Mental health is fast becoming an issue at the forefront of the public consciousness, but it has not been without struggle; history is littered with a multitude of inhumane ways those suffering from mental health issues have been treated - all you have to do is look through the history of ‘lunatic asylums’ to discover that their methods were usually cold, brutal and often detrimental to the patient.

These asylums commonly had a high volume of women within their walls; many of whom were abandoned at the gates by their husbands or other family members, as they were unable to deal with their ‘issues’ - which could have been anything ranging from mood swings and nervousness, loss of appetite, or even simple dizzy spells. The diagnosis: a bad case of female hysteria. The treatment? Well, a pelvic massage, of course!

Rachael Elizabeth explains.

Marie Wittman in a cataleptic pose taken, circa 1880.

The Queen of Hysterics

One such place where these afflicted women would be sent was the Salpetriere Hospital in Paris, France. The Salpetrieire Hospital was originally a gunpowder factory until its recondition in 1656, when it was converted into a ‘hospice’ for women suffering from hysteria, epilepsy, and dementia, along with poor women and female criminals. Although it is cited as a ‘hospital’ or ‘hospice’, the Salpetrieire Hospital quickly became a notorious insane asylum, and the go-to place to dispose of women suffering from so-called ‘hysteria’. The hospital had a capacity of 10,000 “patients” and 300 prisoners - but among the women, a patient named Marie “Blanche” Wittman became the unlikely star of Dr Jean-Martin Charcot’s hysteria show.

Dr Jean-Martin Charcot was a French neurologist, and famously became known as ‘the father of neurology’. Dr Charcot would use Miss Wittman, along with other female patients, for his hypnosis shows, demonstrating his ability to induce and stop moments of hysteria. Whilst on stage, Charcot could arouse an attack of hysteria from his female host via hypnosis, and it was Wittman who became the main attraction - due to the fact she would reenact any scenario Charcot asked with an extreme display of emotion, making her audience coo with disbelief. In one such event, Charcot made Wittman believe that an image of a donkey was in fact a nude image of herself, and through her shock and embarrassment, Wittman smashed the picture.

In order to “switch off” Wittman (or the other women), Charcot would use ovary compression, as this was believed to bring them out of their hypnotic state - at first, Charcot would manually press down on the women's bodies - that is, until he invented the first ovary compression device, aptly named “the ovary compressor”.

The first demonstration of the device was on February 7, 1888, with Wittman as the hypnotized demonstrator. The straps, made from leather, would fasten around her back and the padded screws were placed over the abdomen, before being slowly tightened which would squeeze the woman's abdomen, towards the “hysteric centre”, and would magically appease their hysteric state.

 

The History of Hysteria

The word ‘hysteria’ is derived from the ancient Greek word ‘Hystera’ (which, loosely translated, means ‘uterus’), and it was believed that if a woman didn’t keep her uterus in check (usually by engaging in sexual encounters with her husband or by producing offspring), her uterus would angrily ‘wander around her body’ - like a naughty child throwing a tantrum - and thus cause a myriad of symptoms and diseases; but because hysteria was only thought to be caused by the womb, this “condition” was only ever attributed to women.

In the Victorian era, hysteria diagnosis was rampant, and the physicians of the time concluded that rubbing the woman’s pelvis until she reached “hysterical paroxysm” was a way to cure (or at least provide some temporary relief to) the hysteria-ridden woman and help bring the womb back to its rightful place.

The action of massaging the woman’s pelvis consisted of the physician physically performing the task himself - and although this could be construed as predatory, the act itself was supposedly never considered or intended to be sexual. Unfortunately, however, as with many archaic medical interventions, there were downsides to the procedure - it was a difficult technique to master, and could in some cases take hours to gain a successful result. The laborious task of curing a woman’s hysteria quite rapidly became a hindrance, both due to the volume of women affected, and the volume of women who needed ‘repeat prescriptions’, if you will.

In 1734, the invention of the first clock-work vibrator named the ‘Tremoussoir’ provided welcome relief to the cramping hands of the physicians, as now they had an apparatus to take the strain out of manual pelvic massages. A little later, around the early 1800s, Joseph Mortimer Granville patented the first ‘electromechanical’ vibrator; its original purpose was for the relief of muscular aches and pains for men, and he specifically stated that it should NOT be used to treat hysterical women - although many physicians began implementing the devices regardless.

Although the invention of the vibrator did help to alleviate the workload of the physicians, they were still manually using the devices to treat the women. As electricity became a growing staple in people's homes, women were now able to buy their vibrators to use in the comfort of their own home; in the 1920s, the vibrating devices began making an appearance in adult films, therefore catapulting them deep into the world of eroticism, and they were subsequently rendered obsolete by the medical community.

 

A Happy(ish) Ending

To our modern minds, doctors facilitating the use of a vibrator sounds ludicrous, and perhaps even ominous, but we have to remember that in the 1800s, when this was a popular topic, not one iota of the device's purpose, nor the treatment itself was intended to be sexual - in fact, physicians sometimes even used the device to help deter women who made ‘sexual forward advances’, as that behavior was also seen as an affliction.

Although it is tempting to poke fun at the historic medical blunders that seem so outlandish by today’s standards, it’s important to remember that historical sexism towards women’s ailments was a deeply troubling and disturbing time, and even though ‘hysteria’ is no longer a diagnosis, it took until the 1950s for Female Hysteria to be declassified as a mental health issue.

Even today, although thankfully vastly improved, the remnants of the dismissive attitude towards women’s health problems are still ingrained in us - a study on heartandstroke.ca details, “Women who mention stress, along with physical symptoms of cardiac disease, are more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety than men reporting the same issues”. According to the British Heart Foundation, another study has also shown that women have a fifty percenthigher chance of heart disease being misdiagnosed as anxiety-related disorders when compared with men.

Although it is easy to look back at the science of the time and laugh at its absurdness, we should also consider that they were probably trying to do the best they could with the information they had available at the time. Nowadays, we can rest assured that medical science has evolved in a variety of ways which has had an overwhelmingly positive effect on many people's lives.

 

Did you find that piece fascinating? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

References

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/from-awareness-to-action/202303/the-history-of-hysteria-in-womens-lives

https://www.glamour.com/story/the-history-of-doctors-diagnosing-women-with-hysteria

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/female-hysteria_n_4298060

https://www.rti.org/insights/myth-female-hysteria-and-health-disparities-among-women

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/the-controversy-of-female-hysteria#Hysteria-in-the-19th-century

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/women/misdiagnosis-of-heart-attacks-in-women

https://theamericanscholar.org/beyond-nerves/

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/12/3342/285315

https://www.bestfranceforever.com/the-hysteria-show/

https://gizmodo.com/meet-the-queen-of-hysterics-who-was-freuds-early-muse-1604567867

Quackery by Lydia Kang

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232746123_Women_And_Hysteria_In_The_History_Of_Mental_Health

https://victorian-era.org/female-hysteria-during-victorian-era.html

https://victorian-era.org/female-hysteria-during-victorian-era.html?expand_article=1

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vibrator/

Despite being neighbors and having deep ties with Mexico, most Americans don’t realize that the United States played a key role in sowing the seeds of the Mexican Revolution. In fact, long before the Mexican Revolution even kicked off, three parties emerged, and later their respective interests converged, setting the stage for a violent, bloody uprising. Mexican president Porfirio Diaz, Gilded Age, American industrialists and tycoons, and Mexican revolutionary Ricardo Flores Magón collided, leaving in their wake an indelible influence still felt in both countries today.

Adam Miezio explains.

Porfirio Diaz.

The Diaz Master Plan

Mexico had just cast off France’s colonial shackles in 1867. By this time, Mexico had been beaten, bludgeoned and bloodied by centuries worth of European colonial domination. Diaz wanted to pull Mexico up out of its mostly agrarian based economy and turn Mexico into a legitimate, wealthy country on the world stage. Diaz’ plan to modernize Mexico included welcoming foreign investment and production for international markets.

At first, Diaz’ plan paid off. The coups and foreign invasions ended, health and literacy increased and renewed vigor pulsed through Mexico. The progress came at the cost of violent suppression of dissent, imprisoning or executing public challengers, rigging elections and dismissing democratic principles. However, as well-meaning as his intentions may have been, Mexico became a quick and easy target for exploitation from north of the border.

Tired of being the new kid on the block, targeted by bullies, Diaz saw opportunities to open Mexico to capital investment. He was in luck, and all he had to do was look to the U.S for a bit of fresh, oxygen rich, air to breathe new life into Mexico.  At the time, the U.S. was experiencing the Gilded Age (1877-1900), an era exemplified by American, economic titans. Although the Spaniards and French took much of the wealth, Mexico was still rich in natural resources: precious metals, oil, and much more. The Gilded Age industrialists saw the vast, untouched wealth Mexico had to offer and couldn’t resist. Diaz welcomed them with open arms to come down to Mexico, do business and plunder the nation’s resources.

 

Mexico Opens for Business

Diaz opened Mexico for business and:

“…literally sold Mexico to foreign interests. Millions of acres were sold to U.S. agriculture, railroad, and mining companies. Ninety-eight per cent of Mexico’s rural and Indigenous population was left landless, whereas U.S. businessmen and the élite Mexicans who collaborated with them grew rich. The Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Doheny families in the United States, and the Terrazas and Madero families in Mexico, among many others, reaped the profits of Díaz’s rule. As a result, titans such as Andrew Carnegie claimed that Díaz was “one of the greatest rulers in the world, perhaps the greatest of all, taking into consideration the transformation he has made in Mexico.”

 

Thus, Mexico and the U.S. consummated a political marriage of financial opportunity and economic convenience. Little did Diaz know that he was helping to start a future, socioeconomic fire. With his coffers filling up, he lost perspective and sight of the ruin that his policies inflicted on Mexico. Nevertheless, Diaz continued the liquidation of Mexico, in turn creating societal fire risk, by selling:

“…land use and mining rights to wealthy landowners and entrepreneurs and to US and European companies. In the process, he confiscated communally held land from peasant communities (ejidos. ) His corruption, favoritism, and dictatorial rule led to resentment by many upper- and middle-class Mexicans. They were educated, white or light-skinned landowners and professionals who resented the lack of democracy and opportunity, but considered themselves superior to the Indian and mestizo masses.”

The collective greed of Diaz and the Gilded Age titans saw no bounds. The 1883 Land Reform Act saw many of Mexico’s natural and material resources sold off to J.P. Morgan, Russell Sage, and the Hearsts. In the late 1890s, sprawling American business investments included sugar, sawmills, cattle ranches and henequen plantations. Oil, copper, lead, zinc, rubber, and agricultural investments swelled American fortunes.  Transportation became a double dip. The mined resources were transported by railroad north to the U.S. using the Mexican railway system, which not coincidentally, was also owned by the same Gilded Age tycoons.

In 1911, American investments represented almost 62% of Mexican railroads, 24% of mining, and 1.4% of oil. Foremost among the American industrialists was the oil and railroad magnate and multi-millionaire, Henry Clay Pierce. In 1914, Pierce owned $115,049,000 worth of bonds of the National Railway of Mexico, or about half of its total value. Now the wood and the oxygen for the Mexican Revolution was set in place, with countless Mexican workers and indigenous natives suffering under debt peonage. All that was left, was the match to start the fire.

Portfirio beer. Copyright and re-produced with the permission of Adam Miezio.

The Revolution Finds Its Fire

The decades of the Diaz regime plunged Mexico into a socioeconomic disaster. For the time being, the man who cared least about Mexico’s growing unrest and inequality, was Diaz himself. He was busy lining his pockets and his cronies’, thanks to the American tycoons surging business enterprises in Mexico. This didn’t sit well with Mexico however, and it would be one man’s pen, that would ignite the bonfire of the Mexican Revolution- Ricardo Flores Magón.

