desired in 1789.

What do think of the differences between the American and French Revolutions? Let us know below.

Now read Avery’s article on John Adams here.

References

Lafayette by Harlow Giles Unger

Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts

The Last King of America by Andrew Roberts

Washington by Ron Chernow

Stagecoach Robberies in the American West

The stagecoach is one of the most recognizable symbols of the American West. As America expanded westward, this simple wagon would evolve into an organized system of public transportation that would open up the west to thousands of people. This iconic symbol would begin to transport not only people but also large amounts of cash, gold and silver. As this form of transportation grew more popular, so did the knowledge of its precious cargo. Lawless bandits would begin to seek out these stagecoaches loaded with treasure in hopes of getting rich.

Jerad Huskins explains.

A picture of a Kinnear Express stagecoach . This operated from Tombstone, Arizona to Bisbee, Arizona in the 1880s.

The stagecoach travel system allowed for riders to pay a private company a fee to travel a specific distance, while stopping at “stage stations” every fifteen miles or so to attach fresh horses. This allowed riders to cover more miles in a day at a faster pace. It was not uncommon for a stagecoach to cover up to 100 miles in a single day. The stagecoach was typically pulled by four or six horses. Different designs were built to carry between six and later on even up to twenty people. It was usually a cramp and uncomfortable ride. However, stagecoaches still remained the primary form of transportation to remote towns in the old west.

Businesses began competing to transport people, mail and most notably, large amounts of money and precious metals. It did not take long for stagecoaches to become popular targets for bandits. For these outlaws robbing a stagecoach was like shooting fish in a barrel, as it was easy money for these criminals. Bandits would research the coaches’ travel patterns and simply pick the most advantageous spots to ambush their prey. As the act of robbing stagecoaches became more prevalent, stagecoach businesses began devising ways to protect their property. The first step in improving security was placing guards armed with shotguns riding beside the stagecoach driver. Though not called “riding shotgun” at the time, this is where the saying would derive from.

The Monitor

With the discovery of gold in the American West and the massive migration that would follow, stagecoach robberies began to rise in the 1850s. As the cargo became more valuable, the tactics became more violent. Along with the robberies, murder would take place. In 1878 a company called the Cheyenne and Black Hills Stage Company would take securing their cargo to the extreme. They would construct a wagon fit for war. They would call it the “Monitor”. It would be named after the ironclad ship the U.S.S. Monitor that fought in the Civil War. This stagecoach would earn its name by its 5/16 inch iron plates mounted on the sides of the coach. The coach would also be fitted with shoot through rifle ports and its own makeshift storage safe bolted to the floor.

The Monitor would be used to make “treasure runs” through the Black Hills for the Homestake Mining Company. One such run would take place on September 26, 1878 heading from Deadwood, South Dakota to Cheyenne, Wyoming. The armored stagecoach would be carrying just over $27,000 in gold and currency. It is estimated this payload today would be worth close to 2 million dollars. Regular passengers were not allowed to ride with such valuable cargo. Extra armed guards called “messengers” would fill the cabin. Even with some considering the Monitor impossible of being robbed, there would be those willing to sacrifice everything in an attempt to steal its riches.  A gang of bandits would formulate a plot to hijack this iron beast.

Two men by the names of Cornelius Donahue and Charles Carey would be the masterminds in charge of a gang numbering between five to ten men. Donahue was nicknamed “Lame Johnny”, due to a limp in his walk, some believed caused by contracting polio as a child. Lame Johnny was a career horse thief living in the Black Hills. He had previously worked for the Homestake Mine Company as a bookkeeper. This was a short-lived attempt at conducting an honest living, before returning to the life of an outlaw. The job would allow Johnny an inside track on how Homestake’s shipments would operate. Charles Carey was a former military scout turned bandit. Both were looking to cash in on the valuable cargo hidden within the steel belly of the Monitor.

The gang decided to pull the job at a station in Canyon Springs, Wyoming. The men knew the coach would be arriving at 3 o’clock to swap out for fresh horses. The bandits arrived early and over took the station by locking the station employee in a closet. They set up for their ambush and waited. As the Monitor pulled into the station on schedule, it waited for assistance to begin trading out horses. This process usually took less than ten minutes. When no one came out to greet the ironclad coach, a few men got down to see what was causing the delay. This is when the gang opened fire on the Monitor and its passengers. The messengers from the Monitor realizing they were being hijacked would return fire. A gun fight would ensue. Men from both sides would be mortally wounded. The passengers of the Monitor would evacuate the stagecoach and run to the surrounding treeline. The gang of outlaws would raid the Monitor, breaking into the lockbox rather speedily considering its magnitude. Once in possession of the valuables, the gang made their escape.

The story of the robbery would spread quickly. A reward would be placed on the bandits and the stolen loot. Both lawmen and vigilantes went on the lookout for the outlaws. As the law started to put the squeeze on known bandits in the surrounding areas, and being “there is no honor among thieves”, police began getting information on who was involved.  Two of the bandits would be found dead from gunshot wounds suffered in the fire fight along with a portion of the treasure taken from the Monitor. Lame Johnny would soon be arrested in Nebraska and transported back to Deadwood for trial. He would never make it. On his way to Deadwood Lame Johnny would be intercepted by a posse of vigilantes. Johnny would be found a few days later hanging next to a creek still wearing his shackles. Charles Carey would suffer the same fate. He would be apprehended by vigilantes and be executed by hanging at the Jenny Stockade in Wyoming.

Stolen cargo

Once the bandits were captured and executed, law officers began tallying the stolen cargo. Sources claim that only around sixty percent of the Monitors cargo would be found, with a large amount of gold still missing. Some believe Johnny and his men would bury a portion of the loot somewhere around the Canyon Springs station. If the estimates of the nearly 2 million dollar cargo are accurate, there could be up to $800,000 dollars worth of gold still missing from the infamous heist. It is believed this gold is still buried somewhere in the Canyon Springs area.

From the 1850s through the early 1900s there were over 450 documented stagecoach robberies. The stagecoach would still remain the embodiment of transportation throughout the American West. As time wore on and technology continued to improve, people would create faster, more comfortable ways to travel. The completion of the transcontinental railway in 1869 would be the beginning of the end for stagecoach popularity. The famous Deadwood stagecoach system would eventually shut down, making its final trip in 1890. Then came the rise of the automobile in the early 1900s. This would cause the stagecoach to become a distant memory and bring an end to what was once such a charismatic and alluring time in the American West.

What do you think of the stagecoach robberies in the American West? Let us know below.