Was American Revolutionary War General Benedict Arnold a Hero or Traitor?

Benedict Arnold (1740-1801) was an American born Major General during the American Revolutionary War. However, he changed to the British side during the war. Here, Richard Bluttal considers whether Benedict Arnold was a traitor or hero.

A 1776 portrait of Benedict Arnold.

John André had been warned to keep inland, but instead he shifted west until he was riding down the Albany Post Road, which follows the edge of the Hudson. He rode on safely until 9 a.m. on September 23, 1780, when he arrived at the crossing of a stream known as Clark's Kill, which today forms the boundary between Tarrytown, New York, and Sleepy Hollow, New York (and has since been renamed the André River). Here three young men - John Paulding, Isaac Van Wart and David Williams - stopped him.  André believed that these three were Loyalists because Paulding was wearing a Hessian soldier's uniform. Paulding had himself escaped from a British prison only days earlier, aided by a sympathetic Loyalist who provided him with the uniform. "Gentlemen," André said, "I hope you belong to our party." "What party?" asked one of the men. "The lower party", replied André, meaning the British, whose headquarters were to the South. "We do" was their answer. André then declared that he was a British officer who must not be detained. To his surprise, Paulding informed him "We are Americans," and took him prisoner. André then tried to convince the men that he was a US officer by showing them the passport given to him by Mr. Arnold. But the suspicions of his captors were now aroused; they searched him and found papers and the plans for West Point hidden in his stocking that was not meant for Americans.

André later testified at his trial that the men searched his boots for the purpose of robbing him. Whether or not this was true, the laws of New York State at the time permitted the men to keep whatever booty they might find on a Loyalist's person.

British Major John André was one of the most famous prisoners of the Revolutionary War. A favorite of British General Sir Henry Clinton, the handsome young major was also popular with Philadelphia "high society;" intelligent and witty, André was noted for the elaborate entertainments he wrote and designed for parties.

Scheming

Benedict Arnold approached the British with his scheme to help them take control of West Point. André served as the messenger between Arnold and General Clinton. On September 21, 1780, André met with Arnold, and Arnold gave him confidential documents, including a map of West Point. André intended to return to British General Clinton and give him the documents. André was part of American General Benedict Arnold's treasonous plot to surrender the strategic American fortification at West Point to the British. Arnold delivered key information about West Point's weaknesses to General Clinton through André, meeting him on the banks of the Hudson River.

This was long after Benedict Arnold was known as an American hero. The name Benedict Arnold is synonymous in American history with the word traitor. His name is almost a synonym for treasonous behavior so despicable, his many contributions to American Independence before becoming a turncoat are largely forgotten.

Arnold actually built a very impressive military career before his defection to the British army. During the American Revolution, Arnold quickly established himself as one of George Washington’s best generals. Realizing the strategic importance of securing New York, Arnold mustered a group of men and headed toward Fort Ticonderoga. Coordinating with Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, Arnold helped capture the fort for the Patriots.

Arnold believed the Continental Congress insufficiently rewarded his efforts, especially considering his sacrifices. Arnold lived extravagantly in Philadelphia and also engineered a variety of business deals that earned him a reputation for questionable practices in his desperate desire to impress Edward Shippen, a wealthy Philadelphia Loyalist, so that he could marry his 18-year-old daughter, Peggy.  Appointed to brigadier general, Arnold watched as Congress passed him over for promotion to the post of major general five times in favor of his subordinates. Arnold had every intention of resigning from military service following these outrages but not for Washington’s insistence that he stay. He was rewarded in 1777 with a promotion to major general and a post as military commander of Philadelphia. Continental officials could not confirm Arnold’s suspected betrayal until 1780 when hard evidence of his treason was uncovered through his relationship with John Andre. In 1780, Arnold was given command of West Point, an American fort on the Hudson River in New York (and future home of the U.S. military academy, established in 1802).

Complexity

 Arnold contacted Sir Henry Clinton, head of the British forces, and proposed handing over West Point and his men. While Arnold’s betrayal was clear—he offered the British seizure of the military fortress at West Point, NY, in exchange for 10,000 pounds and a British military commission—what led up to that moment of betrayal is more complicated.

Why did Benedict Arnold betray the US? Historians have several theories about why Arnold became a traitor: greed; mounting debt; resentment of other officers; a hatred of the Continental Congress; and a desire for the colonies to remain under British rule.  Eric D. Lehman, author of Homegrown Terror: Benedict Arnold and the Burning of New London, notes that others at the time had similar character issues but they did not betray their country. Lehman spent time looking over Arnold’s letters and other first-hand accounts.

“Some seemed to point to him ‘lacking feeling,’ i.e. sociopathic, but others showed him having too much feeling—he couldn’t control his temper. The number one thing I found across all of them was his selfish ambition, which came from a profound lack of self-esteem as a child and young man,” Lehman says.

Lehman thinks it’s important to remember the whole story of Arnold—his betrayal wasn’t just treason. The British, who had much to gain from Arnold switching sides, found him dishonorable and untrustworthy.

“One thing that has been left out of so many tellings of Arnold’s story is that he didn’t stop after his West Point treason was discovered,” Lehman points out. “He went on to attack Virginia—almost capturing Thomas Jefferson—and then attacking Connecticut, his home state.

“Spying was one thing, but his willingness to switch sides in the middle of an armed conflict, and fight against the men who had a year earlier been fighting by his side, was something that people of that time and maybe ours could simply not understand.”

Conclusion

Arnold would continue to serve in the military, only now he served the British against his former countrymen. In December, he led a force of British troops into Virginia, capturing Richmond and laying waste to the countryside. Arnold would die in 1801, leaving behind him a legacy as America’s most notorious traitor. As for John Andre, he was moved from Headquarters, to West Point, and finally to Tappan, where he was housed in a tavern. There, as the verdict was decided that André was acting as a spy by going behind enemy lines and disguising his uniform, he wrote a courageous letter, dated September 29, 1780, to his Commander, General Henry Clinton.  All the men on both sides were amazed at the turn of events. The American men admired André for his gallantry as much as the British did for his leadership. No one wanted him to die, but Washington had to be firm and did not back down. André was hanged as a spy at Tappan, New York, on October 2, 1780. He was mourned even by his enemies.

What do you think of Benedict Arnold? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s article on the role of baseball in the US Civil War here.

History Will Absolve the Cuban Republic, but Not Fidel Castro

In 1953, following his July 26 assault on the Moncada Barracks in Oriente province, a young lawyer and the mastermind of the attack in which many Cubans perished, named Fidel Castro, appeared in court to face prosecution. Out of as much desperation as revolutionary zeal, he delivered a powerful, hours-long speech in his defense. As of yet, no record of this speech has been found, and Fidel Castro was unsuccessful in avoiding conviction.

Here, Logan M. Williams considers Castro’s speech and looks at the history, successes, and failures of pre-revolutionary Cuba.

Fidel Castro under arrest after the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks.

Castro was sentenced to a term of 15 years imprisonment, of which he only ended up serving less than three, in Cuba’s Presidio Modelo on the Isle of Pines. During his time in prison, he gave newspaper interviews, and continued to participate in the organizing of Cuba’s anti-Batista efforts. While in prison, he also spent a great deal of time reconstructing a “record” – used loosely, because it was not an exact copy or a true record, due to the fact that it contained several embellishments and added phrases – of the speech that he delivered in court on that fateful day. One of the embellishments which he added to the recreated speech is one of the most infamous political phrases of the modern era, and it would become the title of his work: “History Will Absolve Me." The phrase was eerily similar to one used by the German despot, Adolf Hitler, who said when he found himself in a situation much like Castro’s, that the judgement of the “eternal court of history” would exonerate him.

Castro’s recreated speech would eventually transform into a manifesto for his future revolutionary activities and become required reading for militant leftists around the world. In it, Castro expressed the belief that the desperate conditions under which some Cubans suffered, provided justification for the radical nature of his actions. Castro described these conditions as follows: “the people have neither homes nor electricity” and those who were lucky enough to have shelter “live cramped [with their families] into barracks and tenements without even the minimum sanitary requirements.” He stated that “rural children are consumed by parasites which filter through their bare feet from the earth” and that Cuba had “thousands of children who die every year from lack of [medical] facilities.” Castro attributed these social conditions to an indifferent society as well as a corrupt and negligent government. Indeed, denigration of the Cuban Republic period is still a mainstay of Cuban regime propaganda today, which sees this sort of fear-mongering as the only way to justify its increasingly repressive regime.

Pre-Revolutionary Cuba

This propaganda may be effective, as most of today’s world now knows the Cuban Republic of 1902-1959 by its reputation for troubling and potentially neo-colonial relations with the United States or as a period of crime, graft, moral decay, political unrest, and total misery (if they know anything at all). However, this isn’t a complete representation of the era, as Castro himself alluded to in his speech before the court. Of the Cuban Republic, before the inception of the Batista dictatorship in 1952, Castro stated:

“It had its constitution, its laws, its civil rights, a president, a Congress, and law courts. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the government officials at that time, but [the people] had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they were going to do so! There existed a public opinion both respected and heeded and all problems of common interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio and television debates and forums, and public meetings. The whole nation throbbed with enthusiasm.”

He also noted that “the [Cuban] people were proud of their love of liberty and they carried their heads high in the conviction that liberty would be respected as a sacred right.” Within today’s Cuba, Castro’s pamphlet, “History Will Absolve Me,” is not easily found in its entirety.

While certain aspects of Cuban society (particularly the government and political class) may have earned the harrowing reputation presented by Castroist propaganda, the lived experience of the average Cuban who resided on the island in this era – which was actually a period in which Cuba underwent a remarkable transformation and made steadfast progress towards liberal development – tells a vastly different story. Due to the work of a few committed scholars, who have dedicated their time to chronicling the achievements of the Cuban people, we have brought light to the Cuban “Dark Ages.”

Cuban Republic in History

Traditionally, the Cuban Republic is identified as the form of government which existed between the years 1902 and 1959, although this is not entirely accurate, and it doesn’t do justice to the efforts of Cuba’s liberals and independence fighters. The Cuban Republic came into existence for the first time during the second half of the nineteenth century, during the Ten Years War, when the island revolted against Spain. However, it ceased to exist following the defeat of the Cuban separatists, and the complete reimposition of Spanish colonial rule. The Cuban Republic was revived during the Cuban War of Independence, and it experienced several early and remarkable successes in governance, whilst embroiled in a brutally destructive war with Spain. Horatio Rubens, a New York-based attorney who was a personal friend of Jose Martí and who served as a principal advisor to Martí’s Cuban Revolutionary Party as well as the U.S. provisional government during the brief occupation of the island, describes the accomplishments of this iteration of the Cuban Republic in an 1898 journal article for The North American Review. These revolutionaries, amid a war, had built a modern, representative government, based upon republican principles. This new government included a system for the collection of taxes, as well as significant checks and balances, especially upon military authority. In Eastern Cuba which, at this point, was largely poor as well as underdeveloped, and entirely in the control of the revolutionaries (except for major cities), newspapers were published frequently, which was a positive indicator for free speech as well as other democratic freedoms, and schools were even established. Most notably, the Cuban Republic experienced its first election in 1897, ostensibly free from the corruption and political violence which would plague future such elections.

After a brief period of initial occupation lasting from the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898 to 1902, the United States’ provisional government and most of its soldiers departed Cuba; the island nation had finally achieved a measure of autonomy (autonomy is used in this case to indicate the existence of a level of agency and self-government short of complete sovereignty). Most scholars of the Republic during this period in Cuban history stubbornly refuse to refer to it as sovereign Cuba, at least until the 1930s, due to the existence of the Platt Amendment, which formalized the continuation of U.S. dominance over Cuba by restricting the new island nation’s rights in the realm of international relations and by cementing the United States’ right to intervene militarily on the island under certain circumstances. Thus, Cuba’s sovereignty was so constrained until at least 1934, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy – and the persistence of Cuban diplomats – brought about the dismantling of the amendment.

The economy

After 1902, however, regardless of the existence of the Platt Amendment, the Cuban Republic was once again free to pursue liberalization and advancement in a Cuban manner. In spite of the many aforementioned plagues and hurdles faced by Cuba’s newly formed state, the Cuban Republic made extraordinary progress in the economic and social spheres; it was fully engaged in the crucible that is liberalization.

Economic data from this period indicate that the Cuban Republic was a middle-income (likely upper-middle income by modern standards) country, with living conditions comparable to some European countries, or to those in the southern United States (which were the poorest states in the U.S. at this time). Consumption rates at certain points during the Cuban Republic measured as high as 70% of most European economies and exceeded those of almost every other Latin American nation. The Cuban Republic’s income per capita before the Revolution of 1959, was well above the average for Latin America; in fact, it was equidistant from the European and Latin American averages. Several consumption-based economic indicators are especially useful in highlighting Cuba’s prosperity during the republican period, mainly those which relate to private ownership of technology and luxury items, as well as those which relate to food supply and nourishment. The Cuban Republic’s rate of private television ownership (measured by the number of televisions per 1000 persons) was nearly 7 times greater than the average for Latin American states, and approximately equal to the European average. Likewise, Cuban private ownership of radios was well above Latin America’s average, as was the rate of private ownership for passenger vehicles. Additionally, during the Cuban Republic period, Cuba regularly led Latin America in food production, as well as per capita daily caloric consumption; whereas, Cuba following the Revolution of 1959 has often lagged behind other Latin American nations in these regards. Finally, the rapid development of Cuba during the Republic era is evident by the fact that for much of that time period, Cuba led Latin America as the region's largest consumer of cement, a resource which is essential for the construction of new infrastructure. Additionally, Cuba’s investment in technology and mechanization during this period drastically exceeded that of its neighbors. In 1920, a time known as the “Dance of Millions” due to its especially high levels of prosperity, Cuba’s investment in these goods accounted for a quarter of the total investment in machinery for the entirety of Latin America (more of a cultural conception than a geographic region, “Latin America” has ill-defined borders, but for context can be estimated as containing approximately between 20-30 different countries.) After presenting many of the above statistics, and in light of the decidedly positive, albeit one-sided, perspective that they offer, authors of the above-cited paper in the Journal of Economic History, Marriane Ward and John Devereux concluded that “The story of Cuba during the twentieth century is therefore the story of how it has fallen in the world income distribution…. Over the last fifty years, Cuba has replicated the failings of command economies elsewhere albeit in a uniquely Cuban fashion.”