In 1901, in San Luis Potosi, Magón began sparking the match by decrying the Diaz regime as a “den of thieves.” Many Mexicans agreed with the sentiment of the already two decade old regime stealing their lands, rights and wages, but it was never heard or discussed publicly. Ricardo Flores Magón and his brothers became radical dissidents. Along with radical and liberal intellectuals, Magón gained political influence. He was backed by journalists, American dissidents, and thousands of poor workers, farmers, miners, and cotton pickers called magonistas. Magón never strayed far from their side, as the magonistas could always have their leader’s writings in hand.

A year prior, Magón founded the newspaper Regeneración, the leading, revolutionary voice of Mexico. The newspaper circulated far and wide across Mexico, and soon landed Magón in jail. Afterwards, he fled in exile to Canada and the U.S. While in the U.S., he lived in various cities (El Paso, St. Louis, San Antonio and Los Angeles), where he hid, organized, wrote and published Regeneración. By 1905, the newspaper enjoyed a circulation of 20,000 and had gained one quite notable reader- Emiliano Zapata.

While the socialist Regeneración was published from the U.S., Magón gained notable support and help from American socialists and anarchists like Mother Jones and Emma Goldman. Foreign countries weren’t enough to protect and hide Magón. Although he never gained the high profile status of revolutionaries Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa, Magón had achieved most wanted status.

 

Inevitable American Pressure

The percolating unrest south of the border drew the attention of the White House. At a time when it wasn’t common practice for U.S. presidents to meet respective heads of state on their own territory, President William Howard Taft and Mexican President Porfirio Díaz met in El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. Up until that point, it was the first meeting between American and Mexican heads-of-state. Around that time, Taft wrote a letter, saying “there would be a revolution growing out of the selection of his successor. As Americans have about $2,000,000 of capital invested in the country, it is inevitable that in case of a revolution or internecine strife we should interfere, and I sincerely hope that the old man’s official life will extend beyond mine, for that trouble would present a problem of the utmost difficulty.”

Magón and his masses of magonistas were still determined to oust Diaz. They had endured more than enough plunder of their beloved country by American imperialists like Guggenheim and Rockefeller to fail. Unfortunately for Magón, the Diaz regime was now collaborating with American officials to hunt him down. U.S. agents of the Bureau of Investigation (precursor to the F.B.I.) were tracking Magón and his whereabouts. Magón also had feds from the U.S. Departments of War, Treasury, Justice and State on his tail, not to mention hordes of police, sheriffs and spies. Magón lays claim to being one of the F.B.I.’s first cases and most wanted men.

Eventually, Magón was apprehended in Los Angeles, on August 23, 1907.

Magón was released from prison in 1910, the same year that the Mexican Revolution began. Magón continued publishing Regeneración in Los Angeles, as the magonistas, led by Zapata and Villa, waged war south of the border. Besides inadvertently helping to launch the F.B.I., Magón left another influential legacy behind - Mexican immigration.

 

The Mexican Revolution Jump Starts Immigration

As the Mexican Revolution kicked off, Mexicans fleeing the violence, poured into the U.S. Insurgents, refugees and campesinos alike came by boat or by foot. Those who came by boat, disembarked in San Francisco, and took trains to Los Angeles and Chicago. Those who came by foot, flooded into the southwest, especially Texas. Laredo and El Paso became two of the most popular destinations.

In fact:

The Mexican population in El Paso grew exponentially between 1910 and 1916, from approximately 9,000 to nearly 33,000, as Mexican refugees, impacted by the Revolution, fled north. The refugees included not only the poor but also, by one city newspaper’s estimation, “tens of thousands of Mexicans of the best classes,” leading El Paso to displace “San Antonio, New Orleans, St. Louis, New York, and Los Angeles [as the] formerly dominant capitals in the mind of the average welltodo [sic] Mexican.”

 

The revolution blazed across Mexico. Peasants, workers, mestizos, intellectuals, business owners and white-skinned Mexicans were forced into competing groups. The undemocratic institutions, unequal land distribution and deep rooted inequality sown by Diaz’ economic policies affected each socioeconomic class in a unique way. The unfortunate reality didn’t help to create solidarity during the revolution. Some success did come fast though.

 

Diaz Out, and Magón Dead along with his Legacy

By May 1911, Diaz was defeated and on his way to exile in France. Even with the 30-year dictatorship vanquished, the Mexican Revolution still raged on for 6 more years. At the time, Magón lived in El Monte, part of the San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County. By this time, he had become fully radicalized and made no effort to hide his anarchist politics. His radical anarchism didn’t sit well among some magonistas, who were more moderate and socialist. Magon began losing support and notoriety, but he had one last gasp in the annals of history.

While WWI broke out, coinciding with the Mexican Revolution, Magon published an anti-war manifesto in 1918. The last stroke of his pen sealed his fate. In 1919, U.S. president Woodrow Wilson launched the Palmer raids. The raids unleashed a wholesale crackdown on dissidents and leftists, foremost among them socialists, communists and anarchists. Magón got swept up along with notable contemporary Eugene V. Debs. Magón was charged with sedition under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, and died at age 48 in Fort Leavenworth penitentiary in Kansas.

Sadly, Magon spent most of the Mexican Revolution in prison, cut off from the movement he started. His increasing militancy and anarchism didn’t provide the cohesion and solidarity that Mexicans sought. Although he earned the credit of the Mexican Revolution’s “intellectual author,” his legacy now lies in the shadows of timeless legends Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa.

 

If you found that piece of interest, join us for free by clicking here.

Recently, local officials, guests, and the media endured a flurry of snow in Abington, Pennsylvania for the celebration of the erection of a new historical marker outside of Jenkintown VFW Post 676. The marker, which is one of 36 historical markers provided around the Philadelphia area by the State of Pennsylvania, commemorates the Battle of White Marsh or the Battle of Edgehill in December 1777.

Here, Michael Thomas Leibrandt looks at the connection between 1777 and recent events.

A depiction of the view from the British side during the Battle of White Marsh or the Battle of Edgehill.

The Battle of White Marsh itself, which involved the area from Abington Township, PA to the ground around Chestnut Hill over three December days, was Sir Lord Williams Howe’s attempt to march out of Philadelphia and to draw General George Washington’s Continental Army into Battle before they could move to winter quarters.

The allocation of the marker is yet another reminder in 2023 of our revolutionary roots around Philadelphia. Unlike other conflicts like the American Civil War, multiple engagements between the American Continental Army and King George’s forces happened during Revolutionary times around the Philadelphia suburbs.

America in 1777 is in many ways not so different from our current challenges in 2023. Although our nation is not currently involved in a military engagement for our independence, 1777 was a time in America of great societal turmoil as well as military action. While some supported the cause for independence, others were sympathetic to the British cause throughout America’s struggle for independence.

Not far from the recent celebration, a family purchased land on the heights of Edge Hill during the 1860s, and then discovered a bayonet and eventually human remains of four revolutionary soldiers killed at the Battle of Edge Hill.

 

Spring 1953

In the spring of 1953, a relative of the family allowed the remains to be exhumed and properly buried. In a moving tribute, the patriots were relocated down the street to the property of North Penn VFW 676 during Memorial Day Weekend 1953. A plaque was also placed a memorial stone and plaque at the location where the remains were found on the heights of Edgehill.

Just a few miles north of the new marker in Hatboro, is the site of the Battle of Crooked Billet, which also took place during the American Revolution. Crooked Billet (which is now an elementary school) was the name of a tavern which existed at the time of the early morning Battle, when a British force stationed in Philadelphia surprised, overwhelmed, and routed American troops in spring of 1778. 

While it’s true that the City of Philadelphia was captured by the British without firing a shot in 1777, American soldiers did put up a heroic defense of Fort Mifflin on the Delaware River, until they were finally overrun by British forces during a siege 246 years ago. This June, Mifflin made news when a historic cannon was stolen from the Fort.

 

2023

In July 2023, a runaway Septa Trolley crashed into the Blue Bell Inn in Southwest Philadelphia. During a British maneuver toward the Darby Road during the Revolutionary War, an American Raiding Party opened fire on the English troops. Five Americans were killed and the British arrested the remaining soldiers. In 1781, American and French forces themselves marched past the Blue Bell Inn on the way to the British surrender at Yorktown.

While it is easy to argue very few parallels can be drawn between Philadelphia in 1777 and in 2023, the internal struggles and divisions of the past feel all too real as America approaches 2024. Struggles that were especially evident between loyalists and patriots much like the political division that exists today.

Back in Abington Township, Abington Presbyterian Church is preparing to celebrate its 310th anniversary this year since its founding in 1714. The historic walls of its cemetery directly across Old York Road were once a defense for American Continental troops while firing on British regiments marching up from Philadelphia. Lord Howe and his British forces would march into Abington Village that day in December 1777, not far from the site of the new marker dedication. Just another constant reminder of the Philadelphia region’s involvement in another tumultuous political time.

The American Revolution.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

How did Europe grow quickly and become a hub of innovation, making it a global leader in trade and military strength? Here, Ilyas Ali gives us his take.

The 1836 Siege of Constantine during the French conquest of Algeria.

Historians disagree on how Europe came to be so powerful - to say the least.

But one thing is for certain and which all agree on. And that is that to find the answer, we must not look at what happened or who did during an isolated point in time.

Rather, we must grasp the long-term changes that brought Europe to its current position.

 

Troublesome Geography

One thing that is striking about Europe in 1500 was its political fragmentation. And unlike in places such as China, Europe’s political disunity was not a temporary affair.

In fact, this is as it had always been. Even the mighty Roman Empire had difficulty conquering areas north of the Rhine and Danube rivers.

In comparison to the Ottomans and Chinese, the Europeans were divided into smaller kingdoms, lordships, clans, and confederations in the East.

And the cause that prevented anyone from conquering Europe was geography.

Europe lacked the vast open plains that enabled the Mongols to conquer on horseback in Asia.

Nor were there large rivers like the Nile, Euphrates, or the Yangtze which provided nourishment to easily conquerable peasant populations living along its banks.

Europe was divided by mountains and forests, making it inaccessible for conquerors wishing to dominate the continent. Also, the climate varied considerably across the continent, which made that goal harder still.

But whilst it denied the unification of the continent, it also acted as a barrier to invasion from elsewhere.

Indeed, despite the Mongol horde swiftly conquering much of Asia, it was these same mountains and forests which saved Europe.

 

Free Economy

Because its geography supported dispersed power, this greatly aided the growth of a free European economy.

Do you remember how Europe had different climates across the continent?

This same variable climate allowed for different products to be made and traded.

For example, due to their different climates, an Italian city-state would sell grapes the English couldn't grow. And in return, the English sent fish from the Atlantic.

And another advantage Europe possessed was its many navigable rivers which allowed the easy transport of goods. And to make transporting goods even easier, many pathways were made through forests and mountains.

And dispersed political power also meant that commerce could never be fully suppressed in Europe. This was a recurring problem that Eastern empires had, but not so much in Europe.

If a king taxed his merchants too much or stopped trade completely, they would move to a more business-friendly part of Europe. And they would take his tax money with them.

Because of this, over time European statesmen learnt that it was in their best interests to strike a deal with these merchants and tradesmen. They would give them a law and order, and a decent judicial system. In return, those merchants would give them tax money to spend on their state and military ambitions.

 

Military Superiority

Despite its geographic situation, there was still one way to unify Europe: to have superior military technology.

This is what happened with the ‘gunpowder empires’ of the East. For instance, in Japan, the feudal warlord Hideyoshi brought together the country by obtaining cannons and guns that his rivals lacked. This technological superiority allowed him to unify Japan.

And it wasn’t at all impossible for a ‘gunpowder empire’ to arise in Europe. By 1500 C.E., already the French and English had amassed enough artillery at home to crush any internal enemy who rebelled against the state.

Despite Europe having powerful military forces, no one was able to conquer the entire continent -although the Habsburgs would come close though.

So why did this not happen?

The reason this didn’t happen was because of that same decentralization spoken of before. Due to political decentralization, an arms race occurred among all European states.

Europe, you see, had a habit of constantly going to war. To survive, every European polity aimed to be militarily stronger than its neighbors.

This created a competitive economic climate to create superior military technology.

But this also meant that no single power had complete access to the best military technology. The cannon, for example, was being built in central Europe, Milan, Malaga, Sweden, etc.

Nor could one power easily proliferate the most superior ships. There were shipbuilding ports all across the Baltic to the Black Sea, all locked in fierce competition.

One might ask at this point; wouldn’t the disunited European armies easily be crushed by the mighty Ottoman and Chinese armies of the East?

And the answer would probably be yes.

Europe was definitely lagging behind the Eastern empires in the 16th century. However, by the latter half of the 17th century, the Europeans were gaining an upper hand.

This was because the Europeans were successful in creating superior military technology, which set them apart from others.

Although gunpowder and cannons were invented by other civilizations, Europeans improved and enhanced them. They also worked towards creating more powerful variations.

The Ottomans and the Chinese invented this technology, but they didn't feel the need to improve. There was not much of a threat which forced them to innovate and better those weapons like before. When they were weak, they innovated and improved, but once they had become mighty, they stopped.

But due to the competitive climate in Europe, improvement was a matter of survival. They improved the grain quality of the gunpowder they used, they changed the materials of the weaponry to make them lighter and more powerful.

In their shipbuilding large strides were taken also. They learned how to build big, sturdy ships for the rough Atlantic waters. Then, they learned how to equip these ships with powerful cannons for destructive potential.

And it was these new ships and weaponry that would soon allow them to travel across the whole world and conquer territories in other continents.

All this innovation allowed the Europeans to soon supersede the Eastern empires, and for the age of colonialism to soon begin.

 

Colonialism

With their powerful ships in tow, Europe started venturing outside of its continental borders.

Using the long-range capabilities of the new ships, they controlled ocean trade routes and demonstrated their powerful cannons by bombarding resisting coastal settlements.

The Portuguese and Spanish were the first to explore. The Portuguese dominated the spice trade with powerful ships. Additionally, they carved out an empire stretching from Aden, to Goa, and to Malacca.

The Spanish, in turn, went West into the New World and quickly overcame the comparatively primitive populations of South America in a matter of a few short years. And as a result of their successes, they sent home silver, furs, sugar, hides, etc.

Soon the Dutch, the English, and the French joined in as the Europeans kicked off their bid for world domination.

New crops such as potatoes and maize, along with various meats gave the Europe steady nutrition. And access to the Newfoundland fisheries by the English gave Europe steady access to fish and seafood.

Whale oil and seal oil, found in the Atlantic, brought fuel for illumination.

Moreover, Russia’s eastward expansion also brought other previously inaccessible such as hemp, salts, and grains.

All of this created what is now known as the ‘modern world system’ which allowed Europe to connect the world using their new technologies and exploit various opportunities across the globe in a manner never done so before.

 

Less Obstacles

What allowed the Europeans to achieve this success was that they simply had fewer hindrances.

It was not that there was something special about them. Rather it was that the necessary conditions which allowed Europe to succeed were not present elsewhere.

In China, India, and Muslim lands, there wasn't the correct mix of ingredients like in Europe. Europe had a free market, strong military, and political pluralism.

And because of this they appeared to stand still while Europe advanced to the center of the world stage.

 

Ilyas writes at the Journal of Warfare here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Naturally, we get taken in by imagining the sights, sounds, and smells of the battlefield; our books describe in detail what that experience must have been like. This article will concentrate on battles fought in fancy conference rooms by men wearing expensive clothes. And especially those of one man, who in his own peculiar way, won bigger battles with more important implications than Grant or Lee. Adams came from perhaps the most storied family in the north. But he didn’t get an easy out. Several early defeats in life despite a sterling family pedigree forged a tough diplomat who didn’t let things dissuade him when frustrating, difficult things happened later on.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Charles Francis Adams Sr. As painted by by William Morris Hunt in 1867.

Charles Francis Adams Sr was the youngest of 3 sons of John Quincy Adams and the grandson of John Adams, which is about as illustrious a family tree as one could imagine. As you’d expect of a northern elite family, he attended Boston Latin and Harvard, then studied law with Daniel Webster. He opened a law practice, was elected 3 times to the Massachusetts House and once to the Massachusetts Senate.

But politics was not really his game, and he knew it. Instead, he purchased and edited the Boston Whig, a newspaper for the common people, who were more liberal minded than those he grew up with and wanted to see change faster. His initial successes came as an editor. This paper went from obscurity to national acclaim under his editorship, so much so that he was offered a national candidacy at the age of 41. He edited his grandmother’s, Abigail Adams, letters; then finished his father’s incomplete biography of his grandfather, including a highly acclaimed collection of his letters, which ultimately became the first Presidential Library.

Many of his relatives found the burden of carrying on the family tradition of public service impossible to live up to. Many retired to private life, while others broke under the strain.  Charles Francis Adams was the youngest of 3 brothers; his older brothers were George Washington Adams (1801–1829) and John Adams II (1803–1834). All 3 were rivals for the same woman, their cousin Mary Catherine Hellen, who lived with the Adams family after the death of her parents. In 1828, John married Mary in a White House ceremony, and both Charles and George declined to attend. John was the father of an out-of-wedlock child born later that year to a woman who was the chambermaid to the family’s physician. The child died in infancy.  John was a reputed alcoholic who is believed to have committed suicide the next spring.

 

Charles Francis Adams

Instead, Charles Francis married Abigail, the daughter of Peter Chardon Brooks, a Boston millionaire and one of the richest men in Massachusetts. Her father insisted that they wait several years before getting married, as they were too young when they met. Later, Charles Francis Adams said that if not for Abigail Brooks, he would never have accomplished anything in life. After experiencing his brother's death, his marriage to Abigail Brooks, and his reconciliation with his father, Charles Francis became a more focused and goal-oriented person.

Charles opened his own law office but was careless about its operation, and his father criticized Charles for being aimless and irresponsible. Charles and his father had never been close but after Charles' oldest brother died in 1829, John Quincy seemed to show more interest and affection for his two remaining sons. After his father’s presidency, he spent eighteen years representing the Quincy district; Charles Francis assumed the care of the property the elder Adams possessed.

The controversy over slavery, however, propelled Charles Francis into prominence. In the Massachusetts legislature, where he served from 1840 to 1845, Adams became a leader of conservative antislavery members who concentrated on resisting the encroachments of "slave power." With the issue of the annexation of Texas, Adams became one of the leaders of the "conscience Whigs," that wing of the Whig Party that demanded guarantees that slavery would not be expanded westward. The Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts merged with the broader "Free Soil" movement in 1848.

Adams unsuccessfully ran for vice president as that party's candidate alongside Martin Van Buren. Adams disapproved of the Free Soil tendency to ally with other parties in order to achieve election. He became unpopular in the south for his abolitionist views and unpopular in the north for his strict adherence to supporting abolition over elected office.

In 1848, he was the unsuccessful nominee of the Free Soil Party for Vice President of the United States, running on a ticket with former president Martin Van Buren as the presidential nominee. That same year, his father died from a stroke at age 80. He spent most of the 1850s rehabbing the family home in Quincy, today a national park.

In 1859, Adams was elected to the US House of Representatives. He became chair of a northern committee studying how to work for conciliation with the South. Suddenly, the intransigent abolitionist was looking for a solution: the very definition of diplomacy. He supported Seward – not Lincoln – for the presidential nomination.  But on his election, Lincoln asked him to serve as US minister to Great Britain, which Adams accepted. This became the work of a lifetime. Give Lincoln props for an amazing recognition of talent.

 

US Minister to the Court of St James

The US Minister to the Court of St James (Great Britain) was a crucial post. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom from 1861 to 1868, Adams played a crucial role in preventing British recognition of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Through skillful diplomacy and advocacy, he successfully conveyed the Union's perspective and counteracted Confederate efforts to gain international support. Through firm but skillful negotiations, Adams was influential in persuading the British, and by extension the French, not to recognize the Confederacy.

Britain issued a proclamation of neutrality at the beginning of the Civil War on May 13, 1861. The imposition of the blockade forced Britain to take a position on which side it would support. Southern cotton was critical to the textile industry in western England, especially Liverpool. The United States Secretary of State, William Seward, threatened to treat as hostile any country that recognized the Confederacy. Instead, the Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent, but it was premature to recognize it as a sovereign state.  Britain remained neutral officially and waited to see how things would develop before making a commitment. Adams did incredible work to keep Britain neutral and prevent the British from going any further in their recognition. Both his father and his grandfather had served in this diplomatic post, and so he was immediately accepted by the British as speaking for the new administration with a wise voice.

Official recognition was tied to the idea of the Union blockade being against a belligerent power rather than an insurrection. Adams managed to navigate this by getting the British to respect the blockade officially while still not recognizing the Confederacy as an independent entity. Because of his own family legacy, he managed to form a friendship with Prince Albert.

One of his main accomplishments was leveraging his friendships to prevent the British from supplying Confederate ironclads. A strong element in Britain wanted to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.  Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had strong sympathies with the South and believed it would win independence. The Prime Minister in particular had a lifelong hostility to the US, and despite opposition to the slave trade and slavery, he believed that dissolution of the Union would benefit the British.

Adams played a key role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom through diplomatic efforts and effective communication. Adams skillfully engaged with British officials, politicians, and influential figures, presenting the Union's case and countering Confederate propaganda. Support of the Confederacy in Britain was popular for several reasons. The primary one was the availability of cheap cotton for English mills.

 

Adams in London

Britain had lost 2 wars to this fledgling primitive country on the other side of the pond. Further, the idea of a successful democracy remained unappetizing to a government based on a monarchy. Moreover, southern trade especially cotton was very important to British manufacturers. Finally, they knew that if they helped this new country win independence, it would be forever in its debt; which is precisely what empire is about.

He emphasized the Union's commitment to upholding international law, the abolition of slavery, and the economic benefits of maintaining trade relations with the North. Adams emphasized the military and industrial power of the Union, which was vital in dispelling the perception that the Confederacy could achieve a quick and decisive victory. He provided accurate and timely information about Union victories, the strength of the Union army, and the North's ability to sustain the war effort.

Adams warned that meant war with the United States, as well as the cutting off of American food exports, which comprised about a fourth of the British food supply. ”The English people can't eat cotton” was his strong argument, and the Union supplied too much necessary food to England to make war with the United States a realistic action. Losing grain and meat shipments from the United States would mean a huge fall in food supply. It’s fascinating that the Jefferson Davis government believed King Cotton would be decisive, yet it was corn that really was.

Also, the American Navy, increasingly strong, would try to sink British shipping. Britain depended more on American corn than Confederate cotton, and a war with the U.S. would not be in Britain's economic interest.

Adams recognized the significance of public opinion and worked to shape it in favor of the Union. He engaged with the British press, wrote articles and letters to influential publications, and delivered speeches to counter Confederate narratives and generate sympathy for the Union cause.