Infrastructure

The Cuban Republic’s remarkable success wasn’t limited to solely economic factors, Cuba also made remarkable progress in improving its transportation infrastructure. This helped the Republic to extend the rule of law, as well as healthcare and education opportunities, into the Eastern (largely rural and poor) portion of the island. During the republican period, railroads were constructed which spanned the entirety of Cuba, with the assistance of at least $60 million (likely over $1 billion in today’s currency) in American investment. The Cuban Republic’s relatively well-developed transportation is credited with facilitating much of the Republic’s incredible progress in healthcare. The same article notes that the Cuban Republic was exceptional by Latin American standards due to its ability to provide “relatively easy access to fairly high-quality healthcare for an unusually large share of the population…,” due partly to the government’s investment in social services, and aided by the government's drastic improvement of sanitation as well as water and sewer infrastructure. Before the Revolution of 1959, Cuba’s infant mortality rate was only 33 per 1000, less than a third of the average for Latin America and functionally identical to that of Europe. Additionally, the ratio of medical personnel to population in the Cuban republic was 2.5 times greater than the average for the region and virtually identical to the European average. Life expectancy in the Cuban Republic was 64 years, a full 14 years greater than the average for Latin America, and just five years below that of the United States. The Cuban Republic was also notably dedicated to matters relating to education, and the Cuban constitution – in its various iterations – always provided for free and compulsory education. As a result of this dedication, in 1955, Cuba’s literacy rate was 79 percent, amongst the highest in Latin America. Taking into account Cuba’s significant rural population, largely unreachable by the government at that time (not an unusual problem for developing nations), these feats in medicine and education are truly remarkable.

Human rights

Finally, and most importantly, the Cuban Republic continually made impressive advancements in human rights and liberalization. In Cuba’s 1940 Constitution, widely considered a bulwark of freedom and social justice, Cuban delegates included language which provided for anti-discrimination protections and other liberal principles. Notably, the constitution included unparalleled protections for Cuban women. The United States had, prior to the end of its provisional occupation in 1902, re-imposed the Spanish Civil Code upon Cuba as a stop-gap alternative to the difficult process of drafting a new body of law for the island. The Spanish Civil Code was heavily Catholicized, and thus, held regressive and prohibitive views of women and their role in society. During the short period of its existence, the Cuban Republic made remarkable progress in removing the religious influences from its body of law, and in elevating the status of women in the Cuban society. In the early 20th century, Cuban women catapulted from a position in which the law afforded them little autonomy and no property rights, to being able to own property, vote, divorce their husbands, and organize politically. Laws were also passed which attempted to abolish all forms of discrimination based upon sex, although their implementation proved difficult.

Cuba’s contributions to the cause of human rights during the republican period were not limited to the Constitution of 1940, or to Cuban domestic pursuits; Cuba was essential to the progress of the international human rights movement. In the latter years of World War 2, Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt communed to discuss the post-war order, and to construct a world order amenable to their respective interests. The notions underpinning the United Nations, as an international organization dominated by the great powers and designed to serve as the arbiter of their new world order, emerged from these discussions. It was the efforts of various Latin American nations which made the United Nations what it is today: not just an organization designed for ensuring security and stability, but a dedicated, efficacious bastion of human rights. More specifically, it was Cuba’s delegation that assumed a leadership role of the Latin American bloc, at that time the largest group of nations in the original 58-state body, and spearheaded an aggressive charge to re-define the nature of the United Nations as a body primarily dedicated to the defense of human dignity. During the first session of the United Nations, the Cuban delegation became the first to submit a proposal that the United Nations consider issuing an authoritative statement demonstrating its commitment to human rights, a suggestion that ran counter to the immediate interests of the United States and other major members of the body. When the original motion failed the Cuban delegation resolved to pursue it with the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council which, due to the Republic of Cuba’s tenacity, established the Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of drafting an “international bill of rights.” Cuba also submitted a draft such declaration, which inspired the final document, serving as a model in both substance and form. If it were not for Cuba’s novel idea that universal human rights should be listed, so that they might be easily understood, attained, and defended by persons of every walk of life, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights might never have come into existence. Throughout most of the modern era, outside of religious doctrine and certain areas of academia, rights were seldom discussed in the context of “humankind,” “international,” or “universal.” Rather, rights were seen as the prerogative of the nation-state and were outlined in national contexts or documents (e.g., state constitutions.) Cuban, and larger Latin American influence over the United Nations assisted in shifting that paradigm, and it is perhaps the most incredible part of the Cuban Republic’s legacy.

Conclusion

It is important that the presentation of these facts not be mistaken as an effort to obscure the serious shortcomings of the Cuban Republic. It is especially critical that the aforementioned economic statistics not be misused to obscure the gross income inequality under which a segment of the Cuban Republic’s poor languished, or to exonerate those responsible for the political instability which plagued the era. Rather, knowledge of this period is crucial for two major reasons. First, the Cuban regime often boasts about spectacular achievements (particularly in the fields of health care and literacy), and these “achievements” form a central pillar of revolution propaganda, but the above data illustrate that most of these regime “successes” were largely achieved by the Republic which came before. Second, and even more important, this story of the Cuban Republic is the story of a brave people who fought for countless years to achieve some measure of freedom and liberalism, only to have it snatched away from them by a revolution – and revolutionaries – steeped in perfidy. Unfortunately, irony abounds in present-day Cuba which, once a key drafter of the original document, now bans the distribution of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the island and severely punished those in possession of the document. Additionally, while Fidel Castro was given the chance to defend himself in open court on July 26, 1953 – in front of relatively fair-minded judges and the press – those who live on the island in the present day are denied that right. While Castro was released from prison after organizing an amnesty campaign from his cell, having served less than 3 years of his 15-year sentence, Cubans are now subjected to draconian prison sentences in medieval prisons. Perhaps this is why many Cubans prefer to refer to the Republican period as “free Cuba,” drawing a powerful juxtaposition with present-day, “un-free Cuba.”

History has yet to absolve Fidel Castro, or the brutally oppressive regime that he left behind, but it seems to be in the process of absolving the principles of the Republic which Castro worked so hard to topple.

What do you think of pre-revolutionary Cuba? Let us know below.

What was the Rhodesian Bush War?

The Rhodesian Bush War raged in the mostly unrecognised African nation of Rhodesia, modern-day Zimbabwe, a nation that had been unilaterally declared independent by the Prime Minister Ian Smith in 1965.

Smith defied calls from the British and international governments to implement a policy known as NIMBAR (No Independence Before Majority Rule). This led to a bloody guerrilla conflict between Smith’s government and militant pro-independence groups known as the Bush War from 1974-79. This was also a proxy battle within the Cold War. The war eventually culminated in the Lancaster House Agreement which reestablished the country as present-day Zimbabwe.

But why did Smith choose to pursue independence?

The origins of Smith’s decision and the Bush War lay within Rhodesia’s complex history.

Matthew Davey explains.

Rhodesian African Rifles on Lake Kariba in December 1976. Source: Ggwallace1954, available here.

Southern Rhodesia

Rhodesia was originally known as “Southern Rhodesia” and was part of a federation of nations which had become colonies of Britain in the 19th century following expeditions by the British South Africa Company. White settlers emigrated to the new colony seeking opportunities in mining and farming and established rooted communities.

Southern Rhodesia was also unique through being granted responsible government status in 1923, allowing colonial politicians to make decisions without deferring to London. This arrangement continued through the Second World War up until the 1960s when European authorities began to relinquish former colonies.

Who was Ian Smith?

Smith was born on April 8, 1919 in the mining township of Selukwe (now Shurugwi) to parents from the United Kingdom. His father was John Douglas Smith and his mother Agnes. John worked variously as a butcher, rancher, miner and a garage owner, but the family were known for their involvement in local politics.

Although Southern Rhodesia had self-governing status, it entered the Second World War by default when Britain declared war on Germany. The war was a turning point for Smith who suspended a place at university to enlist in the Royal Air Force in 1941.

Smith was posted to the Middle East as part of a Hurricane squadron. While performing a flight over Egypt he survived a crash and had plastic surgery performed on his face as a result.

Upon returning to Africa, Smith resumed his studies at Rhodes University in South Africa. It was around this time that his interest in politics began when he became leader of a campus veterans association.

Although Smith was a reluctant politician, preferring to devote himself to a farm he ran with his wife, he decided to run for office and was elected to parliament in 1948 for the Rhodesian Liberal Party.

He later founded the Rhodesian Front which won the 1962 election and Smith became Prime Minister of Rhodesia in 1964.

Declaring UDI

In 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave the “Wind of Change” speech, arguing that Britain should not hinder the process of independence for African nations.

The British were concerned that violence seen in other former European colonies could spill into British colonies while the United States argued communism would expand into Africa through nationalist groups if European governments denied them independence. The British government endorsed the policy of NIMBAR; independence could not be granted unless a majority native government was in place.

This posed complications for Rhodesia.

By this stage, Rhodesia had a significant white population, many of whom feared a repeat of the violence which had targeted Europeans in the Congo and Algeria under native governments. Smith himself believed that the sudden emergence of an unprepared black government would lead to civil war and economic strife. On a personal level, he also felt a sense of betrayal at Britain having fought in the war before being told to give up his position as Prime Minister.

Although white Rhodesians made up a smaller percentage of the population, economic and social disparities between the black and white citizens were significant. Although all racial groups were allowed to vote in elections, most black Rhodesians did not enjoy the same property ownership or financial status which were required for political participation.

Spurred by economic grievances and political exclusion, African nationalist groups called for an uprising against the Rhodesian government and for independence with a majority government.

In 1964, Harold Wilson was elected Prime Minister of Britain and took a firm stance on NIMBAR. Although calls for independence were growing, Smith maintained that an experienced white government was the best way for all Rhodesians to experience security and a path to equal partnership, and claimed the British were too hasty in granting independence to countries that had descended into conflict. Wilson countered that the Rhodesian system was discriminatory and the solution for independence was black participation in a majority government. Smith and Wilson met for a series of negotiations in London but failed to reach an agreement.

Smith decided to call an election in 1965. He campaigned to declare Rhodesia independent with his government in charge. The Rhodesian Front won a majority and Smith issued the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).

The UDI was not recognised by the British who imposed sanctions but Smith was determined to continue.

Bush War

A major consequence of the UDI was that militant action by two major groups opposed to the Smith government intensified.

Before the UDI, the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) was formed by Joshua Nkomo to oppose the Rhodesian government. The group adhered to socialist and anti-colonial beliefs but saw an ideological split when Robert Mugabe and Ndabaningi Sithole left in protest at Nkomo’s leadership to form the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).

The two groups at first engaged in low-level tactics including arson and sporadic killings of white Rhodesians before the UDI and both were subsequently banned by the government.

Although under sanction, the Rhodesian government received supplies from apartheid South Africa and Portugal. The ZANU and ZAPU factions were divided on tribal lines, with the Shona tribe supporting Mugabe and the Ndebele and Kalanga people rallying for ZAPU. However, tribal rivalry was supplanted by Cold War politics; Mugabe declared himself a Maoist which angered the Soviets who responded by exclusively supporting ZAPU while China backed ZANU. The Bush War escalated into a proxy conflict of the Cold War, although Western governments did not wish to collude with Smith directly and urged him to hold peace talks.

From 1966, the Rhodesian army, ZANU and ZAPU began to engage each other directly in combat. Both ZANU and ZAPU engaged in terrorism and guerrilla tactics while the Rhodesian military responded with cross-border raids into Mozambique and Zambia to destroy their camps.

The war also saw civilians caught in the crossfire; native Africans in rural areas who refused to join either militia groups or were accusing of spying were killed while ZAPU and ZANU fought each other for political dominance with factional Cold War support. In 1977, a Woolworths store was bombed, killing eleven people. In 1978 two Air Rhodesia flights were shot down by ZAPU militants, in the first shootdown surviving passengers were massacred on the ground. The attacks prompted uproar but posed difficulties for international governments who did not want to compromise peace negotiations.

The independence of Mozambique from Portugal complicated matters for Smith as militants could now operate freely across the border. At the same time, the government of South Africa wanted to build credibility as global opposition to apartheid grew and decided supporting Smith was untenable.

By 1978, it was apparent that militants were entering the country faster than the army could intercept them and with lifelines cut off, the Smith government was now forced to compromise.

Compromise

Smith concluded that his best opportunity was an internal settlement with more moderate opposition forces.

In 1978, the country was renamed Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and elections were held in 1979. The first black Prime Minister Bishop Abel Muzorewa was elected. However, the election and internal settlement were not recognised by foreign governments.

In December 1979, Muzorewa was persuaded to attend the Lancaster House Agreement. The Agreement nulled the UDI and temporarily returned Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to British rule with the UK and United States agreeing to drop sanctions after fresh elections. The British government re-declared the country independent as free elections were held. ZANU led by Robert Mugabe won the vote.