Adams conveyed to the British government that recognition of the Confederacy would likely strain relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. He made it clear that such recognition would have negative consequences for British trade and international standing, creating a disincentive for British officials to support the Confederacy.

By employing these diplomatic strategies, effectively countering Confederate propaganda, and highlighting the Union's strength, Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom. His diplomatic efforts helped to maintain the international isolation of the Confederacy and ultimately contributed to the Union's victory in the Civil War.

Had Britain recognized the Confederacy, and given its aid and assistance, the Civil War would have had an entirely different result. Charles Francis Adams took on this exasperating and vexing assignment. Recognition was a fear of the Union and a pipe dream of the Confederacy. In retrospect, it was never really likely to happen without multiple major successes on the battlefield by the Confederacy.  This reality was based on the political situation in Britain more than the circumstances we Americans think the Civil War was about.

 

Trent Affair

The “Trent Affair” in November 1861 produced public outrage in Britain and a diplomatic crisis. The British predicted a war and Seward threatened to fight. Only Abraham Lincoln kept the crisis in perspective.  Ambassador Adams played a crucial role in resolving it, and for a time, things looked bleak. Adams almost single-handedly calmed British anger.

The "Trent Affair” was initiated when an American warship seized two Confederate agents bound for Europe from the British mail ship Trent.A U.S. Navy warship stopped the British steamer Trent and seized two Confederate envoys en route to Europe. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS Trent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate envoys: James Murray Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and to lobby for possible financial and military support.

Public reaction in the United States was to celebrate the capture and rally against Britain, threatening war. In the Confederate states, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Anglo-American relations and possibly even war, or at least diplomatic recognition by Britain. Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on foreign intervention.

In Britain, there was widespread disapproval of this violation of neutral rights and insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners and took steps to strengthen its military forces in British North America and the North Atlantic. PM Palmerston called the action "a declared and gross insult", demanded the release of the two diplomats and ordered 3,000 troops to Canada. In a letter to Queen Victoria on 5 December 1861 he said that if his demands were not met: "Great Britain is in a better state than at any former time to inflict a severe blow upon and to read a lesson to the United States which will not soon be forgotten."  In another letter to his foreign secretary, he predicted war between Britain and the Union.

President Abraham Lincoln did not want to risk war with Britain over this issue. “One war at a time” Lincoln told Seward. After some careful diplomatic exchanges, Lincoln admitted that the capture had been conducted contrary to maritime law and that private citizens could not be classified as "enemy despatches”, which was the only possible legal argument. After several tense weeks, the crisis was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions, although without a formal apology.  Slidell and Mason were released, and war was averted. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to Europe. Adams basically brokered this resolution, by recognizing the British right to engage in diplomacy as it saw fit while maintaining the Lincoln administration’s position that the war was an internal domestic conflict not an international one.

The resolution of the Trent affair dealt a serious blow to Confederate diplomatic efforts. First, it deflected the recognition momentum developed during the summer and fall of 1861. It created a feeling in Great Britain that the United States was prepared to defend itself when necessary, but recognized its responsibility to comply with international law. Moreover, it produced a feeling in Great Britain and France that peace could be preserved as long as the Europeans maintained strict neutrality in regard to the American belligerents.  Lincoln, through Adams, turned a potentially explosive event into a huge net positive. (See more at https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/trent-affair)

Slidell was the designee to represent the Confederacy in France.  He failed to bring France into the war, which would not change its position unless Britain made the first move. His major success in the war was negotiating a loan of $15,000,000 from Emile Erlanger & Co. and in securing the ship "Stonewall" for the Confederate government. Slidell, Louisiana is named after him. After the war, he remained in Paris.

Mason was the grandson of George Mason. He was a strong secessionist and white supremacist who strongly favored slavery, wrote the fugitive slave act, and before the war was the chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You’d think he would have been tough competition for Adams, but in fact his views were so extreme that he was ineffectual as a diplomat and he moved to Paris in 1863 where he hoped he would find a more sympathetic ear. After the war, he lived in exile in Canada, eventually purchasing a huge estate in Alexandria VA with white servants as he believed free blacks to be worthless.

 

The British Government

In retrospect, Both the Union and the Confederacy overestimated the potential of British recognition. Not only the Queen and Prince, but also the Church, the Commons, and working people adamantly opposed slavery. Still, faced with both a PM and a ruling party that favored the enemy, you can understand the fears.

Lord Palmerston was the Prime Minister and William Gladstone the Chancellor. Their relationship lasted 35 years, both as allies and as political enemies, exchanging jobs several times. Together they dominated British foreign policy, and If they were in agreement, the US was in trouble. With very little cotton reaching Europe except through Union channels, a strong element in Britain, including both Palmerston & Gladstone, wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.

Palmerston's sympathies in the Civil War were with the Confederate States of America. Although a professed opponent of the slave trade and slavery, he held a lifelong hostility towards the United States, and believed dissolution of the Union would enhance British power. Additionally, the Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures". He expected the Confederacy to achieve its independence.

The British government pulled back from talk of war when the Confederate invasion of the North was defeated at Antietam, and Lincoln announced that he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation.  Palmerston then noted that the only thing positive that had been accomplished by the war was the killing off of thousands of “troublesome Irish and Germans”.

Palmerston and his government were careful to avoid any actions that could be interpreted as favoring either the Union or the Confederacy. While there were debates within his government and among politicians regarding the recognition of the Confederacy, Palmerston ultimately adhered to a policy of non-recognition and neutrality.

Palmerston's government closely monitored the progress of the war, sought to gather accurate intelligence, and maintained diplomatic channels with both sides. However, the British government did not extend official recognition to the Confederacy as an independent nation during Palmerston's tenure.

Overall, Palmerston's approach was one of careful neutrality, prioritizing British interests and avoiding actions that could disrupt relations with either the Union or the Confederacy. The neutrality policy pursued by Palmerston was influenced by the efforts of Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, who effectively conveyed the Union's perspective and countered Confederate attempts to gain international recognition.

Gladstone believed in the principle of self-determination and viewed the Confederacy's struggle for independence as a valid cause. He saw the war as a conflict between two parties, and he argued that the British government should remain neutral and extend recognition to the Confederacy if it appeared likely to achieve independence.

Gladstone's public statements and speeches, such as his Newcastle speech in October 1862, expressed sympathy for the Confederacy and called for British recognition. His views caused controversy both in the United Kingdom and in the United States, where they were seen as potentially detrimental to the Union cause. Gladstone owned a home on Abercrombie Square in Liverpool, and was very likely a confidential member of the Southern Club.

The British government did not officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation. The British government, led by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, adopted a policy of neutrality throughout the conflict and maintained trade relations with both the Union and the Confederacy. The official recognition of the Confederacy as an independent nation did not occur, largely due to diplomatic efforts by Charles Francis Adams and concerns over the potential consequences of such recognition on British trade and international relations.

Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, generally remained neutral and refrained from publicly expressing her opinions on the conflict. As the constitutional monarch, her role was largely ceremonial, and she did not have direct involvement in formulating or implementing government policies.

Queen Victoria's stance on the American Civil War was influenced by the prevailing British policy of neutrality. She, along with her husband Prince Albert, closely followed the developments of the war, but she did not publicly take sides or officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation.

It is worth noting that there were some instances where Queen Victoria's sympathies seemed to lean towards the Union cause. In 1861, she wrote a private letter to Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, expressing her hopes for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and her admiration for President Abraham Lincoln.

James Russell Lowell said, "None of our Generals, nor Grant himself, did us better or more by trying service than he [Charles Francis Adams] in his forlorn outpost in London." As we ponder strategy and battles and generals, we ought to keep in mind that Charles Francis Adams won a huge diplomatic victory of greater value than is ever described in books or articles. The battle of Antietam is usually credited with keeping England neutral, but the question is never asked why that was.

Imagine being Adams, who had to be diplomatic yet persuasive with Palmerston, an obviously arrogant and racist man who made decisions purely on the basis of value to his personal political future. Imagine being able to converse directly with Queen Victoria, the most powerful monarch in Europe, in such a convincing manner as to maintain her views, despite a government whose leaders tended the opposite way. The struggle to keep Palmerston and Gladstone officially neutral despite their evident slant toward the South required someone of experience, who could play the “long game”, and who could unemotionally remind these headstrong men of the consequences of choosing the wrong side. Lincoln needed a man whom the British would immediately take seriously; Adams had his family background (both his father and his grandfather had been Ambassadors to the Court of St. James as well) and the recognition of non-political accomplishments to bolster the power of his argument. And, he had had the taste of failure and frustration in his life, and knew that calmness and composure, not superciliousness, was the right path.

 

After the War

Minister Adams publicly supported moderation toward the South during the last year of the war and at the start of the Andrew Johnson administration after Lincoln's assassination. The British recognized him as a steady hand at the wheel. But support for Johnson's conciliatory policies, particularly his opposition to radical reconstruction of the South, was unpopular at home, and this injured Charles's future political prospects. He gladly resigned his post in 1868 with the election of the new Grant administration and returned to his home in Quincy. He turned down an offer to be president of Harvard.

But in 1871-1872 he returned to Europe with his youngest son Brooks. There, he would win his biggest victory, one that all of the frustrations and setbacks in life he had experienced, all of the diplomatic skills he had acquired, had prepared him for; and no other American of his era could have accomplished it.

As Minister to Great Britain, Adams was quite aware that although the British government was officially neutral, its citizens were taking sides anyway. And that those who supported the South, like the Southern Club, were having critical effects on the war. In particular, he knew exactly how Confederate agents were working to arrange armament shipments through the blockade. He knew that Liverpool shipbuilders were creating commerce raiders and blockade runners. He uncovered how ships were being built on the Mersey, sent off to the Caribbean under the British flag, then its crew & captain changed in port and the ship was renamed as a Confederate ship.

For example, he convinced British authorities to confiscate two ironclad warships from the Laird shipyards that were destined for use by the Confederates. But many others he could merely document. He wrote myriad letters to Secretary of State Seward with documentation of the British private sector working with the Confederacy while the official government looked the other way.

 

The Alabama Claims

Adams and his staff at the Embassy, including his son, collected details on the shipbuilding issue, showing how warships built for the Confederacy caused widespread damage to the American merchant marine. They documented everything in real-time: Who were the agents, where the money came from, who the British citizens were, everything. For the 4 years of the war, he collected the evidence, knowing the British weren’t going to do anything about it, and if he mentioned it, it would be a serious impediment to working with those he had to keep neutral. And so, he waited. He held onto all of these documents and they collected dust.

When Palmerston died in late 1865, Benjamin Disraeli, who for his own political purposes had no interest in getting involved after the war, took his place. Disraeli had maintained a truly neutral position during the war, but he did criticize the Lincoln administration's handling of the war and expressed concerns about the potential growth of American power if the Union were to emerge victorious. He believed that a strong United States could pose a challenge to British interests in the future. Overall, Disraeli's approach during the American Civil War was one of caution and pragmatism, focusing on preserving British neutrality and safeguarding British interests. And so, Adams held onto his notes.

The evidence he collected became the basis of the postwar Alabama Claims. The Alabama Claims were a series of demands for damages sought by the government of the United States from the United Kingdom in 1869, for the attacks upon Union merchant ships by Confederate Navy commerce raiders built in British shipyards during the American Civil War. The claims focused chiefly on the most famous of these raiders, the CSS Alabama, which took more than sixty prizes before she was sunk off the French coast in 1864.

The Alabama Claims were a series of diplomatic negotiations and arbitration proceedings that took place in the aftermath of the American Civil War between the United States and the United Kingdom. The claims arose from the actions of Confederate warships that were built and equipped in British shipyards and subsequently attacked and destroyed American ships during the Civil War.

The most notorious of these Confederate warships was the CSS Alabama, a powerful raider that had a significant impact on Union shipping during the war. The British government's involvement in the construction and outfitting of the CSS Alabama and other Confederate vessels raised serious issues of international law and neutrality. Can a country declare itself neutral but its citizens aid one of the combatants?

After the end of the Civil War in 1865, the United States sought compensation from Britain for the damages caused by these Confederate warships and demanded that the British government take responsibility for its role in aiding the Confederacy. Negotiations between the United States and Britain began in 1866, but they failed to reach a satisfactory resolution.

The United States claimed direct and collateral damage against Great Britain. The United States claimed that Britain had violated neutrality by allowing five warships to be constructed, most especially the CSS Alabama, knowing that it would eventually enter into naval service with the Confederacy. For 3 years, the British denied responsibility. They claimed that officially declaring neutrality had nothing to do with businesses its private industry conducted. They said that there was no proof of American claims. American outrage grew; Sumner, still head of the US Foreign Affairs committee, demanded $2 billion in indirect costs for supplying the South through the blockade. Calls for annexation of Canada, or provinces like British Columbia, as payment for damages became common American political rhetoric. Britain continued to stall, and Canadian separatists began looking into joining the US to control the northwest Pacific Ocean.

As a result, the United States brought the case before an international tribunal known as the Alabama Claims Commission. The evidence leading to the settlement of the Alabama Claims case was collected and presented by the United States government. After the American Civil War, the U.S. State Department was responsible for compiling the evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The U.S. government conducted thorough investigations and collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. This evidence was used to support the United States claims that Britain had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War and should be held responsible for the damages caused by the Confederate warships.

During the negotiations and arbitration proceedings, the U.S. delegation, led by chief U.S. arbiter Charles Francis Adams and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, presented this evidence to the international tribunal, known as the Alabama Claims Commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871. The evidence played a crucial role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in collecting the evidence for the Alabama Claims case. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, Adams was responsible for gathering and presenting evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The evidence collected by Charles Francis Adams was the central documentation evaluated during the arbitration proceedings. Adams had diligently collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals who were involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. His efforts were instrumental in building a strong case against Britain, showing that the British government had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War.

Finally, in 1871, the British agreed to a commission to resolve the dispute, and Adams unveiled the notes and documents he had collected. He showed contemporaneous notes and letters. He named names. He had the proof, because the whole time he was ambassador, he kept meticulous records and documented everything.

The commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871, was composed of representatives from the United States, Britain, Italy, Switzerland, and Brazil. After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the tribunal issued its decision in September 1872. The tribunal ruled in favor of the United States, stating that Britain had indeed violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War by allowing the construction of Confederate warships in its shipyards. As a result of the ruling, Britain was required to pay the United States $15.5 million in damages. Today, that would be equivalent to several hundred million dollars. Nothing like that had ever happened before.

So, who actually paid for the Confederate war machine, war supplies, and naval presence? The British Government did in 1872, along with its citizens and investors who purchased Confederate Cotton Bonds. The evidence Adams had collected during his years as ambassador played a vital role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

The resolution of the Alabama Claims case marked an important moment in the development of international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. It also helped improve relations between the United States and Britain after a period of tension and served as a precedent for future international arbitration cases.

 

Treaty of Washington

A final deal was then arranged. The Treaty of Washington established for the first time a codification of international law and of international arbitration. The Treaty of Washington resolved fishing disputes with the establishment of the Halifax Commission, set up the Alabama Claim arbitration, and set up the San Juan Island territorial dispute arbitration. The Halifax Commission would order the US to pay the UK $5.5 Mil for illegal fishing practices. The Alabama Claims would order the UK to pay the US $15.5 Mil in direct damages, with $1.9 Mil deducted for illegal US blockading practices during the war. An additional $500 million in loans was the biggest part of the agreement, which the US was able to take out with British banks at low-interest rates to refinance their war debt.

 The treaty set principles of what neutrality between two warring factions meant:

1.     That due diligence "ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part."

2.     "The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterward have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step by which the offense is completed cannot be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the neutral country, nor can the consummation of fraud become the means of establishing its innocence."

3.     "The principle of extraterritoriality has been admitted into the laws of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality."

 

And the best part of his story is that although it took many years, eventually his enemies were defeated, and his inherent refinement and intellect ultimately carried the battle. These setbacks that would have buried a lesser man had a funny way of moving him into his real calling. It’s kind of like a real-life “David Copperfield”, overcoming personal losses led to amazing success, albeit not exactly what anyone had imagined. His wife Abigail steadfastly supported him through all of his life’s trials. They succeeded in "passing the torch" to the next generation of the Adams family, which included four noteworthy sons—railroad reformer Charles Francis Adams Jr., Massachusetts politician John Quincy Adams II, celebrated writer Henry Adams, and historian Brooks Adams. His son Henry Adams would go on to become one of the first great American historians and authors. The posting influenced the younger man through the experience of wartime diplomacy and absorption in English culture. After the war, he became a political journalist who entertained America's foremost intellectuals at his homes in Washington and Boston. During his lifetime, he was best known for The History of the United States of America 1801–1817, a nine-volume work.

No, he was never elected President, like his father and his grandfather, and so he is often taught superficially as a man who failed. But his public service saved our country, documented who had assisted the enemy, and sought and obtained reparations from a foreign power for prolonging the war. He changed forever what neutrality entailed. And it turned out he was not only the right man for the job, he was in fact the only man who could have succeeded at it.

 

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The economy boomed during the Roaring Twenties and rising incomes gave ordinary Americans access to enticing new conveniences, including washing machines, refrigerators, cars and other luxuries that would have once seemed unattainable. For a number of people, the idea of owning a car wasn’t enough. Such eagerness played right into the hands of the Roaring Twenties’ legions of fast-talking promoters, charlatans and outright swindlers, who enticed the would-be wealthy with scores of seemingly foolproof schemes—from stock companies that didn’t really exist, to speculation in Florida real estate or California oilfields. 

In this article Richard Bluttal will examine the get rich quick schemes of the 1920s - which laid the foundation for the more elaborate ones of the 21st century.

Charles Ponzi.

Charles Ponzi

Many people lacked the financial literacy to understand the difference between investing in a legitimate company and a scheme such as the one operated by Ponzi, an Italian immigrant who claimed to have become a wealthy man through sheer ingenuity and hard work. 

Charles Ponzi was a dapper, five-foot-two-inch rogue who in 1920 raked in an estimated $15 million in eight months by persuading tens of thousands of Bostonians that he had unlocked the secret to easy wealth. Charles Ponzi was born Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi on March 3, 1882, in the town of Lugo in northern Italy. His parents, Oreste and Imelda Ponzi, Ponzi later said, were part of a wealthy Italian family that had become borderline poor by the time he was born. Ponzi is said to have expressed criminal tendencies early on, stealing from his parents and even parish priests.

As a young man, he attended Sapienza University in Rome, where, by his own account, he was less than a model student. As a result, after four years, Ponzi was forced to leave with no money and no degree. During his university years, he had heard stories of other Italians who went off to America to find fame and fortune and decided that this was the only course left open for him.

In 1919, after having set himself up in a small export-import business, Ponzi received a letter from a Spanish company requesting an advertising catalog. Inside the envelope, he found an iinternational reply coupon (IRC), a type of voucher accepted in various other countries in exchange for local postage stamps. Ponzi quickly realized the moneymaking potential of taking advantage of exchange-rate differences to buy IRCs in one country and redeem them in another.

In 1920, Ponzi organized a company called Securities Exchange Co. in which he sold stock (promissory notes) advertising 50% interest after 90 days. The funds obtained from investors were supposed to be used to buy IRCs to redeem in the U.S. Instead, Ponzi used funds obtained from new investors to pay off old investors. It was a big idea—one that Ponzi managed to sell to thousands of people. He claimed to have elaborate networks of agents throughout Europe who were making bulk purchases of postal reply coupons on his behalf. In the United States, Ponzi asserted, he worked his financial wizardry to turn those piles of paper coupons into larger piles of greenbacks. Pressed for details on how this transformation was achieved, he politely explained that he had to keep such information secret for competitive reasons.

By way of explaining why he did this, Ponzi blamed the Universal Postal Union for suspending the sale of IRCs once it learned about his coupon redemption scheme. After attempting to get around the suspension, Ponzi shifted to his “Rob Peter to pay Paul” scheme. For a while, it worked. He raked in $15 million ($220 million in 2022 dollars) in the first eight months of 1920. He kept the scheme going by telling investors he had created an elaborate network of agents buying IRCs for him overseas that he could redeem in the U.S. for a tidy profit. In fact, there was no elaborate network of coupon buyers; he was using new investments to pay off old investors.

In July 1920, the Boston Post ran a flattering front-page feature on Ponzi pegging his net worth at $8.5 million. Less than a week later, the U.S. Post Office Department announced new conversion rates for international postal reply coupons, though officials said the rate change had nothing to do with Ponzi.

Investigations of Ponzi ensued but made little progress until the Boston Post launched its own investigation, which generated bad press, causing Ponzi to decline to accept new investments. This caused a run by current investors, and Ponzi reportedly paid out more than $1 million.

More bad press from the Post ultimately sealed Ponzi’s fate. He was eventually convicted on federal charges of mail fraud and served 3½ years in prison. Upon parole, he was convicted of state charges, jumped bail, was caught, and went to prison again, getting out in 1934. At that time, he was deported to his native Italy, having never become a U.S. citizen. His history in Italy and Brazil is not well documented, though it is known that he died on Jan. 18, 1949, in a charity hospital in Rio de Janeiro, leaving just $75 to pay for his burial.

 

Florida land boom speculators

By 1920, Florida had a population of 968,470 people. Just five years later, the population had grown to 1,263,540. Advertised as “heaven on earth,” Florida became the number one destination spot for upwardly mobile American families during the Roaring Twenties. In just five years, more than 200,000 Americans flocked south. What had caused such a rise in the population?

Following World War I, large numbers of Americans finally had the time and money to travel to Florida and to invest in real estate. Educated and skilled workers were receiving paid vacations, pensions, and fringe benefits, which made it easier for them to travel and to purchase real estate. The automobile was also becoming an indispensable way for families to travel, and Florida was the perfect destination. Many of the people who migrated into Florida were middle class Americans with families. Unlike visitors of the past, these newer arrivals wanted homes and land rather than resorts and hotels. Moguls bought up cheap land, advertising accommodations-to-come through bold announcements across the country. Developers rushed to transform Everglade swamps into resort towns, like Miami Beach and Tampa Bay. 

During this boom, however, most people who bought and sold land in Florida had never even set foot in the state. Instead, they hired young, ambitious men and women to stand in the hot sun to show the land to prospective buyers and accept a "binder" on the sale. The binder was a non-refundable down payment that required the rest of the money to be paid in 30 days. Many people got rich quickly from the commission they made from these sales. With land prices rising rapidly, many of the buyers planned to sell the land at a profit before the real land payments were due. Sometimes land buyers didn't even have enough money to pay for the land; instead, they had just enough money for the binder. They were depending on the prices to continually rise.