Conclusion

The war concluded with an estimated 20,000 people killed overall.

Although international governments hoped for reconciliation after the 1980 election, violence continued with Cold War politics leaving its mark. Mugabe initially included white politicians and his former rival Nkomo in government but later fired them after disagreements and consolidated his power.

Mugabe then sought to purge opponents under what was known as the Gukurahundi; members of the Zimbabwean army trained by North Korea carried out bloody pogroms against the Ndebele and Kalanga who had mostly supported ZAPU.

What do you think of the Rhodesian Bush War? Let us know below.

The 3 Key Reasons for European Empires

European colonization took place over many centuries and for varied reasons, but some reasons were more important than others. Here, Parthika Sharma and Aarushi Anand look at the three key reasons that led to the growth of European empires.

Rudyard Kipling in Calcutta, India, 1892.

Take up the White Man's burden -

    Send forth the best ye breed -

Go bind your sons to exile

    To serve your captives' need;

To wait in heavy harness

    On fluttered folk and wild -

Your new-caught sullen peoples,

    Half devil and half child.

-Rudyard Kipling, White Man’s Burden

Since the beginning of time, humans have sought to dominate their counterparts. The Assyrian empire was superseded by the Persian empire, preparing the way for Greek expansion, which peaked under Alexander the Great, with its borders threatening to spill out of the Indus. The easternmost expansion was accomplished with the conquest of Bengal and the founding of the Delhi Sultanate under Muhammad Ghori. The urge for expansion is in human nature.

In its simplest form, imperialism can be defined as the process by which one state expands its dominance over another through conflict, conquest, and exploitation. In the long histories of the USSR, Japan, the USA, and Europe, two distinct phases of imperialism can be recognized, when it reached unprecedented extent and ferocity.

During the Age of Discovery, following the footsteps of the Portuguese; Britain, Spain, and France, colonized lands throughout North and South America in pursuit of the 3Gs- Gold, God and Glory. However, the so-called "New World" of the Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci was in fact not at all new: People had been living in the Americas for centuries; people, who would eventually become slaves in their own land.

This was however not the end. After a short period of calm, there was an explosion of imperialism yet again that had long lasting repercussions and has been seen by certain scholars as one of the leading causes of the war to end all wars- World War 1, changing the world forever. In 1885, only 10% of Africa was colonized by European powers, by 1905, only 10% was not colonized. Britain and France were the first nations to embark on colonial missions in the 19th and 20th centuries and they were after the 3Cs- Christianisation, commerce, and civilisation as mentioned by Livingstone.

But why was the need for 3Cs suddenly so important that it transformed different polities, cultures and economies and why now? Over the years, historians have offered a variety of hypotheses and justifications to make sense of the issue.

Economic Reasons

The answer to this question for liberals and Marxists is economy. Liberals such as J.A. Hobson argued that capitalism rising at this time led to the masses having less and less and capitalists having large surpluses which could not be invested internally as there was little purchasing power. This underconsumption of masses and oversaving of capitalists made foreign investment "the taproot of imperialism," with government intervention to safeguard the investments that followed.

For Marxist scholar R. Hilferding imperialism was the final and most advanced phase of capitalism.  Monopoly capitalists like Germany and Britain looked to imperialist expansion as a way to ensure reliable supplies of raw materials, markets for industrial goods, and avenues for investment. VI Lenin described imperialism as the pinnacle of capitalist progress, which could only be overthrown by revolution. He highlighted the necessity of seeking out new investment opportunities, and the need of preventing others from acquiring a monopoly. Imperialism and war were therefore necessary since it is a fundamental aspect of capitalism that wealth will eventually end up in fewer and fewer hands.

However, was the economy really the answer? Certain avenues go against the argument. Governments like Britain made investments in places like Argentina that weren't colonies. Because of a lack of finance, industrialization in France during the 19th century was extremely sluggish. In the end, it invested more money in Russia than it did in itself. At the end of the 19th century, northern nations like Norway, Denmark, and Finland had industrialized but had no interest in colonizing. Thus it seems like the imperialists wanted more than just resources.

Karl Kautsky postulated that imperialism results from the persistent desire of industrialized capitalist nations to enlarge the agricultural regions dependent on them. Only when the hinterland builds its own industrial capability and uses the tool of protective tariffs to break free from its economic dependence does sovereignty become important.

Social Reasons

According to Joseph Schumpeter, the older pre-capitalist class whose riches depended on expansionist strategies were motivated by economic considerations. Only Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia were truly imperialist nations because imperialism flourished where absolutism had the strongest hold. According to this argument, when modern industries developed, the Yukur class felt as though the entrepreneurial elite was pushing them out of the way. They could only keep their position by putting the military at the center, which was crucial in colonialism.

Few others believe that imperialism was all about balancing and unbalancing power relations. The conservative argument states that imperialism was required to uphold the current social order and prevent social revolution in the more industrialized nations. On a similar note, political theorists argue that imperialism was simply a manifestation of the balance of power and through this a nation tried to achieve favorable change in the status quo. The notion of prestige and power was advanced by D.K. Fieldhouse. The desire to establish national prestige meant gaining "places in the sun" for the French and the Germans.

Cultural Reasons

But the most popular arguments are probably the racist ones. Charles Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest was applied to social conditions by Herbert Spencer, resulting in the argument of Social Darwinism, which claimed that White European conquerors were more biologically adapted to the struggle for survival than the colonized. The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling suggested that they had the "burden" of conveying the blessings to the native people. The ‘best race’, the whites had taken up the responsibility of ‘taming’ the “fluttered folk” and “wild”, the “half devil, half child”, without actually consulting if the natives wanted their ‘superior culture.’

This is expanded into the favor argument. It is argued that imperialism also had a humanitarian achievement of abolishing slavery. However, it is imperative to point out that these countries were the ones who started it. Establishment of Indian universities, introduction of technologies like steamships, canals and railways were turned to beneficial ends. However, the technologies were first introduced only to aid British functioning. It was argued that the Western medicine benefited indigenous people by eradicating epidemics- cholera, yellow fever, malaria, dysentery and plague. But it spread more diseases than it eradicated.

As pointed out by Edward Said, the formation of imperial culture has major roots in Orientalism, illustrated by disparaging and unflattering assertions and stereotypes. In terms of popular culture, Victorian era novels such as Jane Eyre (which contrasts Indianness with the true Christian British self) and adventures of Sherlock Holmes, (associating the East with wealth, mystery, and criminality), are classic instances of panoptical delusion.

Perceptions rooted in culture govern acculturation of ideas and goods: cross culturalization was also marked by exotica. Claude Monet’s water lilies and Japanese bridge displays an Asian-influenced water garden with a shade of spirituality in Giverny, France. Paul Gaugin painted the locals of the Pacific island of Tahiti with an intense focus on /through the prism of sexuality.Maile Arvin notably observes that a logic of possession through whiteness animates colonial subject, transforming both the land and its people into exotic, feminine objects owned by the whites. Thus the mimetic response to defend the tyranny of "the other" and boost imperial self-esteem was to create a cultural contrast between Europeans and Non-Europeans.

What do you think were the key drivers of European colonialism? Let us know below.

Bibliography

• Joll, James. "Europe since 1870: an international history." (No Title) (1973).

• Gallagher, John, and Ronald Robinson. "The imperialism of free trade." The Economic History Review 6.1 (1953): 1-15.

• Brewer, Tony. Marxist theories of imperialism: A critical survey. Routledge, 2002.

• Etherington, Norman. "Reconsidering theories of imperialism." History and Theory 21.1 (1982): 1-36.

• Porter, Andrew. "European Imperialism, 1860-1914." (2016).

• Pugh, Martin, ed. A companion to modern European history: 1871-1945. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.

Author Bio

Aarushi is a graduate in History honors from Miranda House, University of Delhi. Her areas of interest include Medieval history and Art history. She likes watching movies and writing blog reviews. She is also interested in sketching, origami and semantics.

Parthika is a graduate in History honors from Miranda House, University of Delhi. Her interest lies in Mughal History, Art Restoration and linguistics. She loves painting, clicking photographs, engaging in impromptu choreography and learning new strings on her guitar.

The Kingdom of Kush & the 27-22 BC War with Rome

The Kingdom of Kush, or the Kushite Empire, was in the region of southern Egypt and northern Sudan from around 780 BC to 350 AD. It had an eventful history, including war with Rome. Here, Husain Roussel looks at war between the states over 27 to 22 BC.

Strabo as shown in the Nuremberg Chronicle.

Introduction

The Romans, like the Greeks under Alexander the Great and the Persians under Darius the Great were without doubt one of the super powers of the ancient world. However, many kingdoms small and large throughout the Greco-Roman world would fight Greek, Persian or Roman armies to maintain their independence, often without success leading to either their annihilation or their assimilation into these emerging western and central Asian empires. The Romans, like all conquerors of the period, would demand these conquered territories to provide a supply of grain to feed their growing republic, annexation of more land, the payment of taxes leading to debt or famine in the host kingdoms, and send conscripts to fill their Roman auxiliary legions (Auxilia) necessary to fight in new wars of conquest.

Historians and Archeologist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries have often covered European and Asian conflicts of the Greco-Roman era, but due to racial views of the period often overlooked kingdoms for one reason or another in ancient sub Saharan Africa. One such African kingdom in the ancient Sudan (also termed Nubia) coming to light more recently forced Rome through none other than armed conflict into signing a peace treaty allowing their status as at the very least a client state with exemption from paying offensive taxes, and maintaining their independence from any further Roman incursions into their borders. This kingdom in the Sudan was viewed as another satellite region of ancient Egypt.  Researchers like the archeologist George Andrew Reisner, jr. who did extensive research in Nubia during the early 20th published very little on the culture of the black Africans in the region. His belief like so many of his peers during the period was Africans in the Sudan were incapable of creating a powerful kingdom or artistic innovations that could compete with the ancient Egyptians.

The famous Queen Cleopatra VII, the last Ptolemy to rule as Pharaoh of Egypt lost her war with Rome under the rule of Octavian Augustus during Rome’s civil war at the Battle of Actium on September 2, 31 BC with her lover Mark Antony ending approximately 300 years of Ptolemaic rule in Egypt. Octavian Augustus, now the sole ruler of the Roman Republic and soon to be Emperor of the Roman Empire, has with the defeat of Queen Cleopatra made Egypt a province of Rome with a Roman Governor as Prefect (praefectus Aegypti). Octavian decided to venture further south of the Nile River to demand tribute and taxes from another kingdom. This new potential tax revenue and grain source called the Kingdom of Kush (1070 BC - 350 AD) located in the city of Meroe with a Kushite Queen now witnessed a new threat the Romans on their border.

Prelude to the War

The people of Kush formerly had a love and hate relationship with their previous neighbors the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt. The two kingdoms for centuries shared similar customs and cultural exchanges in the form of Gods and Goddesses, both kingdoms built pyramids, fought against each other at various times, had royal intermarriages, and practiced similar religious ceremonies, but the Kingdom of Kush maintained a very separate identity, had a unique Meroitic language, provided a more liberating status given to women like female rulers called Kandakes or Candaces (Queens), and did not mummify their dead. The ancient Egyptians were never able to subdue, vanquish, or fully conquer the Kingdom of Kush. Therefore, it can be said the two maintained a form of cold war status with a border equivalent to what today is the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

The Kingdom of Kush on the other hand managed to invade and rule Egypt for approximately 100 years during the 25th dynasty (747-656 BC), known as the rule of the Black Pharaohs beginning with the Kushite King Piye until driven out by the last native Egyptian dynasty at the start of ancient Egypt’s Late Period. The war between Rome under Octavian the heir to Julius Caesar and Ptolemaic Egypt under Queen Cleopatra VII and the Roman General Mark Antony allowed the Kingdom of Kush or at the time the Kushitic Kingdom of Meroe an opportunity to take more territory from defenseless borders previously held by Ptolemaic ruled Egypt. The frequent incursions around 27 BC into Roman held Egyptian lands and border skirmishes with the Kingdom of Kush dynasty based in Meroe would set the stage for a new conflict between Rome and another Nile Queen. The Greek geographer and historian Strabo would refer to this Queen as Candace in his writings of the Meroitic war against the Roman Empire.

Preemptive Strikes against Romans

The Romans full with thought of invincibility and no doubt egomania now decided they wanted to make the Kingdom of Kush a vassal to Roman domination as well, and demanded the Queen Amanirenas (ruler of the Kingdom of Kush 40-10 BC) give up territory and provide tribute in the form of heavy taxes or face invasion. The Queen of Kush refused this insult, and while the Roman Prefect of Egypt Aelius Gallus was away on official business during an Arabian campaign for Emperor Augustus the Queen decided she had other plans for Roman demands. This Queen obviously knew the outcome of Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt, and was determined her kingdom would not suffer the same fate.

Queen Amanirenas had decided instead to strike first blood at Roman Egypt, and her armies did just that in 25 BC led by herself and her son Crown Prince Akinidad attacking several towns in lower Nubia namely, Philae and Syene (Aswan) on the 1st Cataract of the Nile River in the Roman Egyptian border while defeating several Roman garrisons protected by Roman auxiliary cohorts who were caught off guard at these locations. The famous and well preserved head of the Roman Emperor Augustus was removed from a statue during looting from one of these border raids in Roman Egypt. The Augustus head was buried as insult to Rome under a Temple in Meroe dedicated to victory that was excavated from the site in 1912, and now on display in the British Museum.

According to Strabo, The Geography, Book XVII, "the Aethiopians, emboldened by the fact that a part of the Roman force in Aegypt had been drawn away with Aelius Gallus when he was carrying on war against the Arabians, attacked the Thebaïs and the garrison of the three cohorts at Syene, and by an unexpected onset took Syene and Elephantine and Philae, and enslaved the inhabitants, and also pulled down the statues of Caesar.”

The success of the Kushite attacks was indeed due in part to the Roman Prefect Aelius Gallus taking approximately 8,000 men from 3 Roman legions that made up 16,800 men to include the majority of the 5,500 men in the Roman auxiliary cohorts on campaign to Arabia. This intelligence gathering would have played a key role in the Queen’s decision to attack the Romans in Egypt while their forces were depleted. It was a risk and opportunity the Queen was willing to take in sending a clear message for driving the Roman threat from her kingdom’s border. The victorious Octavian Augustus would again face another Queen of the Nile who dared to challenge the power of Rome.

Rome sends Commander Petronius

The now angry Octavian Augustus possibly thinking the audacity of this barbarian queen removed the Prefect Aelius Gallus from his post in Egypt replacing him with a new Roman Prefect Publius Petronius, a close friend and Roman military commander giving him the order to invade the Kushite homeland. The newly posted and confident Petronius mobilized a force of 10,000 men from the exercitus Aegyptiacus (Army of Egypt), Roman infantry and cavalry to battle a force of 30,000 Kushite warriors during his assault on the Kushite people. Petronius was able to defeat but not cripple the Kushite military at Syene forcing them to retreat back to defend the Kushite homeland. The Roman army then marched into the northern part of the Kushite territory and began to pillage the area while taking Kushite citizens who survived the onslaught to sell as slaves around the Roman Empire.

Strabo, The Geography, Book XVII, “but Petronius, setting out with less than ten thousand infantry and eight hundred cavalry against thirty thousand men, first forced them to flee back to Pselchis, an Aethiopian city, and sent ambassadors to demand what they had taken, as also to ask the reasons why they had begun war; and when they said that they had been wronged by the Nomarchs, he replied that these were not rulers of the country, but Caesar; and when they had requested three days for deliberation, but did nothing they should have done, he made an attack and forced them to come forth to battle; and he quickly turned them to flight, since they were badly marshalled and badly armed; for they had large oblong shields, and those too made of raw ox-hide, and as weapons some had only axes, others pikes, and others swords.”

The Roman legions under Publius Petronius eventually reached the city of Napata (Npte) that was located on the 4th Cataract of the Nile River in 24 BC to lay siege. Napata was the religious cult city of the Kushite God Amun, the former capital of the 25th dynasty, and the capital of the Kingdom of Kush. Generations of Kushite Kings and Queens (Kandakes) were buried in the royal cemetery of Napata. Petronius successfully attacked Napata defended by Crown Prince Akinidad but could not hold the city without sufficient supplies. He decided to retreat back to Roman Egypt while leaving the city burned to the ground in retaliation for what Rome considered aggression by the Kushite Queen. The Kushite’s precious Temple of Amun located next to the small mountain of Jebel Barkal where generations of Kushite people worshipped was laid to waste by the Romans.

Strabo, The Geography, Book XVII states in his writings of the events, “Petronius attacked and captured Nabata too, from which her son had fled, and rased it to the ground; and having enslaved its inhabitants, he turned back again with the booty, having decided that the regions farther on would be hard to traverse. But he fortified Premnis better, threw in a garrison and food for four hundred men for two years, and set out for Alexandria.”

Large Kushite Military Reserves

Queen Amanirenas who sustained an injury to her eye during her campaigns became known to the Romans as the one-eyed warrior Queen who commanded an army of fierce Kush warriors, legendary Kush bowmen, and war elephants. The Queen continued attacking the Romans in occupied locations around the Kushite kingdom when the Romans let their guard down. She chose to lead a guerilla war campaign against the Romans which lasted 5 years, and moved all of her southern reserve forces recruited from other locations near the capital city of Meroe to fight her war against the Roman invasion of her kingdom. The Queen coordinating her war plans on Rome from her secure capital in the city of Meroe was not intimidated, nor was her army in anyway incapacitated, and she decided to cross the border into Roman Egypt in revenge for the destruction of their holy city Napata. Her ongoing successful attacks and guerilla war campaigns against more Roman Egyptian towns in 24/23 BC led this time to Kushite forces taking Roman prisoners and Egyptian victims to sell in slavery while looting more precious Roman items. Rumors of the time mentioned her feeding Roman prisoners of war to her pet lions.

The Romans vastly underestimated this Nile Queen who refused to surrender no matter the cost of an extended campaign with Rome. The Queen managed to assemble another large Kushite army in 22 BC to attack more garrison towns in Roman Egypt, so forcing the Roman Prefect Publius Petronius to assemble more legionnaires while rushing back to quickly upgrade the border defenses of Qasr Ibrim (Pedeme). The Romans were surrounded, but the armies of Kush were unable to make any frontal attacks due to the strategically placed Roman ballistae (bolt/stone throwers). The large Kushite army made it as far as the island of Elephantine before the Romans having had enough decided it was time for an alternative to the conflict. Finally, in 22 BC the Romans unable to prolong a very costly war deep in Kushite territory, and with no solution in sight for either side winning the war a decision was made for diplomatic talks.

According to Strabo, The Geography, Book XVII “Meantime Candace marched against the garrison with many thousands of men, but Petronius set out to its assistance and arrived at the fortress first; and when he had made the place thoroughly secure by sundry devices, ambassadors came, but he bade them go to Caesar; and when they asserted that they did not know who Caesar was or where they should have to go to find him, he gave them escorts; and they went to Samos, since Caesar was there and intended to proceed to Syria from there, after despatching Tiberius to Armenia. And when the ambassadors had obtained everything they pled for, he even remitted the tributes which he had imposed.”

Conclusion

A peace treaty was signed in 22/21 BC by emissaries sent by the Meroitic Queen Amanirenas, the Roman Prefect Petronius, and Emperor Augustus of the Roman Empire at Samos that recognized the Kingdom of Kush as a regional power. The benefits for the Kushites were full exemption from taxes, and having the Kingdom of Kush as an ally in the form of a client state. The benefits for the Romans were an end to a war that threatened their Egyptian supply of grain, a powerful kingdom as a buffer to hold back the nomadic raiders which threatened both powers in the region, and the return of some statues and other looted items back to Rome. The treaty made an agreement for the occupation of the Dodekashoinos (Twelve Cities) region by Rome between the 1st and 2nd Cataracts of the Nile River in Kush becoming the border zone between the Kingdom of Kush and Roman Egypt creating a new DMZ.

The relations after the treaty proved favorable for each side more so for the Kingdom of Kush leading to mutual cooperation for the duration of the Kingdom of Kush’s existence as a recognized power in the Sudan region. So much so, that a future Queen of the Kingdom of Kush, Queen Amanikhatashan of Meroe (ruler of the Kingdom of Kush 62-85 AD), was said to have sent her Kushite cavalry in 70 AD to assist the future Roman Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasianus when he was a general commanding Roman legions during the Jewish Revolt against Rome in Judea.

One could only imagine what could have occurred if Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt and Queen Amanirenas of Kush had been given the opportunity to form a treaty and work together in hopes of protecting both of their kingdoms in northeast Africa from Roman domination. Unfortunately it would seem Queen Cleopatra VII had higher aspirations and in the end chose the wrong ally in Mark Antony. Queen Amanirenas of Kush relied on her leadership and military strategy, the will of her people to resist Rome, costly revolts around the Roman Empire depleting manpower for long term conflicts to fight deep in Kushite territory, and the benefit of her kingdom’s location in Sudan. The Kingdom of Kush would survive with Meroe as the capital until the middle of the 4th century AD (circa 350 AD) when it was invaded and destroyed by the growing Axumite Empire under the rule of King Ezana that emerged from Ethiopia.

What do think of the war between the Kush Kingdom and Rome? Let us know below.

References

National Geographic Society Magazine (1981) Splendors of the Past: Lost Cities of the Ancient World,  pages 171-173

Strabo, Jones, H.L., Sterrett, R.S. (2018) Strabo: The Geography in Two Volumes, Volume II. Books IX ch.3 – XVII. (ed. By Giles Lauren) Sophron Editor.

New York Public Library Digital Collections: Aethiopen. Naga [Naqa]. Tempel a. Vorderseite des Pylons. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. p. 186

Wikipedia Website (2010) Map of Ancient Egypt, showing the Nile up to the fifth cataract, and major cities and sites of the Dynastic period (c. 3150 BC to 30 BC). Jerusalem is shown as reference cities. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Petronius

Three Times Russia was Invaded in History

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and the conflict continues to this day, with many commentators predicting it will last well into 2024 and maybe even beyond that. But Russia has been involved in a number of invasions of its territory - here, Michael Thomas Leibrandt looks at 3 times that Russia was invaded in history.

Napoleon's retreat from Moscow by Adolph Northen, painting from 1851.

The Ukrainian counter-offensive against the Russian military continues. Last month, the Ukranian military launched a counter strike in the Zaporizhzhia region.

The counter-offensive is in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine which began with a Russian invasion. On February 24, 2022, Russian forces supported by tanks began an invasion of Ukraine from northeastern, southeastern, and southern fronts. Underestimating the resolve of the Ukrainian people, the support of the western powers, and major military tactical mistakes all had effectively stalled the Russian invasion.

Russia has a long history of repelling invaders themselves.

Invasions of Russia

Genghis Khan had long planned to invade Russia before he ordered his grandson, Batu Khan to make it a reality. In the late months of 1236 AD, Khan led approximately 40,000 mounted archers across the Volga Bulgaria and conquered Kievan Rus.

By the end of 1241 AD, the Mongols had conquered almost all Russian cities, including Kiev. The Mongol army was adept at withstanding the Russian winter conditions, and only supply issues prevented them from conquering all of Russian territories at that time.

The Mongols who settled in Russia became known as the Golden Horde and ruled for almost 250 years. The Mongol invasion led to the construction of mighty stone castles all over Russia, many of which still stand today.

In 1380 AD at the Battle of Kulikovo, the Russian army defeated the Mongol Horde. The victory led to the expulsion of the Mongols in Russia. Over time, Russia would reclaim territory controlled by the Mongol Golden Horde.

But Khan was not the only famous invader of Russia.

French invasion

On June 24, 1812 and leading the largest invasion force that Europe had ever seen, Napoleon Bonaparte (Emporer of France and the Master of Europe) crossed the Nieman River into Russia with nearly 600,000 men.

Over the course of the next six months, Russian forces baited the massive invading army into a war of attrition. After capturing a deserted Moscow, Napoleon’s army would suffer horribly during a retreat that exposed his troops to supply shortages, severe winter weather conditions, and calculated guerrilla tactics by Russian Cossacks.

Of the original invading force, 380,000 of Napoleon’s troops would perish before the last of the his army crossed the Berezina River into French territory and burned the bridges behind them on November 28th. Invading Russia was the beginning of the end for the man who conquered almost all of Europe. In October of 1813 in Germany at the Battle of Leipzig, Napoleon suffered a defeat by a coalition army that included Russian forces.

World War II

One hundred and twenty-nine years later on June 22, 1941 nearly 4,000,000 troops from Germany and its allies under Operation Barbarossa began their attack on Russia around the Caspian Sea. Just like in 1812, it was the largest invasion force that Europe had ever seen including over 7,000 artillery pieces, 2,500 aircraft, and around 3,000 tanks.

Culminating in February 1943 and the Russian victory at the Battle of Stalingrad, Operation Barbarossa suffered through multiple brutal winters, was rife with logistical problems, and a failed vision of a short campaign without clear and attainable capitulation.

All very similar oversights that Emporer Napoleon would make a century earlier.

And like the French retreat in freezing temperatures in 1812, the surviving German soldiers who had not surrendered to the Red Army, killed, or captured, were pushed back across the Dneiper River in 1943 and eventually into Prussia and Germany. The Russian Red Army would take Berlin in May 1945.

Of the three major world powers that have invaded Russia since 1236 AD, all have eventually been repelled. Germany and Napoleonic France were forced into eventual capitulation in part by Russian forces.

Russia’s vast history will loom large as their military prepares for defense against Ukrainian forces. They have only to look at their own ancient, defensive stone castles built centuries ago when Russia needed to defend itself, much like Ukraine.

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

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington, PA.

The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: A History

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 had huge impacts on the city. The earthquake measured 7.9, with over 3,000 lives lost and some 80% of the city destroyed. Richard Bluttal explains.

Fire in San Francisco following the 1906 earthquake.

At the turn of the twentieth century, San Francisco’s most striking physical feature was the great multitude of boats and ships crowded along the city’s waterfront and extending far into San Francisco Bay. Communication, transportation, and above all trade and commerce had been the key ingredients in transforming barren, wind-swept hills and sand dunes into a bustling metropolis.

The newspaper correspondent Jack London was relaxing in his home when word was delivered to him from his employer Colliers Magazine. He was requested to go to the scene of the disaster and write the story of what he saw. London started at once, he sent the dramatic description of the tragic events he witnessed in the burning city.

“The earthquake shook down in San Francisco hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of walls and chimneys. But the conflagration that followed burned up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of property  There is no estimating within hundreds of millions the actual damage wrought. Not in history has a modern imperial city been so completely destroyed. San Francisco is gone. Nothing remains of it but memories and a fringe of dwelling-houses on its outskirts. Its industrial section is wiped out. Its business section is wiped out. Its social and residential section is wiped out. The factories and warehouses, the great stores and newspaper buildings, the hotels and the palaces of the nabobs, are all gone. Remains only the fringe of dwelling houses on the outskirts of what was once San Francisco.

Smoke

Within an hour after the earthquake shock the smoke of San Francisco's burning was a lurid tower visible a hundred miles away. And for three days and nights this lurid tower swayed in the sky, reddening the sun, darkening the day, and filling the land with smoke. “

On Wednesday morning at a quarter past five came the earthquake. A minute later the flames were leaping upward in a dozen different quarters south of Market Street, in the working-class ghetto, and in the factories, fires started. There was no opposing the flames. There was no organization, no communication. All the cunning adjustments of a twentieth century city had been smashed by the earthquake. The streets were humped into ridges and depressions and piled with the debris of fallen walls. The steel rails were twisted into perpendicular and horizontal angles. The telephone and telegraph systems were disrupted. And the great water mains had burst. All the shrewd contrivances and safeguards of man had been thrown out of gear by thirty seconds' twitching of the earth-crust….”  

George Bernard Musson, captain of the S.S. Henley, a British steamer was at port in San Francisco at the time of earthquake. The ship served as a floating refugee camp for many displaced by the earthquake and subsequent fires that engulfed the city. He wrote this letter to his mother on April 21, 1906, three days after the quake.

          “My dearest Mother,

...If you picture the scenes described and imagine the horrors a thousand times greater you will still know less than I have personally witnessed. The shock threw me from side to side in my bed and I thought our engines were blown up until I reached the deck and even in that short space of time smoke was breaking out from 100 places in the town and of course all water conduits were destroyed so that little could be done to save the city from the terrific sea of flames which swept and roared from block to block....

This is the most hideous catastrophe that has ever happened to any city and thousands still be buried beneath the smoldering ruins. I have got a large number of homeless people aboard and the tales of woe are fit to break any human heart….

One sweet old lady onboard saved only her umbrella and a cage of pet canaries together with the clothes she wears. Others have nothing but what they had time to put on, motherless children and childless women are here, the old and aged and young are all here, high born and low are all one class and I shame to say it, but the women are more cheerful in all their grief than the men....

I have been condensing day and night and have supplied tens of thousands with water to drink. Fancy people walking miles and miles through blazing streets to get a drink of water and a bite to eat....

Oh, the brave deeds will never be all known and neither will the despicable nature of others. Justice is swift and sure now and all are shot down on sight who refuse to work when called upon, or thieves, or for molesting women.

From Poor Old Burns. “

5:12 a.m. April 18, 1906

At almost precisely 5:12 a.m., local time, a foreshock occurred with sufficient force to be felt widely throughout the San Francisco Bay area. The great earthquake broke loose some 20 to 25 seconds later, with an epicenter near San Francisco. Violent shocks punctuated the strong shaking which lasted some 45 to 60 seconds. The earthquake was felt from southern Oregon to south of Los Angeles and inland as far as central Nevada. The highest Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI's) of VII to IX paralleled the length of the rupture, extending as far as 80 kilometers inland from the fault trace. One important characteristic of the shaking intensity noted in Lawson's (1908) report was the clear correlation of intensity with underlying geologic conditions. Areas situated in sediment-filled valleys sustained stronger shaking than nearby bedrock sites, and the strongest shaking occurred in areas where ground reclaimed from San Francisco Bay failed in the earthquake.

Duration: 45 to 60 seconds -Fault: The San Andreas Fault – earthquake Damage Cost: more than $400 million in 1906 dollars –  Strength: 7.9-8.3

The shock was violent in the region about the Bay of San Francisco, and with few exceptions inspired all who felt it with alarm and consternation. In the cities many people were injured or killed, and in some cases persons became mentally deranged, as a result of the disasters which immediately ensued from the commotion of the earth. The manifestations of the earthquake were numerous and varied. It resulted in the general awakening of all people asleep, and many were thrown from their beds. In the zone of maximum disturbance persons who were awake and attending to their affairs were in many cases thrown to the ground. Many persons heard rumbling sounds immediately before feeling the shock. Some who were in the fields report having seen the violent swaying of trees so that their top branches seemed to touch the ground, and others saw the passage of undulations of the soil. Several cases are reported in which people suffered from nausea as a result of the swaying of the ground. Many cattle were thrown to the ground, and in some instances horses with riders in the saddle were similarly thrown.

In the inanimate world the most common and characteristic effects were the rattling of windows, the swaying of doors, and the rocking and shaking of houses. Pendant fixtures were caused to swing back and forth or in more or less elliptical orbits. Pendulum clocks stopped. Furniture and other loose objects in rooms were suddenly displaced. Brick chimneys fell very generally. Buildings were in many instances partially or completely wrecked; others were shifted on their foundations without being otherwise seriously damaged. Many water tanks were thrown to the ground. Springs were affected either temporarily or permanently, some being diminished, others increased in flow. Landslides were caused on steep slopes, and on the bottom lands of the streams the soft aluminum  was in many places caused to crack and to lurch, producing often very considerable deformations of the surface. This deformation of the soil was an important cause of damage and wreckage of buildings situated in such tracts. Railway tracks were buckled and broken. In timbered areas in the zone of maximum disturbance many large trees were thrown to the ground and in some cases, they were snapped off above the ground.

Cause of the Earthquake

The 1906 earthquake preceded the development of the Richter magnitude by three decades. The most widely accepted estimate for the magnitude of the quake on the modern moment magnitude scale  is 7.9; values from 7.7 to as high as 8.3 have been proposed. According to findings published in the  Journal of Geophysical Research, severe deformations in the Earth’s crust took place both before and after the earthquake’s impact. Accumulated strain on the faults in the system was relieved during the earthquake, which is the supposed cause of the damage along the 280-mile-long (450 km) segment of the San Andreas plate boundary. The 1906 rupture propagated both northward and southward for a total of 296 miles (476 km). Shaking was felt from Oregon to Los Angeles, and as far inland as central Nevada.

The only aftershock in the first few days of near M 5 or greater occurred near Santa Cruz at 14:28 PST on April 18, with a magnitude of about 4.9 M. The largest aftershock happened at 01:10 PST on April 23, west of Eureka with an estimated magnitude of about 6.7 MI , with another of the same size more than three years later at 22:45 PST on October 28 near Cape Mendocino.

Remotely triggered events included an earthquake swarm in the Imperial Valley area, which culminated in an earthquake of about 6.1 MI  at 16:30 PST on April 18, 1906. Another event of this type occurred at 12:31 PST on April 19, 1906, with an estimated magnitude of about 5.0 MI , and an epicenter beneath Santa Monica Bay.

The Structural and Human Damage

The massive earthquake that struck San Francisco on April 18, 1906, destroyed hundreds of buildings in a little over a minute. When the shaking stopped, most of the city was intact, though damaged. That would soon change as one of history’s greatest urban firestorms swept over San Francisco. In the course of three days, 28,188 buildings burned. Virtually all of these buildings were totally destroyed. Nearly 25,000 wood buildings burned to the ground. Fire gutted the interiors of brick buildings. Many of these buildings collapsed completely. Others were reduced to burned-out shells. Although a great many brick buildings came through the earthquake relatively unscathed, losing perhaps cornices or parts of their facades, when fire burned through their floors and internal framing, their walls fractured and fell. Only the most stoutly constructed brick buildings remained structurally intact. Some of the city’s steel-frame and supposedly fireproof buildings also succumbed to the fire. They suffered severe structural damage as under-fireproofed steel buckled and deformed in the intense heat. When the fire finally burned itself out, the commercial, financial, and residential core of the West Coast’s leading city was in ruins.

The earthquake and fires killed an estimated 3,000 people and left half of the city's 400,000 residents homeless.

The earthquake and fire hit the poorest San Franciscans the hardest. On the eve of the quake, the poorest workers lived in old, run-down boarding houses and apartments. Employment was scarce and poorly paid. Working families, especially those living in the south of Market Street neighborhood, often stretched their incomes by taking borders into their already crowded homes. The flimsy construction of these neighborhoods guaranteed their destruction by the quake and fire. With most housing burnt to the ground, rents immediately soared 350%, and in 1910 were still 71% higher than pre-fire rates. Women faced especially severe problems, as their manufacturing and service employments disappeared along with the income they had received for cooking, cleaning, and laundering for lodgers. Asian San Franciscans faced additional barriers to survival. In the weeks following the disaster, Chinese refugees remained segregated and were relocated four times by city and military officials in response to whites who refused to share space with the much-despised Asians. Although ultimately unsuccessful in their efforts, city developers seized upon the destruction of Chinatown, located on some of the most valuable property in the city, as the perfect solution to ridding the city of Asians once and for all. Asian San Franciscans were totally excluded from official relief efforts.

Although the impact of the earthquake on San Francisco was the most famous, the earthquake also inflicted considerable damage on several other cities. These include San Jose and Santa Rosa, the entire downtown of which was essentially destroyed.

The Cleanup

Despite its utter devastation, San Francisco quickly recovered thanks to the help of some mighty machinery. Considered modern technology at the time, steam-powered equipment helped clean up the mess caused by the quake. Large Holt and Best steam tractors helped clear the immense amount of rubble, in an effort to help people and businesses reclaim what was lost. The use of these machines, in its own small way, led to the rebirth of San Francisco.

The survivors slept in tents in city parks and the Presidio, stood in long lines for food, and were required to do their cooking in the street to minimize the threat of additional fires. On April 19th, Lieutenant Colonel George H. Torney, commanding officer of the Presidio’s Army General Hospital, telegrammed Washington, D.C. with the alarming news, “Medical Supply Depot was destroyed totally.” He requested immediate shipment of first aid supplies. The Army General Hospital fared better than those in the city and opened its doors to civilians. An Army Field Hospital sent from the East and 26 medical dispensaries also provided free medical care to thousands of civilians throughout the city. Based on the army's experience in the 1906 disaster, clear and formal policies were developed regarding civil relief and the Army's relationship with the Red Cross was formally defined. Food donations began arriving in San Francisco almost immediately. However, prohibitions against fires forbade people from cooking.

By April 23rd, less than one week after the earthquake, the Citizen's Relief Committee was overcome by the food distribution efforts and the mayor asked the army to take over. General Greely, now back in San Francisco, initially refused Mayor Schmitz's request to manage food distribution. It was only after prodding by members of the Committee of Fifty that Greely agreed to set up nine food depots. Each civilian was fed the equivalent of three-quarters of an Army enlisted man's rations. On April 30th more than 300,000 people were fed at these commissary food stations. The Army commissary later assisted in organizing and opening relief restaurants.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, an estimated 75,000 citizens simply left San Francisco. The remaining homeless population of 250,000 established makeshift camps in park areas and amidst the burnt-out ruins of city buildings. As fires burned across the eastern side of the city, refugees migrated west towards Golden Gate Park and the Presidio seeking food and shelter. Eventually, the Army would house 20,000 refugees in military-style tent camps—including 16,000 at the Presidio.

Soon, the refugee camps became small and highly organized tent towns, where, according to some reports, "The people are well cared for and are taking things as happily and philosophically as if they were out on a summer's camping trip." Despite their recent hardships, refugees in the camps quickly established routines of regular life. Children formed playgroups in the camps and dining halls became a center of social gatherings. These camps emptied as the city was rebuilt. The Presidio camps were dismantled first, closing in June 1906.

Immediately following the 1906 disaster, risks to public health were very real. The lack of clean water supplies, the broken sewage system, and accumulating garbage and debris led to high rates of typhoid and smallpox. To avoid a panic that could harm relief efforts, health officials dealt with the problem of disease discreetly. Those disease outbreaks were controlled by late 1906.

Response and Aftermath

Almost immediately after the quake (and even during the disaster), planning and reconstruction plans were hatched to quickly rebuild the city. Rebuilding funds were immediately tied up by the fact that virtually all the major banks had been sites of the conflagration, requiring a lengthy wait of seven to ten days before their fire-proof vaults could cool sufficiently to be safely opened. The Bank of Italy (now Bank of America) had evacuated its funds and was able to provide liquidity in the immediate aftermath. Its president also immediately chartered and financed the sending of two ships to return with shiploads of lumber from Washington and Oregon mills which provided the initial reconstruction materials and surge. During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil  and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the The Bank of Candad in Ottawa gave $25,000. The U.S. government quickly voted for one million dollars in relief supplies which were immediately rushed to the area, including supplies for food kitchens and many thousands of tents that city dwellers would occupy the next several years.

Congress responded to the disaster in several ways. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committees enacted emergency appropriations for the city to pay for food, water, tents, blankets, and medical supplies in the weeks following the earthquake and fire. They also appropriated funds to reconstruct many of the public buildings that were damaged or destroyed.

Other congressional responses included the House Claims Committee handling claims from owners seeking reimbursement for destroyed property. For example, the committee received claims from the owners of several saloons and liquor stores, whose supplies of alcoholic spirits were destroyed by law enforcement officers trying to minimize the spread of fires and threat of mob violence. In the days following the earthquake, officials destroyed an estimated $30,000 worth of intoxicating liquors.

Conclusion

The earthquake, despite its tragic destruction, birthed our modern understanding of earthquakes in the United States. Extensive research in the aftermath of the 1906 earthquake led to the formulation of the elastic-rebound theory related to earthquake source by Reid (1910). With the theory of plate tectonics coming more than 50 years after the earthquake, it’s appropriate to say this event helped to motivate and develop a better understanding of how such earthquakes come about.

A commission of over 25 geologists, seismologists, and other scientists worked to provide The Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, published in May of 1906, with a subsequent report published by Lawson in 1908. The 1908 publication is widely believed to be the most extensive and influential single earthquake reports.

Do you have any thoughts in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? If so, let us know below.

Now read Richard’s article on the role of baseball in the US Civil War here.

The Thunder of Silence: Oklahoma City Bombing

In April 1995 a shocking event took place in Oklahoma City. Here, Jennifer Dawson looks at the Oklahoma City Bombing and what happened in the years after.

The aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing in April 1995.

Imagine your typical Wednesday morning. The sky is clear, the city's hustling, and it feels like any other day. Then, at exactly 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, the clock stops. A massive boom echoes, like a terrifying thunder clap in the heart of downtown Oklahoma City. The nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building shatters into a thousand pieces.

From Normalcy to Nightmare

On this grim day, a truck packed with explosives erupted in front of the building, ripping off its entire north wall. It wasn’t special-effects magic for a movie scene; it was painfully real. The terrifying blast caused a domino effect, damaging and destroying more than 300 buildings in the vicinity. The echo of the blast was not just heard--no--it was felt, reshaping the lives of countless individuals.

Race Against Time

Later that day, and for the agonizing two weeks that ensued, emergency crews from all over the United States swarmed to Oklahoma City; a unified mission to search, rescue and heal tightly wrapped around their hearts. When the dust finally settled, the catastrophic toll was horrific--168 people tragically lost their lives in the blast. Among the victims, 19 were young, innocent children, a day care center their final playground.

Legal Aid Arrived 

Amidst the cardiac trauma, physical injuries weighed heavily on survivors. More than 650 people endured the searing agony of burns and injuries; the scars etched on their bodies a permanent reminder of the nightmare. This isn't just important, it’s crucial to know that in this sea of chaos, the Oklahoma City Burn Injury Attorneys emerged as unsung heroes. They fought tooth and nail for survivors and families affected, against the negligence that led to such life-altering burn injuries.

Journey of Justice: From the Boom to the Gavel

Fast forward to 1997; Timothy McVeigh stands trial, with a storm of 11 counts brewing against him. A gauntlet of charges for the mastermind behind the heinous act, the darkest day of '95. On June 2, the ax fell – guilty on all accounts, and by August 14, the bell tolled for McVeigh as the death penalty was formally imposed. A chilling message echoed through the courtroom: justice isn't just served, it's etched into history.

The Silent Spectator

When the dust settled, another player emerged from the shadows: Fortier, an Army buddy of McVeigh. His crime? Spectating the gruesome plan from the sidelines, never once warning the boys in blue. By 1998, Fortier was sporting a not-so-fashionable jumper, sentenced to 12 years behind bars. He walked out a free man in 2007, slipping into the shroud of the witness protection program – a Phantom of the Oklahoma Opera.

Nichols: From Conspiracy to Convictions 

Meanwhile, Terry Nichols waited for his moment in the spotlight. December 1997, guilty as charged on one count of conspiracy and eight counts of involuntary manslaughter. Nichols, however, was not done with the courtroom battles. A 2004 state trial ended with him facing a mountain of convictions – 161 counts of first-degree murder, including fetal homicides. He was handed down a lifetime behind bars – well, 161 to be precise.

McVeigh's Final Bow

Backstage, McVeigh had his own finale planned. In December 2000, he requested termination of all appeals of his convictions and an execution date. The federal judge granted this final act, and on June 11, 2001, McVeigh exited the world's stage via lethal injection. He was the first federal prisoner to be executed since 1963 – a fitting end to the puppet master of terror.

The Phoenix from the Ashes

The demolished Murrah Building became a silent witness to the dark chapter of '95. In its place now stands the Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum – a beacon of hope, resilience and testament to the indomitable spirit of Oklahomans.

Let us know your thoughts below.

When did the First World War Really End?

The very question as to when the First World War ended may appear an unnecessary question as the accepted date as November 1918 is firmly imprinted on our memories in those nations that gather for Remembrance Sunday to observe a respectful two-minute silence. However, the intention is not to rewrite history or challenge historians. When we examine other factors in some more detail the answer may not be so definitive. There may be alternative dates that can stretch the timeline as to when the Great war finally was concluded.

Steve Prout explains.

The so-called ‘Big Four’ at the Paris Peace Conference, May 27, 1919. Left to right: Prime Minister David Lloyd George (Great Britain), Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (Italy), Premier Georges Clemenceau (France), President Woodrow Wilson (USA).

Continuing battles

The armistice of November 1918 did not bring the fighting to an immediate end. It continued for limited periods elsewhere around the world and in isolated pockets in Europe. The First World War in terms of battles and bloodshed was mainly fought on European soil, but it did extend because of colonial extension on a more limited scale in the Pacific, Middle East, and Africa. The African theatre continued days after the November armistice. A typical telegram sent to east Africa from Europe could take up to a full day to arrive before it could be actioned upon, and this was what exactly happened in German East Africa.

The allies had anticipated that there would be delays and therefore in advance of the armistice, on 10 November, the British General Staff sent a telegram to east Africa asking them for the quickest way to get a message to Von Lettow-Vorbeck, the commanding officer of the German colonial army. He was an exceptional German officer who had been successfully fighting and evading the Allies for four years. Vorbeck had his forces scattered over the vast territories of German East Africa and so reaching him and co-ordinating a truce would be a logistical challenge. On November 12, the day after the armistice, the two sides clashed again, and on that day Von Lettow-Vorbeck only received the telegram that the war had now ended after the battle. The two sides declared a truce, and Von Lettow-Vorbeck formally surrendered at Abercorn, Zambia on November 25, 1918, therefore extending the accepted end date by two weeks.

The Peace Treaties

An armistice is only a ceasefire and only a when a treaty is signed with the conditions determined can war be formally concluded - at least formally. Another interesting angle is to consider the dates and the timelines that these actual treaties were signed. Treaties for multiple participants and belligerents take time to finalize. The debates and negotiations for some of these treaties stretched into the early 1920s.

The treaties for the remainder of the Central Powers such as Bulgaria, Austria and Turkey were concluded long after November 1918 - and in fact the very last treaty was signed in 1923 extending diplomatically at least World War One by a further five years. Once Versailles set its uneasy peace with Germany in 1919 the rest of the Central Powers needed to be reckoned with. The order ran as follows: Austria was addressed at St. Germain-En-Laye in September 1919 and in November 1919 at Neuilly Bulgaria followed suit. In June 1920, a treaty was set with Hungary in Trianon and the first of two treaties with Turkey followed in August of that year in Sevres. It would not be until July 1923 at Lausanne that the Turkish matter would be finally settled and with that finally bringing the war to its diplomatic and formal conclusion.

The peculiarities continue because in the case of Costa Rica, who declared war on Germany, a peace agreement for the First World War was not signed until 1945 due to a diplomatic oversight. It is interesting how many of our past wars are technically continuing in forgotten diplomatic archives.

Demobilisation and preparing for war?

The announcement of the armistice did not bring a settling feeling to post war Europe. Underlying tensions still existed and in the forefront of the allies minds there was a prospect of the war being resumed. Although the German Army was at the point of exhaustion in November 1918 it had not actually been decisively beaten. There was only a tentative ceasefire in place until peace terms could be settled. The demobilization of British, colonial, and imperial troops did not finish until 1920 so in a sense a war footing was maintained. This was much longer than service members had anticipated and was not welcomed by many, causing mutiny in some instances. They did realize they might be called upon to fight again but fortunately the hostilities did not resume.

However, it was not just the fear of a return to arms in Europe that delayed demobilization. There were huge challenges like transporting millions of dominion troops home. There was the immense administrative burden on a scale never seen before that contributed to the enormity of the task. Events abroad also influenced the issue as Britain and France required a military presence to maintain order in their wider Empires, especially for Britain in the Middle East and Ireland where dissent was growing and needed containing. There was also the question of Russia and the fear of the spread of Bolshevism from Lenin’s revolutionary fervour. The fear was so great that a combined allied force from Britain, Commonwealth, US, Italy, France, and Japan were deployed between 1919 and 1920 in strategic areas of Russia in what is known as the War of Intervention. Interestingly the armistice agreement also included the requirement for German troops to remain in the Baltics to also assist and contain the Bolshevik spread. Europe was still not free from the effects and uncertainties of the war and Poland would soon join the fight against Russia in a grab for territory. Old allies and adversaries were still fighting in various limited forms.

Conclusion

The post war settlements were far from being settling and they planted the seeds for future wars as the likes of Germany, Poland, Hungary, and other newly formed states would be dissatisfied with their new borders. This was also suspected and known by the participants of the time. Some diplomats such as Smuts, and preceptive journalists and intellectuals like John Maynard Keynes could almost predict this happening. Perhaps the best example was as the famous illustration by William Orpen who produced the famous cartoon depicting a child crying at the prospect of a war within twenty years of the 1919 Versailles Treaty.

In answer to our question as to when World War One ended symbolically it will always remain with November 1918 when the general desire for peace brought about in the main a cessation of hostilities - but if we want to be technical we can stretch that date anywhere between 1918 and 1923 (although there are also unreconciled declarations of war sat lost in diplomatic archives). The case of Costa Rica signing her treaty in 1945 brings forth an interesting point as to how many other conflicts sit in a similar state of limbo? Are there any nations still technically at war since 1918 with the central powers due to diplomatic oversight? This is certainly true of modern times. Citing a study of war, Quincy Wright observed that from the end of World War Two up to 1970 (when the actual study was conducted) that over thirty-four conflicts just ended with an armistice or ceasefire and not by formal treaty. It makes an interesting trip into the annals of our accepted history - and perhaps history is not as absolute as we imagine.

When do you think the Great War ended? Let us know below.

Now read about Britain’s relationship with the European dictators during the inter-war years here.

Sources

AJP Taylor - English History 1914-45 and Origins of The Second World War

British policy and Bulgaria, 1918-1919. Treanor, Patrick Joseph; (1999) British policy and Bulgaria, 1918-1919. Doctoral thesis (Ph.D.), University College London. 

Europe of The Dictators 1919-1945 -Elizabeth Wiskeman- Collins 1966

Chronicles of Twentieth Century – 1987 - Longman

The Maryland Campaign of 1862 in the U.S. Civil War

The Maryland Campaign was the first invasion of Union territory by General Robert E Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. The Eastern Theater in 1862 had gone very well for the Confederacy. Southern leadership hoped that a victory on northern soil would provide unassailable proof that their new nation was solid and strong, perhaps bringing Great Britain in to mediate a peace agreement.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Abraham Lincoln and George McClellan at Antietam, Maryland, October 3, 1862.

Consequences of Second Manassas

The Confederate victory at Second Manassas August 28-30, 1862 followed victories in The Valley Campaign and the Peninsula. The casualties incurred by the Army of the Potomac included 14,000 killed or wounded of 62,000 engaged, compared to about half of that for the Army of Northern Virginia. Then on September 1, Stonewall Jackson defeated a Union cohort retreating from the battlefield, resulting in the deaths of 2 iconic Union generals. The Battle of Chantilly further supported the notion that the Confederate was invincible.

General Pope was relieved of command and sent to Minnesota, never to be heard from again. A subordinate would state about Pope, “I dare not trust myself to speak of this commander [Pope] as I feel and believe. Suffice to say ... that more insolence, superciliousness, ignorance, and pretentiousness were never combined in one man.” Pope would blame Fitz-John Porter for the loss, even though that wasn’t the case; Porter would be heard from again at Antietam but his career would be destroyed soon after.

It would be hard to imagine what President Lincoln was going through at that moment. After a year plus of fighting, none of his generals had ever defeated the Rebels in the eastern theater, although General Halleck had done well enough in the west, thanks in large part to a crazy general named Sherman and a drunken one named Grant. The backbiting in the army was at full swing, the blockade was having only a moderate effect, and his diplomat to Britain, Charles Francis Adams, was afraid that PM Gladstone would force negotiations to end the conflict. The soldiers who had been enlisted for one year were now done unless they wanted to re-enlist. Casualties were high and there was a pervasive sense of incompetence at the top of the military leadership.

And even worse, General Lee was rumored to have crossed the Potomac on September 3rd. The United States was being invaded, the Union army had no commander, and the national mid-term elections were coming up in 2 months. President Lincoln had a serious crisis on his hands, perhaps the most serious threat to the United States in our history.

General George McClellan

Following the Peninsula Campaign, Lincoln had fired McClellan for his incompetence as a general and his arrogant attitude. But now, 6 months later, Lincoln grudgingly called McClellan back into action in defense of Washington. Lincoln felt compelled to take this step because McClellan had the confidence of the soldiers. In the early stages of his command, McClellan was able to build up the Union army into a more powerful unit than the Confederacy had faced at Bull Run. He was really a brilliant administrator and he had amassed a well trained and supplied army, had planned a clever strategy to take Richmond, and his army greatly admired him. Despite these organizational successes, his apparent slowness, almost an unwillingness, to fight a battle slowed the war beyond what Lincoln could politically accept.

His repeated unforced retreats in the Peninsula led to a lack of confidence. But now, Lincoln needed a general to meet an imminent threat and he went back to McClellan. McClellan was very popular among the soldiers and the military. The parallels are really very interesting with the one at the onset of the Gettysburg campaign, when Hooker was dismissed on the eve of battle during an invasion after a large loss in Virginia.

It is believed that McClellan purposely withheld his men from helping Pope at Second Manassas.  In late August, two full corps of the Army of the Potomac had arrived in Alexandria, but McClellan would not allow them to advance to Manassas because of what he considered inadequate artillery, cavalry, and transportation support. He was accused by his political opponents of deliberately undermining Pope's position. But he is especially criticized by historians for his letter to his wife on August 10, "Pope will be badly thrashed within two days & ... they will be very glad to turn over the redemption of their affairs to me. I won't undertake it unless I have full & entire control." He told Abraham Lincoln on August 29 that it might be wise "to leave Pope to get out of his scrape, and at once use all our means to make the capital perfectly safe.”

After his severe defeat, Pope was relieved of command, McClellan reinstated. Lee’s invasion of Maryland and the Battle of Antietam occurred just 3 weeks later.

General Lee

After Second Manassas, General Lee enjoyed widespread popular acclaim and the confidence of the president and his cabinet. He had turned every battle into a victory, defeating two union commanders in just a few months. While supplies and armaments were in short supply, at this stage they seemed adequate.  It was a propitious moment to plan an invasion of the north. But with autumn coming, and the events it would bring, Lee had to move quickly and efficiently.

He had two excellent Corps Commanders in Longstreet and Jackson. His division commanders were also terrific, but their spirit was high, and their personalities clashed with their superiors. Still, success tends to dampen such disagreements.

Lee had these objectives with an invasion of the North:

• To move the focus of fighting away from the South and into Federal territory.

• Recruit in western Maryland and bring secession leaning citizens hope

• Achieve a military victory in the north,

• Perhaps could lead to the capture of the Federal capital in Washington, D.C.

• Confederate success could also influence impending Congressional elections in the North and

• Persuade European nations to recognize the Confederate States of America. 

This was the single moment in the war that Lee was truly in the ascendancy. Unlike the Gettysburg campaign 9 months later, which was a desperate move, this invasion made military and political sense. This likely was the real high water mark of the confederacy. Clearly Lee recognized that Stonewall Jackson thrived on independent action especially attack situations, and placed him in that position at Harpers Ferry. He also saw Longstreet as embodying the main army, as an attacking defender, and used him for that purpose in the campaign.

The Campaign Begins

Lee started off September 3 and crossed the Potomac at two fords west of Washington.  His army moved to Frederick, camping in a field 2 miles south of the town at Best’s Farm.

The idea for the invasion was well conceived. Although many modern day civil war enthusiasts consider this a terrible idea and suggest that the Confederacy should have stayed on defense, not fritter away their resources. Lee actually had a bold plan that few civil war buffs know about, in large part because it didn’t work. Lee's invasion of Maryland was intended to run simultaneously with an invasion of Kentucky by the armies of Braxton Bragg and Edmund Kirby Smith. Lee is typically criticized as lacking that kind of vision in coordinating attacks, as Grant for example had. But this is the case that proves that criticism wrong.

Fredrick, Maryland is centrally placed between Washington and Baltimore. The B& O RR set up a supply line to that town. It is also well located to Harper’s Ferry. And, it was the new capital of Maryland when it removed from Baltimore. It today is a very cute small town; the National Medical Civil War Museum is located there. This was appropriate, as the town was overfilled with the wounded after Antietam.

In September 1862, Confederate forces crossed the Potomac River at several places. Here are the main crossing points utilized by Lee's army prior to the Battle of Antietam:

• White's Ford: Located near Leesburg, Virginia, White's Ford was the major crossing point used by Lee's army as they entered Maryland (see drawing). They crossed the Potomac River here on September 4-6, 1862, and began their advance into Union territory.

• Cheek’s Ford: Upstream of White’s Ford, also was used by Confederate forces

• Noland's Ferry: Situated downstream from White's Ford, Noland's Ferry was another crossing point used by Lee's forces. They crossed the Potomac here on September 7-8, 1862, continuing their movement into Maryland.

Lee wanted to use Leesburg as his stepping off point to get to Frederick. The turnpike leading out of Snickers Gap goes to Leesburg, This turnpike was an old Indian trail that white settlers had widened and had become the main thoroughfare between the Shenandoah and Loudon County. Up to this point, Lee was using main roads for supply lines, which was clever strategically, as there were no railroads except as connected to Harper’s Ferry.

Lee was moving to attack Harpers Ferry, which is west of Frederick. He was not moving to advance on the big eastern cities. It is a fable that General Lee’s invasions had major cities as targets. His supply lines were too tenuous to try: he couldn’t have held them, in any case.

Harpers Ferry was a critical strategic point early in the war. It was the north-south crossroads from the Shenandoah Valley to Western Maryland, and the joining of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers. It contained a large arsenal and was a concentration for military manufacturers. All of these factors played key roles in why it was a crucial military goal. In fact, control of the town changed 8 times during the war, remaining in Union control for most of it.

Surrounded on three sides by steep heights, the terrain surrounding the town made it nearly impossible to defend; all one had to do with take the heights and shell the town until it surrendered. Stonewall Jackson once said he would rather “take the place 40 times than undertake to defend it once.”

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal were crucial supply lines connecting the east with the west, and they ran right through town. These assets were the real reasons why Harpers Ferry was so strategically important.  If you take Harpers Ferry the RR is cut in half and the east can’t get supplies to the west without a large detour. And most importantly, Lee could then use this town as his supply depot for further operations deeper into Maryland. In the Gettysburg campaign, Lee skipped this step and instead went further west, in order not to have to hold territory. This decision helped him speed up on the way to Gettysburg, but could have led to disaster on the retreat.

McClellan Takes Command

General McClellan assumed command of an army that was truly leaderless. When McClellan took charge of the Union forces on Sept. 1, he inherited four separate armies, thousands of untrained recruits and numerous other small commands that needed to be made ready in a hurry. To further complicate matters, three of his senior commanders had been ordered relieved of duty, charged with insubordination against Pope.

McClellan knew that Lee was in his northwest and moved, supposedly slowly, to that region. By the time he arrived in Frederick on September 13, Lee had been gone for 4 days. Classic histories portray McClellan's army as moving lethargically, averaging only 6 miles a day.

McClellan commanded in theory 28 cavalry regiments. But the disastrous Manassas campaign had worn out the horses of almost half the Union regiments, while most of the remainder were stranded at Hampton Roads by gale-force winds. For the first week of the campaign, McClellan could only count on perhaps 1,500 cavalry from two regiments and a few scattered squadrons from his old army to challenge some 5,000 Confederate cavalry soldiers screening Lee’s army.

In the week it took for Lee's army to march to Frederick, McClellan's army traveled an equal distance to redeploy on the north side of Washington. This was accomplished as he reshuffled commands, had his officers under charges reinstated and prepared to fill out his army with untrained recruits. Although he is rightly criticized for having “the slows”, criticisms of his aggressiveness in this campaign have not held up to in depth scholarship.

Special Order #191

Lee and the Confederate Army bivouacked on the Best Farm, about 2 miles south of Frederick, near the Monocacy River. This site would 2 years later be the location of the Battle of Monocacy but on September 9, 1862, the Union army was nowhere around. On the farm field showed in the photo, General Lee set up headquarters and had orders written that laid out the campaign plans for the next couple of weeks. Special Order #191 was written here, and couriers were directed to bring copies to the corps and crucial division leaders.

In Special Order #191, General Lee outlined the routes to be taken and the timing for the attack of Harpers Ferry. It provided specific details of the movements his army would take during the invasion of Maryland.

*****************************************************************************

“Special Orders, No. 191

Hdqrs. Army of Northern Virginia

September 9, 1862

The citizens of Fredericktown being unwilling while overrun by members of this army, to open their stores, to give them confidence, and to secure to officers and men purchasing supplies for benefit of this command, all officers and men of this army are strictly prohibited from visiting Fredericktown except on business, in which cases they will bear evidence of this in writing from division commanders. The provost marshal in Fredericktown will see that his guard rigidly enforces this order.

Major Taylor will proceed to Leesburg, Virginia, and arrange for transportation of the sick and those unable to walk to Winchester, securing the transportation of the country for this purpose. The route between this and Culpepper Court-House east of the mountains being unsafe, will no longer be traveled. Those on the way to this army already across the river will move up promptly; all others will proceed to Winchester collectively and under command of officers, at which point, being the general depot of this army, its movements will be known and instructions given by commanding officer regulating further movements.

The army will resume its march tomorrow, taking the Hagerstown road. General Jackson's command will form the advance, and, after passing Middletown, with such portion as he may select, take the route toward Sharpsburg, cross the Potomac at the most convenient point, and by Friday morning take possession of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, capture such of them as may be at Martinsburg, and intercept such as may attempt to escape from Harpers Ferry.

General Longstreet's command will pursue the same road as far as Boonsborough, where it will halt, with reserve, supply, and baggage trains of the army.

General McLaws, with his own division and that of General R. H. Anderson, will follow General Longstreet. On reaching Middletown will take the route to Harpers Ferry, and by Friday morning possess himself of the Maryland Heights and endeavor to capture the enemy at Harpers Ferry and vicinity.

General Walker, with his division, after accomplishing the object in which he is now engaged, will cross the Potomac at Cheek's Ford, ascend its right bank to Lovettsville, take possession of Loudoun Heights, if practicable, by Friday morning, Key's Ford on his left, and the road between the end of the mountain and the Potomac on his right. He will, as far as practicable, cooperate with General McLaws and Jackson, and intercept retreat of the enemy.

General D. H. Hill's division will form the rear guard of the army, pursuing the road taken by the main body. The reserve artillery, ordnance, and supply trains, &c., will precede General Hill.

General Stuart will detach a squadron of cavalry to accompany the commands of Generals Longstreet, Jackson, and McLaws, and, with the main body of the cavalry, will cover the route of the army, bringing up all stragglers that may have been left behind.

The commands of Generals Jackson, McLaws, and Walker, after accomplishing the objects for which they have been detached, will join the main body of the army at Boonsborough or Hagerstown.

Each regiment on the march will habitually carry its axes in the regimental ordnance—wagons, for use of the men at their encampments, to procure wood &c.

By command of General R. E. Lee

R.H. Chilton, Assistant Adjutant General”

*****************************************************************************

Lieutenant General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was to lead the advance and capture Harper’s Ferry. DH Hill was designated to guard the rear. General Longstreet was to encircle the towns and roads leading to Harpers Ferry. Jackson was to take Harpers Ferry while the rest of Lee's army was posted at Boonsboro under command of Maj. Gen. James Longstreet. Lee hoped that after taking Harper's Ferry to secure his rear, he could carry out an invasion of the Union, wrecking the Monocacy aqueduct, before turning his attention to Baltimore, Philadelphia, or Washington, D.C. itself. Unlike the Pennsylvania Campaign, Lee had a real plan. Lee did not expect to be attacked by McClellan at this vulnerable moment. He was hiding at Boonsboro precisely to keep McClellan guessing. He could not know that McClellan knew where he was.

The places where parts of the army were sent controlled the roads into and out of Harpers Ferry. Martinsburg holds the road across from Whites Ford. Boonsboro hold the road north of Harpers Ferry.  Once Lee’s various divisions were in place, Harpers Ferry was in essence surrounded.

Lieutenant Colonel Robert H. Chilton, Lee’s assistant adjutant general (chief of staff), wrote out 8 copies of the order, 1 to each of the generals named and 1 to President Davis. At the time that Special Order #191 was written, Hill was under the command of Jackson, his brother-in-law. Jackson personally copied the document for Hill, because once the army crossed into Maryland, the order specified that Hill was to exercise independent command as the rear guard. For this reason, Jackson copied and sent Hill the order because he didn’t know if Chilton had done so. But, since Special Order #191 conveyed Hill’s having an independent command once entering Maryland, Chilton had in fact sent Hill a copy. DH Hill received only the letter from General Jackson, and never received the copy written by Chilton. Since he had received his orders, no one was concerned that a copy had been lost.

Famously, the order was lost, and was found 4 days later by men under General Alpheus Williams.

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2022/02/24/who-lost-the-lost-order/

and later found by the Union army about a half mile north and east of this location.

https://www.rebellionresearch.com/special-order-191-ruse-of-war-part-1

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the-insignificance-of-special-order-191

When General McClellan came into the possession of Special Order #191, he had an accurate and timely picture of exactly where the components of the Confederate army were located and what routes they were going to be using in the next several days. He knew that the Confederate army was divided and he knew exactly where they were. Lee had dangerously split his army into five parts. Three columns had converged on Harpers Ferry to capture the Federal garrison there, a fourth column was in Hagerstown, and a fifth column was acting as a rear guard near Boonesboro, Md.

Most traditional histories of the Antietam Campaign assert that McClellan was given Gen. Robert E. Lee's plans in Frederick, Md. at noon, Sept. 13. The narrative states that he waited 18 hours before acting on the find. By waiting before taking advantage of this intelligence and reposition his forces, he squandered the best opportunity in the war to defeat Lee conclusively.

These criticisms stem from the belief that McClellan moved too slowly and cautiously to attack Lee. They assert that when a copy of Lee’s plans fell into McClellan’s hands, the Union general wasted precious hours before advancing. Politicians from the 1860s onward and countless historians have claimed he could have easily destroyed Lee’s army during the campaign and ended the war in 1862, sparing the country another two and a half years of bloody conflict.

A more recent re-evaluation disputes this sequence of events entirely, citing long overlooked evidence that McClellan moved quickly and there was no 18-hour delay. Some historians believe that for this reason, the loss of the Special Order #191 wasn’t as decisive as history makes it out to be. That it had in fact little impact on subsequent events. Gene Thorp in a 2012 article in The Washington Post cited evidence that the vanguard of Army of the Potomac was in motion all day on the 13th due to orders McClellan issued. After the war, McClellan held to the claim that he acted immediately to put his armies on the move.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/in-defense-of-mcclellan-at-antietam-a-contrarian-view/2012/09/06/79a0e5cc-f131-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html

Early in the morning of Sept. 13, most of the Union army was on the move to Frederick, Md. including McClellan, who was relocating his headquarters there from Urbana. At the conclusion of the march, a copy of Lee’s orders was found in an open field. What time this "Lost Order" was found, and when McClellan received it, has been relatively unchallenged until recently.

In "Landscape Turned Red," Stephen Sears asserts that McClellan verified before noon that the papers were legitimate, then exhibited his usual excessive caution and failed to move his army for 18 hours. To back up this theory, Sears cites a telegram that McClellan sent to Abraham Lincoln at "12 M" — which Sears says stands for meridian or noon — in which McClellan confidently informs the president that he has the plans of the enemy and that "no time shall be lost" in attacking Lee. In summary, the traditional view is:

1. McClellan had the Lost Order by noon as is proven by the telegram from him to Lincoln that is dated "12M" for Meridian.

2. McClellan waited 18 hours before moving his troops after finding the Lost Orders

The original telegram received by War Department is clearly dated "12 Midnight". After the book's publication, though, the original telegram receipt was discovered by researcher Maurice D'Aoust in the Lincoln papers at the Library of Congress. It shows that the telegram was sent at midnight (the word was written out) — a full 12 hours later than Sears thought. D'Aoust points this out in the October 2012 issue of Civil War Times in an article entitled " 'Little Mac' Did Not Dawdle."

In the disputed telegraph, McClellan wrote Lincoln, "We have possession of Catoctin [Mountain]," which is important because those two passes were still held by the Confederates at noon. The Braddock Pass was not gained until 1 p.m. and the Jefferson Pass further south was not taken until near sunset. This is evidence that there was no noon message.

McClellan is known to have been riding through the town of Frederick at the 11 am hour (see photo), to raucous crowds, thrilled to see him. Its hard to square this with being told of the orders and telling President Lincoln about it less than an hour later.

The Lost Order was not found until after the 12th Corps, of which the 27th Indiana Regiment belonged, ended its morning march. At least five accounts show that the Corps completed its march about noon, which would make it impossible for McClellan to have written and sent a telegraph that contained information about the Lost Order at the same time it was found. The commander of the unit that found the order notes that it was found after its march ended at noon and that it was carried to army staff soon thereafter.

McClellan issued orders at 3 p.m. for his cavalry chief to verify that the Lost Order was not a trick. It seems out of character for someone who is normally considered so cautious to confidently inform Lincoln of the find three hours before he tried to confirm the accuracy of its contents. From this, we can deduce that McClellan had the orders at 3 pm or sooner but after noon.

The Signal Corps reported that "in the evening" it transmitted a message from Lincoln to McClellan, and a return message from McClellan to Lincoln. The report mentions no other transmittal of information between the two men at any other time of the day.

McClellan had the vanguard of the army, Burnside's 9th Corps, on the move at 3:30 p.m. These men filled the road west to Lee's rear guard at South Mountain well into the night. Near sundown, at 6:20 p.m., he began to issue orders for the rest of his army to move, with most units instructed to be marching at sunrise. (They were roused from sleep at 3 a.m.) In the midst of this activity, at midnight, the general telegraphed the president to tell him what was going on.

By 9 a.m. on Sept. 14, the first troops had climbed South Mountain and met the Confederate rear-guard in battle. By nightfall, McClellan's army carried the heights and forced a defeated Lee to find a new defensive position along Antietam Creek. McClellan pursued the next morning and within 48 hours initiated the Battle of Antietam, which forced Lee back across the Potomac River. This seems like a pretty expeditious sequence of events, not a delay.

Additionally, a detachment of the 9th Corps in conjunction with cavalry marched from Frederick and took the southern Catoctin pass at Jefferson before sunset.

The 6th Corps, about 12,000 men, marched from Buckeystown to the gap in the Catoctin at Jeffersonville, from the evening until at least 10 p.m. A night march beyond that point would have been risky since it was not known precisely where the Confederates were in the valley beyond.

The 1st Corps, about 10,000 men, marched to Frederick the evening of Sept. 13 to be ready for an advance on the Confederate rear-guard the following morning.

Harpers Ferry

There were two significant engagements in the Maryland campaign prior to the battle of Antietam. Both directly impacted the major battle to come. Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's captured Harpers Ferry on September 12. This is important because Jackson’s Corps, a large portion of Lee's army, was absent from the Battle of South Mountain and the start of the battle of Antietam, attending to the surrender of the Union garrison. To understand Antietam, the dates and times are almost as important as they are at Gettysburg.

The Battle of Harpers Ferry took place over 4 days. Stonewall Jackson found Maryland Heights stoutly defended but brigades led by Barksdale and Kershaw attacked strongly, with retreat of the Union troops across the Potomac the next day. On September 14, the rest of his infantry arrived and found Loudon Heights undefended. Jackson placed his artillery on these heights while his infantry confronted the Union army on Maryland Heights. An attack on the Union left flank was threatened by AP Hill while 50 guns began a bombardment. The Union commander realized the situation was hopeless and surrendered.

Colonel Dixon Miles was the union commander at Harpers Ferry. At age 58 he was the oldest active colonel in the Union army; a West Point graduate, he led a division at First Manassas but was held in reserve on account that he was drunk. A court of inquiry confirmed this, but he was given command of Harpers Ferry instead of a court martial. Maj Gen John Wool gave miles orders on September 5: "you will not abandon Harpers Ferry without defending it to the last extremity." Wool sent another saying "there must be no abandoning of a post, and shoot the first man that thinks of it". The Union leadership appreciated the likelihood that the town would be attacked. Why they sent no more men to defend it isn’t clear, Why Miles kept his men in the town and not positioned on the heights isn’t comprehensible. Miles was mortally wounded in the artillery barrage.

AP Hill was with Jackson at Harpers Ferry following his feud and threatened duel with General Longstreet after newspaper articles concerning the Battle of Glendale, Hill was transferred to Jackson’s command. He had performed magnificently at Second Manassas. But he clashed with Jackson during the march in Maryland, who had Hill arrested and charged him with eight counts of dereliction of duty after the campaign. For this reason, Jackson left him behind when Harper’s Ferry was captured to process the POWs.

The delay in taking Harpers Ferry had direct consequences on the Battle of Antietam. Jackson has been criticized for taking so long. It’s hard to see how things could have been done any faster. Had Miles positioned his troops with more thought, it would have taken even longer. Had Lee considered this in his placement of the troops around the town? Its not clear, but its is noteworthy that Lee didn’t try to take Harpers Ferry in the Gettysburg invasion.

The Battle of South Mountain

The implications of this delay were enormous. Recall that Special Order 191 was written September 9 but not retrieved by Union forces until September 13. Even though the intelligence was four days old, McClellan knew that Jackson was behind schedule at Harper’s Ferry, which was surrounded but not yet taken, and that Lee’s army was divided and separated over miles of Maryland countryside. Aware that a portion of Lee’s army was now vulnerable to attack, McClellan advanced toward the South Mountain range to attack Lee’s forces there.

McClellan followed Lee’s army based on the routes identified in Special Order 191. Union forces attempted to break through South Mountain to advance toward Lee's army, which would eventually concentrate near Sharpsburg. McClellan was lucky that Lee’s orders were found, that is for sure; otherwise he would have been searching for Lee all over western Maryland. But having them in his possession, he simply followed the road map Lee had drawn for him. There are 2 roads leading west from Frederick; one goes to the north gaps to Hagerstown and one goes south toward Williamsport. Lee left the southern gap exposed, likely due to limitations on manpower and supplies.

The Battle of South Mountain took place on September 14, 1862. It is very important to re-emphasize, see the timeline in the answer 2 days ago, that the lost orders were given to McClellan on September 13 and a battle occurred the very next day. Lee was surprised that the lethargic McClellan had caught up with him so rapidly. Jackson was just wrapping up Harpers Ferry. He only had Longstreet and DH Hill to defend the passes.

Although the Confederate troops ultimately had to retreat, they put up a strong resistance and delayed the Union's progress, giving Lee valuable time to reposition his forces. While Union forces were able to gain control of the mountain, they could not stop Lee from regrouping.  Confederate defenses delayed McClellan's advance enough for Lee to concentrate the remainder of his army at Sharpsburg, setting the stage for the Battle of Antietam three days later.

During the Battle of South Mountain, engagements took place at various passes and gaps within the South Mountain range. The Union forces, commanded by General George B. McClellan, aimed to seize control of the mountain passes and break through the Confederate defensive positions. In the battle, Union army attacked at 3 gaps.

The passes and gaps of South Mountain, particularly Turner's Gap, Fox's Gap, and Crampton's Gap, offered natural defensive positions. Lee was using South Mountain as a screen, but McClellan had pursued faster than was anticipated. With Jackson at Harpers Ferry, Lee fell back along the roads that led mainly to the northern gaps. Lee ordered Longstreet to be in this location to delay the Union advance.

DH Hill was at the northernmost pass with Longstreet because he had been the rear guard and naturally came to these 2 passes. A single 5,000-man Confederate division under D.H. Hill protected Fox’s and Turner’s Gaps at South Mountain. Early on September 14, Union Gen. Jacob D. Cox’s Kanawha Division of the Union IX Corps launched an attack against Samuel Garland’s brigade at Fox’s Gap. Cox’s 3,000 Ohioans overran Garland’s North Carolinians, driving the Southerners from behind a stonewall and mortally wounding Garland. However, by nightfall, Confederate soldiers still held the western edge of Fox’s gap.

At Turner’s Gap, Union Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker’s I Corps arrived on the steep mountainside near Frostown, and divisions under George G. Meade and John P. Hatch made relentless charges on the gap’s northern edge. After a brutal firefight along a cornfield fence, Hatch broke through the Rebel line. Only the timely arrival of reinforcements from Longstreet prevented the Confederate line from collapsing. By nightfall, the Confederates still maintained control of Turner’s Gap.

1. Turner's Gap: This was the northernmost and most heavily defended pass. Confederate forces, under the command of General D.H. Hill, held strong defensive positions on the slopes of Turner's Gap, while Union troops, led by General Joseph Hooker, made determined efforts to dislodge them.

2. Fox's Gap: Located south of Turner's Gap, Fox's Gap saw intense fighting between Confederate forces commanded by General Samuel Garland and Union troops led by General Jesse Reno. The Union forces eventually managed to seize control of this pass.

3. Crampton's Gap: Situated south of Fox's Gap, Crampton's Gap was the southernmost pass where significant fighting occurred. Union troops, led by General William B. Franklin, engaged Confederate defenders commanded by General Howell Cobb. The Union forces successfully captured Crampton's Gap, further pressuring the Confederate positions.

Crampton’s Gap.  Civil War enthusiasts typically overlook the Battle of Crampton’s Gap as merely a prelude, but in fact, Antietam happened precisely because of this battle. It was the key to the entire campaign.

McClellan ordered Maj. Gen. William Franklin and his VI Corps to set out for Burkittsville from his camp at Buckeystown 9/14 at daybreak, with instructions to drive through Crampton's Gap and attack McLaws' rear. Although he sent the order immediately, by allowing Franklin to wait until morning to depart, his order resulted in a delay of nearly 11 hours. When the Federals reached Burkittsville around noon, the Confederate artillery opened up. In Burkittsville, while under artillery fire, Franklin assembled his troops into three columns. At 3 p.m., after a delay of nearly 3 hours, the VI Corps finally began its assault. The reason for the delay has never been ascertained, but it would prove costly.

The Confederate force consisted of one battery of artillery, three regiments of infantry under Brig. Gen. William Mahone, one brigade under Brig. Gen. Howell Cobb, and a small cavalry detachment under Col. Thomas T. Munford. After the report of a very large number of camp fires indicating a much larger Union force than anticipated, General Lee recognized the threat this posed to his split forces, so the order was sent down to General Cobb to ..."hold the gap if it cost the life of every man in my command".

Only about one thousand Confederates defended Crampton's Gap, the southernmost of the South Mountain passes. At around 4:00 p.m., Maj. Gen. Henry Slocum's division charged into the gap and dislodged the Confederates from the protection of a stone fence. The arrival of four regiments under Gen. Howell Cobb did little to stem the Union tide. Reinforced by a brigade of Vermonters, the Federals made a second attack and drove the remaining Confederates down the western slope of South Mountain, leaving the VI Corps in possession of Crampton's.

The Union attack broke the makeshift Rebel line but only at 6 pm, too late for a follow up attack. This gave Lee a chance to salvage his force.

Even though the Confederates still held onto Fox’s and Tuner’s Gaps, Lee ordered his outnumbered forces to withdraw from South Mountain. By sunrise on September 15, the Confederates had completely withdrawn. Once the gap is in Union hands, a road connects it to all of the roads behind the mountain, and so Hill and Longstreet can be surrounded. Longstreet and Hill had to retreat that evening.

Once Crampton’s Gap was taken, even though Turner’s and the Confederates held Fox’s Gap at the end of the day they were not defensible any longer. Consequently, Lee retreated.

Aftermath

The Battle of Antietam took place on September 17, 1862, 3 days after the Battle of South Mountain. More Americans died in battle on that day than in any other day in our nation’s history. The battle was a clear Union victory. The consequences were enormous. Great Britain would never become officially involved in the war or recognize the Confederacy. The Republicans won the mid=term elections. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in the shadow of victory.

Although McClellan defeated Lee, ending the invasion, he did not pursue the ANV despite Lincoln’s persistent entreaties and orders. McClellan was relieved of duty that October, with Ambrose Burnside taking command. McClellan would run against Lincoln for president in 1864.

What do you think of the Maryland Campaign of 1862? Let us know below.

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