It was during this time that many vacation spots were created and some of our most popular cities were developed. Dave Davis, the son of a steamboat captain, built Davis Island in the Tampa Bay area. Barron Collier started Naples and Marco Island as winter resorts. There were so many characters and stories of the boom times. There’s D. P. Davis, who in 1924 sold 300 building lots in Tampa Bay in three hours — while they were still underwater — and who remarried his first wife because, his brother said, he wanted to make his mistress jealous. There’s Barron Collier, who developed 1.2 million acres of southwest Florida that made him, if you could believe the price tags he put on them (and many thousands did), richer than John D. Rockefeller. The society architect Addison Mizner spun a fairyland of neo-Spanish castles in Palm Beach. His con man brother Wilson prophetically said, “Easy street is a blind alley,” and not much later the two of them found themselves stumbling along its darkened length.

Unfortunately, this land boom did not exist without problems. The demand for housing was so high that the cost of rent soared. Because the speculators had inflated the economy, many Americans who had migrated to Florida could no longer afford to live here. They began to write back home and tell people about their problems. Newspapers began writing stories that advised prospective residents to stay away from Florida.

At the same time, the demand for building materials overwhelmed the railway systems that transported them here. Railroads could not keep up with the needs and began to shut down. This acted as a brake on many developments, slowing down or stopping the boom's momentum. Once land prices stopped going up, many speculators couldn't sell at the high prices. There were suddenly thousands of acres of overpriced land without any buyers.

The boom stopped as suddenly as it had started. An unusually cold winter in 1925 followed by an extremely hot summer frightened away many potential buyers. It also cast doubts on the state's reputation as "heaven on earth." What was to follow was a series of natural disasters (freezes, hurricanes) that would send Florida into a tailspin, causing it to enter a Florida Depression four years before the 1929 stock market crash brought the whole country's economy down in the Great Depression.

 

Chauncey C. Julian

In the Roaring Twenties, this oil stock swindler dressed to the nines while boasting to small investors that his sham oil-drilling operations would yield easy 30-to-1 returns. His specialty was writing newspaper sales pitches that used folksy, plainspoken language. Julian became a millionaire, chiefly by selling more shares in his worthless syndicates than existed. When his empire began to crumble, Julian fled to Shanghai. One night in 1934, he arranged a banquet in his own honor, excused himself, and went upstairs to his hotel room to drink a suicidal dose of poison.

 

Charles A. Stoneham

The inveterate gambler was known in the 1920s for allegedly winning against the New York Giants baseball team in a game of poker. On Wall Street, he specialized in “bucket shops,” cut-rate brokerage houses that dangled low commissions as means to obtain money the firm almost never invested or repaid. Individual stock orders would be entered into the books but not filled on the open market. Instead, they would be “bucketed,” or combined into larger blocks that would be traded only if prices favored the brokerage. Despite his close association with Arnold Rothstein, the gambler who reportedly fixed the 1919 World Series, Stoneham was never sanctioned by Major League Baseball. The only time he was ever brought up on stock fraud charges, he was acquitted amid allegations of jury tampering.

 

Radio Pool

 The 1920’s was the last decade before the onset of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  As a result, stock manipulation was virtually legal, and was performed by pools of investors who traded large blocks back and forth in consortium with each other to drive the price of certain stocks up substantially.  One such group, the Radio Pool, traded Radio Corporation of America (RCA) stock until the price rose from $100 per share in 1928 to over $500 per share just before the big crash.  The pool then sold out and left the vast number of smaller shareholders with huge losses just in time for the stock market to crash in October 1929.  With the advent of the depression and ensuing regulations, the investor pool collaboration was among those activities that were outlawed.

 

Joseph “Yellow Kid” Weil

Long before Notre Dame football star Manti Te'o said he was duped by an imaginary Internet girlfriend, Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil was plucking the gullible. A regular entry on Chicago police blotters in the first half of the 20th century, Weil was dubbed the "king of the con men" by reporters who eagerly chronicled his nefarious schemes. He brought out the poet in headline writers. A 1924 Tribune story was titled: "Weil Loses His Sangfroid as Accuser Glares."

The lead paragraph wasn't too bad either. He was described as a "debonair fast talker who plants in the provinces and reaps in the cities" — a reference to Weil being an equal-opportunity swindler who fleeced country bumpkins and city slickers alike. In his later years, he worked the local, off-beat lecture circuit, claiming to have taken suckers for a total of more than $8 million. Yet when he died in 1976 at the age of 100, the Kid was virtually a pauper, leaving an estate of $195 in the form of a credit at the Sheridan Road nursing home that was his final address.

When the Lake Front Convalescent Center threw a party for Weil's 99th party, he told a Tribune reporter he had no regrets about what he had done with his life. "I'd do it the same way again," he said. Sometimes he claimed to be not a victimizer but a victim of reporters giving free rein to their imaginations in order to sell papers.

According to the Tribune, he told one judge: "The dastardly fabrications of the metropolitan newspapers, the reprehensible conduct of journalists to surround me with a nimbus — er — a numbus of guilt, is astonishing." Yet in his "Autobiography of a Master Swindler," he acknowledged his chosen profession, even as he bemoaned its decline. "There are no good confidence men anymore," he wrote, "because they do not have the necessary knowledge of foreign affairs, domestic problems, and human nature." 

He certainly demonstrated more than a smattering of knowledge of those fields. He characterized the psychology underlying his working methods much as a judo wrestler explains how he turns his opponent's strength against him. He said: "A chap who wants something for nothing usually winds up with nothing for something." On other occasions, he defended his swindles with a Robin Hood twist. "He said he 'never took a dollar from a man who didn't deserve to lose it' because of greed," the Tribune recalled in Weil's obituary.

During World War I, Weil and his longtime confederate Frederick Buckminster swindled a Kokomo, Ind., banker out of more than $100,000, duping him "into purchasing fake stock in an Indiana steel mill by posing as representatives of German interests at a time when German ownership of American securities was embarrassing," the Trib noted.

Bankers were a favorite target of Weil, who took a Fort Wayne, Ind., banker for $15,000 in a 1917 scheme in which a confederate posed as an Englishman. A year later, Weil had no less than six phony brokerage offices up and running, their supposed bona fides supported by fake letters on counterfeit stationery of J.P. Morgan & Co. "We have learned of several letters bearing the supposed signature of Mr. Morgan," an assistant state's attorney told a Tribune reporter.

But Weil was not above fleecing at the other end of the economic ladder. Under a 1949 headline: "The Yellow Kid Beats $3 Case by Technicality," the Tribune reported he pocketed a $3 check solicited on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Weil told the judge he'd be happy to give the nuns the money. "And I would have been happy to give you a year in the Bridewell (a nickname for jail) if the case had been submitted to me on the proper charge," the judge told Weil.

Like many other areas of his life, the story of Weil's nickname had several versions. It was attributed to his fancy-dan attire, a supposed taste for yellow gloves, spats and vests, an etymology Weil denied in his autobiography. Others credit it to "Bathhouse John" Coughlin, a turn-of-the-20th century alderman and protector of vice operations in Chicago's red-light district. Apparently "The Bath" hung the moniker on Weil in 1901, borrowing it from a comic strip of the day, "Hogan's Alley and the Yellow Kid."

Weil was, in his own way, civic minded. In 1928, doing time in the Leavenworth, Kan., federal prison, he sent letters to Chicagoans appealing for funds so fellow inmates might properly celebrate Passover. He signed the letter: "Joseph Weil, president Jewish congregation."

He also felt strongly that there was a pecking order among gentlemen thieves, and Weil had nothing but contempt for one peer. In 1949, one Sigmund Engel, called "Chicago's marrying swindler" for defrauding women over a five-decade career, finally was being charged. As Weil commented, his "neatly trimmed mustache and parted beard fairly bristled," the Tribune noted. "There isn't a day that someone doesn't abscond with a woman's money," Weil said. "Preying on the love of women for money is one of the most despicable ways of making a livelihood I ever heard of."

Though he could be proud, he wasn't above taking a blow to the ego — if it might save him from a stint in the clink. When Weil was charged in 1925 with writing a bum check, a court-appointed doctor from the "psychopathic laboratory" found the Kid had the intelligence of a 16-year-old. "He is foppish to the last degree, a moral imbecile, possessed of a busy brain that is eternally plotting against somebody but unaware that injury is being done to others," the psychiatrist told the judge.

Weill seconded the motion. "I can't defend myself," he told the judge. "Why the very learned Dr. Hickson says I have the mentality of a child of sixteen." He was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

And he could wax philosophically on the vagaries of human existence, as in 1925, when he lost a Sheridan Road hotel, he owned for failing to make his loan payments.

"Life is a funny proposition, after all," he told a Trib reporter. "We are born, we live a while, and then someone forecloses the mortgage."

 

Did you enjoy the piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The movement of civilizations has characterized the Levant. Most places are stagnant with similar people. The Levant always has cultures moving, from the Egyptian conquests, the Christianity’s dawn, the Crusades to the Modern Era. People who would not move caused the Yom Kippur War of 1973. After the 1967’s Six-Day War, the Israeli parliament voted to return relinquished territories to Egypt, however, they took no action. Also, Egypt and the Arab alliance remained firm in their convictions: no negotiation with Israel.

Ayrton Avery explains.

Israeli soldiers during the Battle of Ismailia, part of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

War’s Course

Israel could have made concessions to Egypt after the bloody Six-Day War. This angered the U.S., though, and Israel refused the peace treaty that Egypt offered. Egypt’s president, Anwar El-Sadat, began purchasing weapons from the U.S.S.R and also organizing military exercises. By Yom Kippur (which coincided with Ramadan), war had begun. Though such conflicts were common, this war was unusual because Israel started the previous wars to maintain military superiority in the Levant. Now, Egypt fired the first shots, taking direct revenge. At the war’s beginning, Egypt and Syria entered the disputed territories, sparking an Israeli counteroffensive. Soon Israel pushed into Syria and Egypt, encircling Cairo in a few days after a bloody march. Then Jordan entered the war, and the Soviet Union considered involvement. After three weeks of fighting, there was a standoff between the Soviet and U.S. navies, escalating fears of a nuclear war and worsening global geopolitical tensions between two major powers. It was perhaps this that led the U.S. and the Soviet Union to broker a ceasefire.

 

The Effect

At the beginning of the war, the Israeli forces faced a series of surprising defeats, shocking their forces from their lethargy. After several failed counterattacks, affairs became in favor of the Israeli army. But the trauma of their defeats remained, and also the sheer luck that allowed the forces to defeat Egypt. Israel only invaded Egypt because of last minute American support (operation Nickel Grass), which was itself pulled up only because it could use a Portuguese airbase. The Arab coalition had become so powerful it could start an energy crisis in the West, and the Soviet Union probably gave Egypt nuclear weapons. Never had the Middle East been a major economic and social rival in modern times. The Middle East snapped free from both the influence of the Ottoman empire and also from dependence on Europe for its political ideals. This newfound independence, unknown since ancient times, pressured the Israelis to accept the terms of peace.

It is not clear why Sadat took part in the peace talks. He immediately got snubbed by the rest of the Arab countries for it. Of course, the war had been bloody on Egypt’s side, however; it seems more likely Sadat was perhaps a radical, and he also had Western sympathies, as he also seemed to dislike his country’s relation with the Soviet Union. Perhaps because of these same reasons, he ignored Palestine. He was trying to lead the Middle East on a path towards peace with Israel. But his former allies defected, preferring to support the Palestinian alliance, even though Palestinians had hardly fought in this war, unlike the previous confrontations with Israeli. However, the rest of the Levant was, like always, shifting. No longer allied to Palestine for ideological and military reasons, now they supported them for political attachments to Syria and Jordan, as well as possibly an anti-American sentiment. Indeed, the oppression of Palestinians in the Middle East and the entire world increased after the war, and this was because a new foreign policy, tailored to powerful and wealthy nations, had arrived in the region.

 

Legacy

The Yom Kippur War also successfully divided up the Middle East, largely into Western and Soviet camps. It was this disjunction that was a major cause for the Iranian Revolution, among other future conflicts. By trying to set peace, Sadat in fact, by siding with the West, setting the stage for more wars. It also divided the Middle East based on minor ideological differences, rather than united against Israel. If Sadat assumed this would end the conflict, he was wrong. Instead, it began an endless cycle of civil war and foreign intervention, and besides, the Palestine issue remained.

However, the actual result of the Yom Kippur War was that it forced the West to exert greater, forceful influence on the Middle East, whose peoples consequently retaliated. It is curious to note perhaps it was Egypt falling from Soviet control that started the Soviet-Afghan war, as it forced the U.S.S.R to find some new way to control the region. And it was this which eventually led to the creation of the Taliban. It is interesting how scholars have considered Palestine’s role in the Yom Kippur War as psychological. In fact, this war shifted Palestine from the hero of the Middle East to a stage for other conflicts. They forced Palestinians, subsequently, to go to more lengths to attract attention from their own former allies, in particular with the Second Intifada (2000-2005) and the subsequent uprisings.

Change is both a blessing and a curse for the geopolitics of this region. The only thing that is stagnant is the peace process, chaperoned by the West. Also, that division in the Arab world that the Yom Kippur War ushered in still exists today. Now the Middle East comprises ideological partners, some real allies, and some enemies for Palestine. This arrangement, meant to quell tensions, in fact has excited all the countries’ thirst for revenge and power. It is a drama of nations willing to die for their allies and emboldened by flimsy promises. There is a faint hypocrisy as well. It allows countries to provide support for Palestine and yet refuses to accept its refugees. Clearly, the region is still too tense to handle this much movement. However, movement (of refugees, armies, and cultures) is its nature, and it will continue, war, or no war.

 

Did you find the piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

References

Bartal, Shaul. "Yom Kippur War Influence at the PLO Recognition and the Palestinian Problem." History 5.4 (2015): 255-267.

Begum, Imrana. "The Arab Uprising: Russian Disquiet on Western Involvement." journal of European studies (2013).

Farr, Warner D. The third temple's holy of holies: Israel's nuclear weapons. No. 2. USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air University, 1999. (p. 9)

Hamzawy, Amr, and Dina Bishara. "Islamist movements in the Arab World and the 2006 Lebanon War." (2006).

Kumaraswamy, P. R. "Revisiting the Yom Kippur War: Introduction." Israel Affairs 6.1 (1999): 1-10.

Robbins, Elizabeth. “Egypt, Jordan, and Other Arab Governments Reject Gazan Refugees.” FDD, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 17 Oct. 2023, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/10/17/egypt-jordan-and-other-arab-governments-reject-gazan-refugees/.

Singh, K. R. "Anwar El Sadat: Man with a Mission." (1977): 281-283.

The Sullivan-Clinton Expedition Against the Iroquois took place in the summer of 1779 in New York and Pennsylvania. The attack came via a decision of George Washington as the Iroquois Native Americans were Allied with the British during the American Revolutionary War. Brian Hughes explains.

A woodcut print of the Burning of Newtown in 1779.

In the summer of 1779, a large serpentine column of American Forces under the command of Major General John Sullivan departed their camp in Easton Pennsylvania and proceeded northwest up the Wyoming Valley. Theirdestination, the large and fertile stretch of land comprising most of present-day Western New York State and home to the powerful Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Confederacy, one of the most powerful tribes in North America and allied to Great Britain. Working in conjunction with Sullivan’s force was a smaller array of soldiers led by Brigadier General James Clinton who at the same time proceeded down the Mohawk Valley of New York State. The objective was the total devastation of the war making capabilities of the Iroquois-British alliance legitimized in response to the persistent raids launched on the New York and Pennsylvania frontiers by the Iroquois and their British/Loyalist allies. The campaign was launched in particular in retribution for the Iroquois-Loyalist raids into Pennsylvania and The Cherry Valley Massacre in New York the previous year. The result would be a catastrophe for the Iroquois leading to their ultimate demise thus forever changing American history.

Following the outbreak of hostilities in 1775 the Iroquois constituting the six nations of the Seneca, Cayuga, Tuscarora, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk remained divided and confused by what they viewed as a civil war between Great Britain and her colonies. Neutrality could not be maintained indefinitely as increasing pressure fractured the cohesion of the confederacy as certain tribes began to take sides with the powerful Seneca and Mohawk choosing the British whom they were convinced had the best chance of success. Only the Oneida and some Tuscarora would fight for the Americans as the majority of the Iroquois became increasingly concerned with colonial encroachment on their ancestral land. A problem that the British at least attempted to delay. Raids and counterraids would ensue throughout the northern frontiers of New York and Pennsylvania in addition to pitched battles such as the appalling Battle of Oriskany in the Mohawk Valley of New York State where combined Tory and Patriot militias fought a gruesome battle with their respective Seneca and Oneida allies. The brutal clashes along the frontier would continue even as the major fronts of the war shifted from north to south. In 1778 a joint Iroquois-Loyalist raiding party attacked settlements in Cherry Valley New York and the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania killing combatants and noncombatants alike. The ferocity was appalling and cleverly propagandized. For American forces this was the final straw, the Iroquois Confederacy and their British enablers had to be dealt with.

 

Before the war

Before the war George Washington worked as a land surveyor in addition to being a planter and officer in the colonial militia. Like many other colonials Washington longed for the day in which the vast fertile lands of the Ohio country west of the Appalachian Mountains could be cultivated and settled. The Iroquois maintained a powerful position in regards to this region as swift and vicious wars of conquest enabled them to control virtual monopoly on the fur trade from Canada to the Mississippi River. It is widely speculated that desire to shift the power dynamics in this territory would be an additional impetus for the coming military enterprise. Washington devised a plan to invade the Iroquois homeland via a two-pronged invasion to advance on Fort Niagara, a strategic focal point between Western New York and Canada. As the dual columns advanced, they were instructed by Washington to devastate the lands, crops, and villages as a means to intimidate and nullify the total war making capabilities of the tribes deemed hostile to the United States. It is speculated that these tribes had upwards to three thousand warriors but this can’t be wholly substantiated. 

 

Command

Command of the expedition had initially been offered to Horatio Gates, victor of the Battles of Saratoga. Gates would decline on account of his age. Instead, command was given to Major General John Sullivan of New Hampshire who would operate in conjunction with Brigadier General James Clinton. Sullivan assembled his army at Easton, Pennsylvania departing up the Wyoming Valley in July 1779. Clinton advanced a month earlier in June, his initial objective being the town of Canajoharie on the Mohawk River. The American force disguised their intentions well, for an invasion of the Iroquois homeland seemed inconceivable given the size, terrain, and martial reputation of their people. The British speculated that the Americans would attempt another invasion of Canada as they had previously done in late 1775.  In August Sullivan arrived at the mixed white/indigenous settlement of Chemung, destroying the village in the process. The British forces were led by loyalist Colonel John Butler. Butler could muster no more than six hundred Indians and Loyalists to oppose the nearly five thousand man combined force of Sullivan and Clinton who had now linked up. Butler worked with renowned Mohawk war chief Joseph Brant and assembled a motley force of Loyalists, Rangers and Iroquois loyal to Great Britain to confront the American force at Newtown, present day Elmira New York. A fierce pitched battle ensued on the 29th of August as the combined application of infantry and artillery of the Americans rapidly overran Butler and Brant’s detachment. Following the battle Newtown was burned by the Americans. 

 

Newtown

Newtown would be the only large-scale pitched battle of the campaign. It is interesting that the outnumbered allied force of Loyalists and Iroquois deviated from traditional guerilla tactics and instead offered open battle. Sullivan and Clinton now possessed the tactical flexibility to systematically burn towns and settlements spanning the area around the Finger Lakes, the heartland of Iroquoia. Sullivan did however overextend his supply lines forcing his men to halt constantly and granting valuable time for refugees to flee. The devastation was enormous. It is estimated that up to forty towns and dwellings had been destroyed not to mention innumerable bushels of corn and other crops. The psychological toll in which the expedition took was even more significant passing into the collective memory of Iroquois descendants to this day. By launching such an unprecedented attack, the American did however unintentionally better solidify the British/Iroquois alliance. The Sullivan Expedition did not completely eradicate the especially hostile Seneca and Mohawk Nations and indiscriminately wreaked havoc on the more neutral leaning Onondaga and Cayuga. Even at the objections of their Oneida allies. But it would be the beginning of the end of Iroquois hegemony in northern regions of North America. The final nail in the coffin indeed would be the ultimate defeat of Great Britain a few years later.

 

In perspective

The Sullivan Expedition in many ways was a precursor to William Tecumseh Sherman’s March through Georgia during the American Civil War. Although not as entirely successful, it demonstrated the willingness of a lethal and well-coordinated mobile force to invade an immense swathe of land, ravishing it along with its inhabitants all while taking relatively few casualties. It remains a pivotal and often overlooked chapter of the American Revolution.

 

Did you enjoy the piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The French Revolution made huge impacts around the world, especially with it being not many years after the American Revolution. Here, Bilal Junejo considers how the long-standing French monarchy was deposed during the 1789 French Revolution.

1777 portrait of King Louis XVI of France.

The revolution which broke out in 1789 was against what the annals of mankind have confirmed to be the surest instigator of all revolutionary sentiment — a decrepit, effete, and increasingly invidious regime. Unlike England’s Glorious Revolution a century earlier, the entire ambition of which had lain in the overthrow of a particular monarch (rather than the monarchy per se), the French Revolution did not commence as a revolt against Louis XVI personally, but against the whole polity over which he presided, and which had been established by his forebear, Louis XIV, in the seventeenth century — the ancien régime, the hallmarks of which included outdated agricultural methods, feudal traditions of land tenure, and uncontrolled inflation. The abolition of the monarchy — which was eventually decreed in September 1792, and confirmed in January 1793 with the execution of Louis XVI — was in no way the inspiration behind the insurrection in 1789, but merely the inevitable outcome of it — much as had been the case in the English Civil War, when the intransigence of Charles I, anticipating that of Louis XVI, had eventuated in the decapitation of that proud but not hypocritical Stuart in 1649. Another similarity was the fact that both of them had married foreign princesses. Charles was the ominously faithful husband of France’s Henrietta Maria, an early Bourbon (as well as a Catholic) whose influence upon him endeared neither of them to a Protestant parliament. The pride of a Stuart, coupled with the advice of a Bourbon, did not make for the alleviation of domestic rancour, and proved not surprisingly to be Charles’s undoing. In a similar fashion, Louis XVI, who had been married to the equally perverse Marie Antoinette of Austria, was also in thrall to the peremptory politics of his unpopular wife. Every monarch is a human being, and all human beings have their faults. It was the fault of both Charles and Louis that they were endowed with absolute authority at what, in retrospect, was a critical time for their respective states, and that they exercised that authority under the not inconsiderable influence of the least desirable of advisors — their foreign spouses, who had by definition almost nothing to lose in the event of an upheaval. Myopic monarchs acting at the behest of individuals with no stake in the fate of the nation cannot but court disaster, and nothing settled Louis’s fate more decisively than his choice to side with the very status quo which was responsible for having created the problems that ushered in the Revolution.

 

Bankruptcy

In 1789, France was upon the verge of bankruptcy. A century of wars waged without her borders had accumulated vast debts without corresponding victories with which to justify them. The War of the Spanish Succession (1702-13), the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48), and the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) had all humbled Bourbon pretensions — and bestowed a raft of burdens upon their treasury into the bargain, in the discharge of which the wealthiest classes of French society, the nobility and the clergy, were not obliged to assist. In return for this magnificent concession, these classes refrained from interfering in the monarch’s policies. France’s frivolous equivalent of the British Parliament, the Estates-General (which had not been summoned by the monarch since 1614), was dominated by these two Estates, to the detriment of the third — the bourgeoisie, which, along with the peasantry, had to fulfil all the fiscal demands of the state. The class which provided the money required for the execution of state policies had no say in the formulation of those policies, and one of the reasons for never summoning the Estates-General was to ensure that so sorry a state of affairs should continue without hindrance. But this was a century of the Enlightenment, some of whose greatest luminaries — Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Montesquieu — were French. Their increasingly popular writings helped to ensure that royal absolutism would no longer be accorded medieval deference. Worse still, French arms had only recently crowned with victory the struggle of George Washington against the perverse autocracy of George III and his ministers; and French soldiers returning across the Atlantic were imbued with the hope of rejuvenating their languishing country after the American fashion. It was not so much that Louis would not compromise with the Third Estate, as that his wife and the other two Estates would not allow him to even think of doing so.

 

Reforms

But necessity is the mother not only of invention, but also aberration. Ambitious financial reforms devised by the likes of Calonne, Necker and Turgot in 1787 and 1788 were at the court’s disposal. All that remained to be mustered was the courage to execute them, and the first step towards achieving that was the summoning of the Estates-General. This, the King eventually did in May 1789, his decision having been endorsed by the clergy and the nobility, who believed that they would be able to exact budgetary obedience from the commoners; but for the first time, the Third Estate’s opponents received more than they had bargained for. The commoners, elated by the unexpected reappearance of a crucial forum for concerted opposition, refused to grant money over the expenditure of which they would have no control, echoing the Short Parliament’s refusal to accede to Charles’s request for funds in 1629. But Charles, no less than his people, had yet to learn, in the succeeding decade, that kings could no longer govern on their own in an era of diminishing regard for the divine right of kings. Louis, on the other hand, was already aware of that unpalatable truth, at the behest of which he had summoned the Estates-General; and he could only yield when the Third Estate, led by the energetic Abbé Sieyès, declared itself a National Assembly and seceded from the Estates-General. Subsequent events like the fall of the Bastille and the advent of the Great Fear were significant not so much in themselves as in their indication of the King’s inability to prevent them. And when he could not resist even the form of revolution, there was no way in which he could deny the substance thereof. By August, feudalism had been formally abolished, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was promulgated to circumscribe the more self-serving aspects of royal policy. Inflation, however, remained an incubus; and when the persistently rising cost of bread refused to evince any sign of coming down, ensuing demonstrations in Paris culminated in the famous “Bread March of the Women” to Versailles in October to demand — most successfully, it should be noted — the royal family’s return to Paris. The young Assembly followed them soon after, and thenceforth Parisian control of the Revolution was never seriously contested.

 

The end

The inability of King Louis XVI to stave off the radical and speedy overhaul of the status quo within a matter of months was indicative of the unprecedented extent to which the monarchy, as the direct result of its own insolvency, had been overwhelmed by the people. As the next eighteen months were devoted to long constitutional debates and internal reform (principally through the promulgation of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790, and the sale of royal and ecclesiastical lands to small shareholders for fiscal purposes), the only brake on the speed of the overhaul was the presence not of the King, but of the moderate constitutionalist, Mirabeau, whose death in April 1791 widened the breach between the Assembly and the court, and precipitated the Flight to Varennes but a few months later. The Flight signaled the King’s acceptance of his inability to reverse the tide, to undo anything that had been accomplished in the last two years. The monarchy had been fatally undermined — or, in other words, completely overwhelmed.

 

Did you enjoy the piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

 

 

Bibliography

Kenyon, J. (1994) The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History. Wordsworth Editions Limited.

Oxford Dictionary of Word History (3rd edition, 2015).

Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (3rd edition, 2009).

Palmer, A. (1964) A Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945. Penguin Reference Books.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

In their novel, The Gilded Age, Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner noted that the Civil War and its immediate aftermath, ‘uprooted institutions that were centuries old, changed the politics of a people, and wrought so profoundly upon the entire national character that the influence cannot be measured short of two or three generations.’ In the hope of rebuilding the broken pieces together, every aspect of society, from urban life to class system to agriculture and industry had to be touched upon. The process of institutional transformation came to be known as the Reconstruction (1865-1877).

Aarushi Anand gives her take on the Reconstruction era.

A Visit from the Old Mistress. Winslow Homer, 1876.

The task of reconstructing the union initiated the transition from conflict to peace by targeting fundamental components of the rebuilding framework.  Restoration of "physical infrastructure," a traditional area of strength, involved expensive maintenance services like rebuilding rail and road networks, reconnection of interrupted water supply and racial desegregation of schools and hospitals. The process of social and emotional reintegration becomes more difficult when conflicts, especially those that last for a long period, damage the fabric of society and render a return to the past impossible or undesirable. Slavery was formally outlawed in the entire United States through the 13th amendment (1865). In order to determine what kind of reconstruction policies to implement, the nation had to first decide whether the Confederacy be treated with leniency or as a conquered foe?

President Abraham Lincoln was of the lenient persuasion as is evident from his second inaugural address “with malice toward none; with charity for all...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.” He started off the Ten-Percent Plan (1865–87) which imposed a minimum requirement of political loyalty for southern states to rejoin the Union. Following President Lincoln's assassination, his successor Andrew Johnson and his administration drafted what is now known as Presidential Reconstruction. Johnson, a former enslaver, was deeply racist and recreated conditions in the South which were largely the same as they were before the war. Case in point, he set up all-white government and appointed a trust-worthy provisional governor in the South. During his administration, a number of draconian laws known as the Black Codes (1865–1866) were passed, limiting the civil and political rights of blacks in the South. Since most freed blacks had only the skills to work on plantations the black code stipulated that black workers would be legally bound to the plantation owner. Each year blacks were required to sign a labor contract to work for a white employer and if they did not do so they'd be arrested for vagrancy and then sold off. According to several historians’ Black codes marked the continuation of ‘slavery in all but name.’

The Radical Republicans, who at the time-controlled Congress, were opposed to Johnson's clemency or his role in the South's resegregation. To this end, they passed 2 pieces of law that granted black citizenship rights while also calling for the racial integration of workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, and universities. First, the Freedmen's Bureau, a coalition of Northern officials and Union Soldiers, was set up all over the South. Its goal was to help reunite families separated by slavery which over the course of 250 years had split apart millions of people. In one of its main roles, securing fair labor contracts, the Bureau proved to be redundant.  The Bureau was crucial in helping Black Americans pursue formal education. According to historian James McPherson, there were over 1,000 schools in existence by 1870. Second, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted Black Americans citizenship and guaranteed their equal civil rights, including the ability to enter into agreements, acquire property, and give testimony in court. Republicans sought the 14th constitutional amendment (1868) to bolster these rights and prevent overturning of the central government's directions out of a fear that the Civil Rights Act would be struck down. For nearly a century, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized. African Americans in Southern states were successfully denied the right to vote through the imposition of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other techniques (e.g. permitting only registered voters since the 1860s to vote).

 

CARPETBAGGERS

Despite being eligible to run in elections, it was a harsh reality that an all-black government would not succeed and would require white allies to form an inter-racial coalition.  This raises the issue of whether white people are willing to participate in the reconstruction of government in conjunction with African-American voters. The carpetbaggers come first for the purpose. Carpetbagger is a political term used to describe a northerner who united with blacks and the Republican Party and advocated the new constitutional rights of African-Americans. During the Civil War, Union soldiers and commanders who chose to remain in the South after the army were demobilized made up the majority of the northerners who traveled there. In office, the performance of the carpetbaggers was mixed. While some were dishonest, others, “were economy-minded and strictly honest.” For instance, carpetbag lawyer Albion W. Tourgee contributed to the drafting of the North Carolina Constitution (1868), opposed the Ku Klux Klan (1869–1870) and fought for blacks in Louisiana against a law requiring segregation in railroad cars (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).

 

SCALAWAGS

Although the carpetbaggers managed to occupy positions of authority, they were insufficient to form a voting bloc. So, in terms of voting power, the other real group is the so-called scalawags. The majority of them were Whigs, lower-class whites, and Southern unionists who opposed secession.  James Lusk Alcorn, one of Mississippi's wealthiest planters, a large slaveholder, and a Whig opposed to secession, popularized the term "harnessed revolution," which refers to the period of time when White people like himself would lead the Reconstruction process. By far less affluent white people in the upcountry made up the greatest number of scalawags. The number of white Republicans in states like Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia was sizable. These Republicans did not want the planters to regain power and felt that the only option is black suffrage.  Internal conflict also plagued these regions

 

KU KLUX KLAN

It is crucial to remember that white supremacist opposition to the Radical Republicans' agenda manifested itself as covert organizations. The Ku Klux Klan was one such group that fostered homegrown terrorism in the United States. Members of the Klan rode across the nation in white sheets throughout the night to conceal themselves and use violence for political purposes. Violence was used to frighten black and white Republicans to keep them from casting ballots. Additionally, it was done to unite white people under the idea that race was the main concern. The glorification of the Ku Klux Klan in the movie "Birth of a Nation" is based in part on the notion that the group was merely exploiting people's superstitions.

The ferociousness of Ku Klux Klan attacks in 1870 and 1871 convinced many that additional laws, either state or federal, along with a vigorous enforcement, were essential to the security of the new order. Carpetbagger Amos Lovering, a former Indiana judge, contends that "universal education in morals and mind" is the only effective way to permanently quell the Klan's brutality. Many of these measures failed. In the South, most white people continued to own weapons. The government was unwilling to deploy armed blacks after the white knight riders since such a move would only intensify racial tensions.

W.E.B Du Bois, described the Reconstruction period as a moment where "...the slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery." By the end of the 19th century, 2,500 Black people would be lynched across the South. Occasionally people say that Reconstruction failed, but it would be more accurate to say that it was violently overthrown. It did not fail to succeed because Black people were incapable of governance but because white Southerners did everything in their power to obstruct Black mobility and opportunity.

 

CIVIL RIGHTS

In a variety of ways, reconstruction prepared the way for future struggle. The 1960s Civil Rights Movement was frequently referred to as the second reconstruction, the country's second attempt to face the issue of racial equality in the law, politics, and society. The movement was a nonviolent social movement and campaign to abolish legalized racial segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement throughout the United States.  Reconstruction also opened discussion on how to deal with domestic terrorism. Racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan thrived throughout reconstruction and made its imprint on American society via racial bloodshed. The Black Power movement emphasized how little tangible progress had been made since the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and how African-Americans continued to experience discrimination in jobs, housing, education, and politics. Reconstruction is still relevant today because it raises fundamental questions about   American society that are still being debated, such as who is eligible to become a citizen, how the federal government interacts with the states, who is in charge of defending  citizens' fundamental rights, and how one deals with homegrown terrorism.

 

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

 

References

1.     Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History: Seagull Fourth Edition. Vol. WW Norton & Company, 2013.

2.     Foner, Eric. "The new view of reconstruction." American Heritage 34, no. 6 (1983).

3.     Grob, Gerald N., and George Athan Billias. "Interpretations of American History Patterns and Perspectives." (1972).

4.     Harris, William C. "The Creed of the Carpetbaggers: The Case of Mississippi." The Journal of Southern History 40, no. 2 (1974): 199-224.

5.     Trelease, Allen W. "Who were the Scalawags?" The Journal of Southern History 29, no. 4 (1963): 445-468.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones