What You May Not Know About the History of U.S. Election Campaign Trains

Whistle-stop campaign trains were an effective way for politicians to connect with voters in large cities and small towns for more than 185 years. Unfortunately, memories of the pivotal role that trains played in elections fade a bit more with the passing of each generation.

In researching the history of the trains for my new book, Whistle-Stop Politics, I came across dozens of stories and largely forgotten pieces of information about candidates who sought votes from the back of trains at railroad stations across the country.

Here are a few examples that will likely be new to today’s voters.

Edward Segal explains. Edward is the author of Whistle-Stop Politics: Campaign Trains and the Reporters Who Covered Them (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Ferdinand Magellan train in April 1943. Source: White House History, available here.

Some Presidential Candidates Were Impersonated on the Campaign Trail

To provide candidates respite from the rigors of the campaign trail, stand-ins would occasionally deceive people into thinking they had seen the whistle-stopping politicians. The list of those who were impersonated by their staff, family members, and reporters includes William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower.

During his 1936 campaign train tour, FDR said he was tired of sitting by the window of his railcar and waving to the crowds at every town the train passed through, according to Bernard Asbell, author of When F.D.R. Died.

That’s when Roosevelt asked White House usher William D. Simmons, “How would you like to be President for a while? Only for a little while. Maybe an hour or two,” Asbell recounted.

“With a flourish, [Roosevelt] turned over his cigarette holder to Simmons and showed him how to wave a big, open-fingered hand in the Rooseveltian manner and how to smile a big, open-jawed smile,” Asbell wrote in his book. ‘Fine! Fine!’ the President said again. ‘Now, every time we pass a town, just sit there and wave. I’m tired. I’m going to take a nap.’”

All across Arkansas, “Simmons sat by the President’s window. At each town, the train slowed, not too little, nor too much, just enough so the local townsfolk could experience the incomparable thrill of seeing someone who appeared to be Franklin Roosevelt waving to them,” Asbell noted.

Whistle-stopping Politicians Were Not Always Well-Received

Democratic running mates John Kerry and John Edwards faced a divided and raucous crowd when their campaign train pulled into Sedalia, Missouri, in 2004. “Holding candles, flashlights and posters, the people of Sedalia engaged in a shouting contest: Some called out ‘Four more years’ and ‘We want Bush,’ while their neighbors chanted, ‘Three more months’ and ‘Kerry! Kerry!’”

“The candidates could barely get a word in,” the Chicago Tribune reported. “Posters held aloft competed for attention too. There were signs that read ‘Give ’em hell, Kerry’ and others that simply said ‘W.’ “‘Will you let us speak? Will you let us speak, please?’ Edwards urged the jeering Republican section of the crowd.”

Lyndon Johnson Planned His 1960 Trackside Rallies

Lyndon Johnson designed the format of his 1960 vice presidential campaign train tour, according to historian Robert A. Caro, author of The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson.

As the LBJ Special approached towns, its public address system would be switched on, and over it would come the stirring strains of “The Yellow Rose of Texas.”  The music was turned up as the train neared the towns, until the song could be heard for several surrounding blocks.

Once the train arrived at depots, the music and the locomotive’s engine would stop simultaneously, a dark blue curtain that had been hung over the doorway onto the rear platform would be pulled aside, and the tall figure of Lyndon Johnson, waving a ten-gallon hat, would step through to address the crowd.

Johnson choreographed his departures, according to CBS News reporter George Herman. The candidate would signal an aide for the train to pull out of stations before he finished speaking, yelling to crowds that “They’re taking me away from ya! Bye, everybody! Vote Democratic! They’re taking me away from ya!”

A Candidate’s Train Was Ticketed

California governor Edmund G. Brown (father of future governor Jerry Brown) rode the “Progress Special” train during his losing battle for reelection in 1966 against his challenger, actor Ronald Reagan.

At a trackside gathering in downtown Inglewood, a Los Angeles suburb, the campaign special became the first whistlestop train to receive a ticket when local police issued a citation to the engineer for blocking a traffic intersection.

Will one of this year’s presidential or other candidates seek votes from the back of a railroad car? If so, it would be a fitting way to help celebrate the 188th anniversary of the first whistle-stop campaign train trip.

As a reminder, Edward is the author of Whistle-Stop Politics: Campaign Trains and the Reporters Who Covered Them (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

The Story of the Person who Founded the World’s First Anti-War Museum

In today's world, marked by escalating conflicts and geopolitical tensions, the principles of pacifism hold more significance than ever before. As wars once again ravage regions like Eastern Europe and the Middle East, the urgent need for nonviolent solutions and peaceful resolutions to international disputes becomes glaringly evident. Pacifism, rooted in the belief that violence and war are inherently destructive and counterproductive, advocates for the pursuit of peace through dialogue, diplomacy, and nonviolent resistance. Originating from various philosophical, religious, and cultural traditions, pacifism emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of every human life, rejecting the notion that violence can ever be justified in achieving noble ends. One individual who epitomized the essence of pacifism and paid a heavy price for his unwavering commitment to nonviolence was Ernst Friedrich. Ahead of his time by a significant margin, Friedrich's steadfast refusal to participate in World War I and his unyielding opposition to militarism even led to his confinement in a mental institution.

Matti Geyer explains.

Ernst Friedrich.

Childhood & Youth

Ernst Friedrich was born on February 25, 1894, in Breslau (now Wrocław). Despite his humble beginnings as the thirteenth child of a washerwoman and a saddler, Friedrich's journey was marked by a relentless pursuit of justice and a commitment to pacifism. His parents imparted values of compassion and resilience that would shape Friedrich's lifelong dedication to humanitarian causes.

His early life was marked by the struggles of working-class existence. Despite limited formal education, he displayed a voracious appetite for knowledge and social activism. After a brief stint as a factory worker and an aborted apprenticeship as a book printer, Friedrich embarked on a journey of self-discovery, traversing Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland as a "journeyman." It was during this period of exploration that Friedrich's encounters with anarchist thought and socialist principles ignited the flames of rebellion within him. In 1911 he joined the Social Democratic Party, but it was the outbreak of World War I that catalyzed his transformation into an ardent pacifist.

First World War: Confrontation with Conscience

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 thrust Friedrich into the heart of a moral quandary. Confronted with the prospect of military service, he steadfastly refused to partake in the bloodshed, citing conscientious objection as his guiding principle. His refusal to don a uniform led to his confinement in a psychiatric observation station, where he endured the harsh realities of wartime incarceration. Not wanting to serve for one's fatherland was simply unimaginable at the time. In 1917, he was further sentenced to prison in Potsdam for sabotage in a war-critical enterprise. He was released at the end of 1918 due to the November Revolution.

Friedrich's activism took various forms, from his involvement with illegal anarchist groups to his founding of the "Freie Jugend" (Free Youth), an anarchist group with a publication of the same name, advocating for anarchist principles and antiauthoritarian socialism. His publications were frequently banned or confiscated, and Friedrich repeatedly found himself in court. Lawyer Hans Litten defended him in numerous trials. After several previous convictions, on November 14, 1930, he was once again sentenced to one year in prison for his political activities, specifically "preparation for high treason." He was alleged to have been involved in distributing antimilitarist texts among the police and the Reichswehr. Friedrich's commitment to peace ultimately found expression in his establishment of the International Anti-War Museum in Berlin in 1925, which served as a testament to the horrors of war and a rallying point for peace activists.

The Anti-War Museum

At the heart of Friedrich's activism lay the Anti-Kriegs-Museum, a pioneering institution dedicated to exposing the brutal realities of war. Through meticulous curation and compelling exhibits, Friedrich sought to shatter the romanticized notions of warfare propagated by the authorities. In addition to objects from the First World War, paintings by Käthe Kollwitz and Otto Dix were exhibited. Furthermore, the museum founder managed to acquire and exhibit photographs of war mutilations, which were also published in a two-volume book titled "War Against War." The museum was predominantly financed through the sales of this book. The exhibition also addressed the issue of children playing with toy soldiers.

Nazi Persecution & Exile

Even before the Nazi takeover in 1933, Ernst Friedrich was terrorized by them. The windows of the Anti-War Museum were constantly destroyed, and Friedrich was regularly subjected to violent attacks. After the Reichstag fire, he was arrested on February 28, 1933. After his release, he fled in December of the same year. For some time, he found refuge in the Rest-Home project operated by Quakers. His first wife Charlotte Friedrich, née Meier (1895-1981) was able to emigrate to England. 

The Nazis looted the Anti-War Museum in March 1933 and renamed it „Richard Fiedler House“ (after SA leader Richard Fiedler). It then served as a meeting place for the SA until the demolition of the building in 1936. 

Ernst Friedrich ended up in Belgium, where he simply reopened his museum in Brussels in 1936. However, it was once again destroyed in 1940 following the German occupation of Belgium.

Joining the French Resistance

Ernst Friedrich and his son (who was also called Ernst) fled to France, where they were interned by the Vichy regime in the St. Cyprien camp, later in the Gurs camp. He managed to escape not only once but twice: First, after 18 months of imprisonment and for a second time after the Gestapo had tracked him down. While his son was arrested and forced to work as an interpreter for the Gestapo, Ernst Friedrich, despite being a committed pacifist, now joined the Resistance, fought in the liberation of Nîmes and Alès, was wounded twice, but managed to save around seventy children from a Jewish orphanage from deportation. 

Despite enduring internment in French concentration camps and facing the constant threat of arrest by Nazi agents, Friedrich remained resolute in his commitment to peace and resistance. His tireless efforts to defy oppression and aid the persecuted stand as a testament to the indomitable spirit of human resilience.

Legacy of Peace

Following the war, Friedrich became a French citizen and joined the Socialist Party, dedicating himself to the establishment of a new anti-war museum in France. In 1954, he received compensation for the loss of his property and the physical damage suffered in the Third Reich. With this, he bought approximately 3,000 square meters of wooded area on a Seine island near Le Perreux-sur-Marne (Val-de-Marne), where he established an international youth center. The "Swiss Pavilion", the "Berlin Pavilion", and the "Tolstoy House" built here together had fifty beds. With the help of a German union, the "Île de la Paix" (Peace Island) became an international meeting place for working youth from 1961 onwards. Friedrich now symbolically appointed himself as the "World Minister of Peace“. 

Plagued by severe depression in his final years, he died in 1967. His grave is located in the 5th Division of the cemetery of Le Perreux-sur-Marne, Val-de-Marne department. Peace Island was sold after his death and his written legacy destroyed.

A new Anti-War Museum 

On May 2, 1982, the 15th anniversary of Friedrich's death, his museum was re-established in Berlin. It was temporarily located in Berlin-Kreuzberg (which had a large anarchist population at that point) and has been at its current location in the district of Wedding since October 1984. Since then, Ernst Friedrich's grandson, Tommy Spree, and a group of volunteers have been running it. It is now recognized as a non-profit organization and is largely funded by donations. The museum's volunteers support the idea of peace and collaborate with students, politicians, artists, and scholars to design exhibitions. It displays relics from both World Wars. Rotating exhibitions also explore peace movements worldwide. Modern warfare with chemical and biological weapons is also depicted. A highlight of the visit is the trip to the basement, which is an original air raid shelter from World War II. In the cramped, light-tight space, visitors can immerse themselves in the feeling of the anxious nights spent in the bunker.

At the old location of the first Anti-War Museum, where the building no longer exists, a memorial plaque has been installed, with two World War I helmets hanging from the wall, in which flowers are growing.

Matti Geyer is a historical tour guide in Berlin: www.toursofberlin.com. His "Off the beaten path"-tour goes past the site of the first Anti-War Museum.

References

1. Bartolf, Christian, and Dominique Miething. "Ernst Friedrich (1894–1967)." Handbuch Anarchismus, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2023.

2. Kegel, Thomas. "Ernst Friedrich. Anarchistische Pädagogik in Aktion." In: Ulrich Klemm (Ed.): Anarchismus und Pädagogik. Studien zur Rekonstruktion einer vergessenen Tradition, pp. 126–137. Dipa Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1991.

3. Kegel, Thomas. "‘Krieg dem Krieg!’ Ernst Friedrich – Anarchist und revolutionärer Antimilitarist." Graswurzelrevolution, Heft 115, June 1986.

4. Klemm, Ulrich. "Ernst Friedrich." In: Hans Jürgen Degen (Ed.): Lexikon der Anarchie.Verlag Schwarzer Nachtschatten, Bösdorf/Plön, 1993, ISBN 3-89041-008-1.

5. Linse, Ulrich. "Ernst Friedrich zum 10. Todestag." (Europäische Ideen, Heft 29). Verlag Europäische Ideen, Berlin, 1977.

6. Opel, Jürgen. "Vergessen in Deutschland - Das Anti-Kriegsmuseum des Ernst Friedrich." Freitag, September 6, 1991, p. 13.

7. Spree, Tommy. Ich kenne keine ‘Feinde’. Der Pazifist Ernst Friedrich. Ein Lebensbild.Anti-Kriegs-Museum, Selbstverlag, Berlin, 2000.

The industrial Revolution and Society Today

The Industrial Revolution was the passport to the future. Innovation propelled our economies, technology, and transportation further than ever. Britain, the first country to enter the Industrial revolution, set the tone for how capitalism would affect societies, economies, and the environment across the world. Unfortunately, as innovation and efficiency progressed, working conditions did not. Julius Olavarria explains.

A hurrier and two thrusters moving coal. From the 1853 book The White Slaves of England by J. Cobden.

During the Industrial revolution, there were many examples of maltreatment. One example is a hurrier, “A hurrier, also sometimes called a coal drawer or coal thruster, was a child or woman employed by a collier to transport the coal that they had mined.” 

Coal mine managers strapped women and children to carts, like animals, and made them crawl through mine shafts for 12-hour shifts. These mines were incredibly hot, reaching over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38C) at times - workers never saw sunlight or breaks and had to hunch over for the entire workday. Jobs like these are textbook examples of the horrid conditions brought by the Industrial Revolution, especially for women and children working in factories or mines.

Jobs like these continued for a long time. For almost 80 years in the 18th and 19th centuries, women and children were subject to the worst of the worst. Generations would go by without much progress. Young lungs were filled with pollution leading to unhealthy lives and untimely deaths. Lives were like the unceasing, monotonous rhythms of the industrial machines. Hurriers saw no light at the end of their social tunnels - or in this case, mineshafts.

Factory Act of 1833

The Factory Act of 1833 set age requirements for child labor. The British House of Commons declared that “children under the age of 9” could not work any longer. Individuals aged 10 through 17 were subject to more restrictions, working fewer hours and in better conditions. This seemed like a win in the social books but was not popular in the slightest.

Sure, setting age requirements to work is great. In what world should a 4-year-old work in a coal mine? Children should be outside, exploring, learning, and having fun. They deserve a childhood just like everyone deserves a childhood. Setting age requirements for work is the first step towards getting them out of factories and into a normal life, right?

In fact, it is wrong.

In a normal working family, the children have to work because they have to. Believe it or not, children aren’t great left to their own devices. Usually, the wife of the family would look after the children during their new-born years, but for working families that wasn’t always possible: the wife needs to work, and if the wife works the child works too. Children, with this in mind, would work starting at ages 3 or 4.

It’s a sad reality. The family is so poor they can’t afford to hire a nanny or watch over their children. (And yes, nannies existed back then - interestingly enough they can be dated back as early as 800 B.C!)

Working children

I digress. Because the working families needed their children to work, the Factory Act of 1833 received a lot of pushback. Women were forced to stay at home or the families were forced to hire nannies. Some families were driven to the depths of poverty - a majority of the family’s wage earners were forced to stay at home.

Then, the Coal Mines Act of 1842 came along - the second act on the way to reform. This prohibited children under the age of 10, who could fit in the tiny mineshafts, from working there. Women were also prohibited as part of this act: major protests came as a result.

It is important to note that social critiques reported on the conditions of the Industrial Revolution. These authors, writers, and early muckrakers convinced the British parliament to set restrictions for women and children. They believed that they could improve conditions for the country by improving the conditions for workers.

Protests from women and children who were limited to work erupted - a paradoxical outcome. These women and children should be grateful: they don’t have to work in these horrible conditions, right?

Wrong.

Losing money

The women and children lost their earnings. The government stepped in and took their money. Now their families would be driven to even greater poverty - there’s no way to escape their social position besides picking up the most brutal of jobs. They were denied even that - they’re angry.

Reformers and parliament quickly realized the need for a solution for women and children. Women and children needed better lives but also needed to be productive. Women needed to make money while children needed a childhood. Possibly the most reasonable and ingenious solution to these problems was education - compulsory elementary education funded by the state.

Acts up until 1870 provided education for the children of poor families, while women took the role of teaching. Women who originally had lost their jobs in the mines could work in schools funded by the government. Children who originally had lost their jobs could be cared for by teachers at school, learning in the process. Families could get back on track because of the new system of education.

So this, finally, is the interesting reason why more women are schoolteachers. It all started in the Industrial Revolution- the innovation, factories, and working conditions then the critiques, acts, and protests all led up to the eventual creation of elementary education. Education acted as both an escape and outlet for women while giving children the childhood they deserved. To think this had historical roots doesn’t sound so crazy now, does it?

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

Julius writes at: juliusolavarria.com.

The Victorian-era Volunteer Rifle Corps

The British volunteer rifle corps were formed on May 12, 1859 by Secretary of State for War Jonathan Peel, as a response to public fears of a French invasion or Britain. Italian, Felice Orsini  attempted to use a bomb made by the Birmingham Arms Company to blow up Napoleon III, Napoleon Bonaparte’s great Nephew, in Paris on January 14, 1858 . Despite recent alliances and diplomatic efforts, the French still felt the British were responsible due to the fact that an English city manufactured the bomb and consequently threatened invasions. Due to escalations on both sides, war seemed imminent.

Here, Charis Gambon explains how the volunteer rifle corps were set-up in response.

Jonathan Peel in the 1860s.

With the regular British Army largely fighting abroad a reserve was needed to become the first defence in the UK, with the aim of slowing the French invading force down in order to provide the regular army with enough time to return and take over, should the issue ever arise. Volunteer corps were to be raised under the provisions of the Volunteer Act 1804 which was last used during the Napoleonic Era.  The statistics from Ian F.W Beckett demonstrate the size of the volunteer force in England, Wales, and Scotland. These percentages were calculated based on number of volunteers per 100 people in the total population.  In 1861 the total for England was 0.629%, in Wales 0.655%, and in Scotland 1.119%.  Overall, there were 161,239 enrolled members within the volunteer force in 1861.

Each county of the country possessed at least one volunteer rifle corps, with many units possessing several at the peak of the movement. These corps were only to be formed on the recommendation of the county’s lord-lieutenant. Officers of the movement gained their commission from the lord-lieutenant, many of which had served in the regular army during the Crimea War.

Costs

Members had to attend eight days drill and exercise in four months, or 24 days within a year in order to be a part of a rifle volunteer corps. Additionally members were to provide their own arms and equipment, but as stated by Ian F. W. Beckett they did receive a 30% discount on ammunition from the government. However, this was not as generous as it may seem as the government were the only source for the ammunition. There was also a cost to join the volunteer rifle corps which was set at between 5s and £1.15s.6d. Enfield rifles with bayonet and scabbard cost £4.10s, with trousers and jacket costing the same.

The volunteer rifle corps were largely filled with middle class men, due to the fact that they could afford to purchase their uniform, Enfield rifle and ammunition. Additionally, the middle class were less likely to be in the regular army and consequently sought to make the volunteer movement their version of a men’s club.  The men were often seen as ‘playing soldiers’ by the regular army.  The social aspect of the volunteer movement was immense too. Typically men would take their family with them as volunteers would set up a camp for a week. The camps were seen as an opportunity to show off their wives and finery. Volunteer units would also meet up with other units for rifle competitions, with the biggest competition of the year being held at Wimbledon in London.

Shooting

To be classed as proficient and allowed to be a part of the volunteer rifle corps a volunteer was required to be able to shoot at a distance of 700 yards. This distance would also gain the volunteer a one star badge. To gain two stars a volunteer would have to be able to accurately shoot 900 yards and to gain three stars a volunteer would need to be accurate to 1,200 yards. The best shot in the unit earned himself a special badge that had crossed rifles on it - this signified that he was the most accurate shot.

The volunteers were initially mocked in sources such as PUNCH magazine, and were detested by the regulars, who felt they made a mockery of the military. As a result of this, units wore mostly grey uniforms (70%), the next most popular colour was green, emulating the rifle corps of the regular army (20%), and an assortment wore other colours; however only a few units wore red, and only briefly before being pushed away from this by the regulars. There was actually an approved uniform created by the war office for volunteer riflemen to wear, but no units opted to wear this uniform. Volunteer rifle units could create their own uniforms which they would then submit to the Lord- Lieutenant of the land for approval.  The ability to create uniforms led to a wide variety of uniforms being worn by corps across the country.  There were also generic cap badges and buttons created for all units to wear but similarly to the uniform each unit opted to create their own instead.

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

What was it like for Women in Edwardian Britain?

The end of the nineteenth century ushered in a new era, not just of social change but a new monarch, with the death of Queen Victoria in 1901. Edward VII (1901 – 1910) ascended the throne and the Edwardian era began. The twentieth century soon became plunged into war that marked a period of turmoil for Britain and Europe. Britain controlled a vast empire dominating globally and advancements in technology opened up new opportunities within domestic life, such as widespread use of electricity and in the speed of travel. This period of history underwent an acceleration of technological change with the conveniences of telegrams, telephones and the automobile.  The Edwardian era also experienced a fierce rise of female suffrage and the call for equality between the classes. This article explores the social changes that occurred in Britain during the Edwardian era and how the role of women shifted that contributed to a call for female suffrage.

Amy Chandler returns to the site and explains.

A 1909 poster Votes for Women. By Hilda Dallas.

After the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, her funeral was the picture of elegance, popularity and decadence that symbolized the end of the Victorian era of strict moral values and the rise of Edward VII and the golden age of decadence. Edward VII was seen as a socialite and a popular royal figure, but this image angered Queen Victoria, as she disliked the negative impact this would have on the crown. Under his short reign, Edward was able to strengthen ties with many nations in Europe as a ‘peacemaker’. (1) Edward also sought to modernize the monarchy and saw the value in the ceremonial role of the crown within society and Parliament. His deep bond with his wife Queen Alexandra was perceived as the symbol of unity and stability during a time of change. Due to the short length of his reign, the Edwardian era is seen as a golden age of development before the darkness of The Great War in 1914. For the middle and upper classes the Edwardian era experienced the steady incline in adopting an extravagant lifestyle with 25% of the population categorized as middle class.

The new woman

By the end of the nineteenth century, the role of middle-class women underwent radical changes with the emergence of the ‘New Woman’. Historically, wealthy women were often seen as second-class citizens without much independence, and their place in society remained firmly in the domestic sphere as the ‘Angel in the house’. In comparison, working class women had no choice but to work, and still look after their children.

This new image of women became a significant cultural icon coined by writer and public speaker Sarah Grand in 1894. (2) The stereotypical Victorian woman as a homemaker and child bearer was directly challenged by this radical image of an intelligent, educated, emancipated, independent and self-supporting woman. This was a movement that was not just confined to the select few of middle class, but also factory and office workers. (2) This new gender ideology played an integral role in influencing complex social change and the redefinition of gender roles within society. This was a significant factor in consolidating women’s rights and overcoming what many deemed as masculine supremacy. Other factors that propelled the success of the new woman included, developments of women entering the labor force, divorce legislation and education for women. (2) The turn of the century offered new opportunities for women that only gained in momentum for female suffrage. Statistics show that by 1901, 14% of women under the age of 45 did not marry and often became ostracized from society with their only options to continue living with family or become a companion to an older woman or widow.

The new woman was a popular figure for public ridicule by the press and satirist magazine Punch magazine that undermined the movement. One cartoon entitled, ‘The new woman’ published in 1895 by George du Maurier, depicted two women wearing androgynous clothing, smoking and lounging in two armchairs talking to a man hastily leaving the room. These actions in themselves were unladylike by Victorian standards.

The dialogue reads:

"You're not leaving us, Jack? Tea will be here directly!"

"Oh, I'm going for a cup of tea in the servants' hall. I can't get on without female society, you know!" (3)

George du Maurier’s cartoon emphasizes the growing uneasiness that some men experienced in this radical new woman and the growing confidence these women gained by challenging society’s views of what a woman should do and how to dress. Not all women left their husbands to become a new woman and many in the Edwardian era used their fine clothing to compound their femininity and status through how they dressed, acted and what events they attended. But this was just the start of new opportunities for women as technology offered another form of freedom for middle class women – employment.

The introduction of the typewriter to offices across Britain in the Edwardian era offered a new opportunity and freedom for women in the middle class through office work. An office clerk was traditionally a male profession and many documents were created by hand. However, the introduction of the typewriter and the increased demand for quick creation of documents birthed the role of the typist. Society saw typists as a suitable occupation for women as the power and roles of men were unaffected in the workplace. Typist roles appealed to middle-class women who were traditionally homebound and unemployed. This provided many women with the potential for financial independence and opened the doors for female entrepreneurs.

The number of female typists varied throughout the country, for example in Scotland, 99% of typists were women. (4) Like with any new occupation the new employees needed training, which led to the emergence of typing schools offering lessons in typing, shorthand and bookkeeping. Typists became a skilled profession that required a depth and breadth of knowledge and language skills. Society overlooked typing as a skilled profession in general as it was seen as easy for women to perform. This meant that the profession and offices became female dominated. Furthermore, the introduction of the bicycle in the 1890s offered social mobility for women as they could travel without a chaperone, which created a greater sense of independence. The Edwardian era and the end of the nineteenth century opened up discussion for equality and challenging gender norms in society. These changes in society also paved the way for women to join the workforce during the war effort and take charge of traditionally male dominated roles. The call of female suffrage after 1918 only grew in numbers and the government couldn’t deny that women played a vital role in running the country through industry, while men were conscripted to fight in the war. Gender roles were shifting whether Parliament liked it or not and change was on the horizon.

The call for equal suffrage

Britain’s class structure dominated the social, political and economic landscape throughout history and resulted in many protests, clashes of ideas and the rise of radical groups. 1848 was titled the Year of Revolution as many countries across Europe called for political and social change. Despite the complaints to Parliament for change, Britain never truly experienced an overrule of its government nor violence to the extent that Europe experienced. The campaigns for change from the perspective of the working class were often received with violence and disappointment. Social and political change was a slow process that took years to benefit those involved. The idyllic lifestyle of the middle and upper classes dominating the social and political scene did not last long as this new age of the Edwardian era ushered in the start of social unrest and power to the working class.

The desire for equality between the classes began to take shape with The Chartist Movement in 1848 where the working class demanded the vote for all men in Parliament, not just the wealthy. The Great Reform Act of 1832 proclaimed that middle class men were allowed to participate in parliamentary voting. Women were seen as even less important to the political sphere irrespective of their social standing. Similarly, wealthy men dictated the course of British politics, despite the working class’s contribution to British economy. By April 1848, the group organized a rally in South East London where they marched towards Parliament with a petition signed by two million men. (5) The Chartists included fake signatures on their petitions to gain more support, these names included Queen Victoria. This movement did not achieve their goals of votes for all men, but did gain an increased interest throughout the working class. It was not until the Second Great Reform Act of 1867 that the eligibility to vote was extended further, but still excluded working class men and all women the right to vote. The representation of the wide population was uneven and dictated by property ownership, money and gender. By 1868, only 300,000 men were registered to vote that made up only 10% of the population that was not representative of the diverse population. (5)

By 1900 the number of names registered to vote on the electoral role were approximately 58% of men over the age of 21 (6731,000). (6) Despite the increase of men on the electoral role, Parliament still created barriers under the People Act of 1867 and 1885, the Registration Act of 1885 and required voters to have residency over 12 months and occupancy of a property worth £10 a year in rent. (6) This excluded the working class and continued to uphold a barrier to democracy and Parliamentary equality. The inequality also meant that some men had the opportunity to vote in more than one constituency through owning a business premise, university qualifications or a second residence. By the outbreak of war in 1914, those who could vote and those who couldn’t were fighting side-by-side strengthening the outcry for electoral equality. The twentieth century was an era of radical and social change across Britain and the stuffy morals were a thought of the past as the world began to change. However, women were still barred from any democratic authority that consolidated their powerlessness in society, despite the long history of upper-class women using their status and money in an attempt to influence prominent figures. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft published, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), which challenged the educational system of the time and argued that education should allow equal opportunity for both sexes. In the nineteenth century, there was several groups headed by women that campaigned for female suffrage, but these lacked progress or impact. In 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women’s social and political union (WSPU) and understood that the group needed a radical approach to the movement, with disruptive tactics that challenged civil order. The Edwardian era was the beginning of change towards all women achieving the right to vote, but progress was interrupted by the war and the death of Edward VII in 1910 welcomed a new monarch that marked the start of the modern monarchy and society. Despite the wheels of change in the Edwardian era, it was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that all women over the age of 21 achieved the same voting right as men, increasing the female eligibility to vote to 15 million in Britain. (7)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Edwardian era not only witnessed a shift in monarchy that stepped away from the long reign of Queen Victoria and the high morals associated with the Victorians, but also a change in socio-political structures that destabilized the divide between the working class and the wealthy aristocratic circles. The shift from all men achieving the electoral authority created an even greater schism between the genders that was only emphasized after women joined the war effort. Social unrest became common with many members of the working class publicly addressing their disgruntlement for their lack of equality and the poor working conditions. The turmoil in Europe consolidated the changing world that made Victorian ideals a distant memory. The new woman also helped strengthen the radical idea of female independence that departed from male authority.  Therefore, when coupled with opportunities of employment and other advancement in technology the call for female suffrage was undeniable. Middle class women joining the workforce had a greater significance than initially thought, as women had a new space to develop their skills away from the dominating male gaze and the stiflingly rigid aristocratic social circles. This created the opportunity for momentous changes to take place. These changes altered the engrained stereotypes of classes and gender that had dominated within society. Society took a different shape and built the foundations for equality for future generations.

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

References

(1)   RMG, ‘The death of Queen Victoria’, 2024, Royal Museums Greenwich < https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/death-queen-victoria#:~:text=This%20persona%20caused%20much%20upset,well%20for%20World%20War%20I >[accessed 17 January 2024].

(2)   A. Diniejko, ‘The New Woman Fiction’, 2011, Victorian Web < https://www.victorianweb.org/gender/diniejko1.html >[accessed 17 January 2024].   

(3)   G. Du Maurier, ‘The New Woman’, 1895, Punch Magazine <https://magazine.punch.co.uk/image/I0000rc87lkkUS5Y >[accessed 19 January 2024].

(4)   National Museums Scotland, ‘Women and the Typewriter’, 2024, National Museums Scotland <https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/the-typewriter/typewriter-chapters/women-and-typewriters/#:~:text=The%20role%20of%20the%20typist%20was%20seen%20as%20a%20suitable,had%20done%20well%20at%20school>[accessed 19 January 2024].

(5)   Museum of London, ‘Pocket Histories: The Political Protest in London, 1750 – 1900’, 2011, Museum of London <https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/application/files/3614/5580/1573/political-protest-london.pdf >[accessed 15 January 2024].

(6)   D. Butler, ‘Electors and Elected’ in A. H Halsey and Josephine Webb, eds., Twentieth Century British Social Trends (Hampshire, Macmillan Press,2000),p.385.

(7)   UK Parliament, ‘Women get the vote’, 2024, UK Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/ >[accessed 29 January 2024].

Britain’s Failure in the Indian Subcontinent: Events that led to the Partition of India

The Partition of India in 1947 led to major implications took place after the British ended their rule of India. It had huge impacts, including the creation of two countries, around one million deaths, and the displacement of over ten million people (estimates vary on the exact amount). Romaan Anwar explains the events that led up to the Partition.

A refugee train on a journey to the Punjab, Pakistan in 1947.

Imagine this: two brothers are prisoners shackled in a cell in 1947. Now, they are free, and chains are broken. However, instead of enjoying their freedom, they are practically fighting each other to the death! This is the case for partition between India and Pakistan.

Prior to the independence of both nations in 1947, the fight for self-determination dominated the minds of the inhabitants within the Subcontinent. Possibly, the independence of both countries is the most defining moment for both since their freedom. Manifest in conflicts such as that in Kashmir, as well as the most recent major war known as the Bangladeshi Liberation War of 1971, the effects of partition are clearly still felt to this day. Not only did self-determination shape the future of those residing in the Subcontinent, but it also struck a huge blow to British prestige. Many speak of the partition and its consequences; however, many also do not fully grasp the events which led to the partition. From Gandhi’s Quit India movement in 1942, to Direct Action Day in 1946, I will shed light on key events which occurred shortly before Indian and Pakistani independence. I believe these events were the most pivotal in shaping how the partition played out.

Quit India Movement and the Cripps Mission, 1942

Before the climax of the Second World War in 1945, Indian demands for independence were very much in full swing. In a meeting with Congress in 1942, Gandhi instructed other Indian leaders that it was the perfect time to seize power.He demanded that Britain departs from India and grants independence to the country. Congress would then agree on a peaceful mass movement and passed the “Quit India Resolution”, thus giving birth to the Quit India movement.[1]This was done in response to a failed mission by Sir Stafford Cripps, the British Chancellor at the time. Within the same year, Cripps was sent by Churchill to make terms with the Indian Congress. He offered that if India gives full support for the war effort, Britain will grant India complete independence once the war concluded. Congress overestimated British desperation in the war and rejected. They countered with the demand that India gains instant independence, which Churchill and Lord Linlithgow would not grant.[2] The Cripps mission completely broke down, and this event shows how stern Congress was in demanding immediate independence. By this point, the Indian people were exhausted, and had enough of fighting in the war for the British. This sentiment only intensified when the Japanese were gaining traction during their Southeast Asian conquests and were beginning to encroach on Burma.

Furthermore, Gandhi’s arrest by British authorities increased dissent within the population of the Subcontinent. Particularly in regions such as Bengal, there was a significant upsurge in anti-British sentiment within the rural areas especially. The Quit India Movement of 1942 has been compared by historians to the Great Revolt of 1857 in terms of sheer scale.[3] The arrest of Gandhi and other Congress leaders had also given the more extreme nationalists less restraint. Bolstering their confidence, a violent offensive was launched in what is known as the ‘August Revolution’. Telephone wires were cut, train rails were destroyed, police stations were stormed, and Congress flags were planted on key government offices. Multiple districts were seized and were occupied by the nationalist rebels. An ever-increasing number of peasants had also joined the fray, and uproar against British rule was surging. The government was rapidly losing control of the situation. However, the allies were gaining traction in the war against Japan, and the revolution gradually dwindled up until the end of August.[4]

Failure of the Simla Conference, 1945

Transitioning over to June 1945, the Simla conference was another example of the British failure to maintain their authority over India, and a contributor to their eventual departure. Viceroy Lord Wavell was eager to solve India’s communal and political problems due to World War Two almost concluding. He wanted representatives of India to agree on a national government to resolve disputes particularly between Jinnah’s Muslim League and the Congress. Yet another example of British failure in India, the conference proved unsuccessful. Jinnah had demands for nominations exclusively for members of the Muslim League as ministers. However, when Wavell tried to create a government, himself mainly consisting of Muslim league members, Jinnah rejected this proposal. In response, Wavell created the ‘Breakdown Plan’ which threatened to restrict Pakistan just to Punjab and the Bengal. However, British policy regarding India was indecisive and unclear seeing as Clement Atlee was unhappy with Wavell’s proposals in the Simla conference. He sent a cabinet mission to remedy the situation in India, but due to the unclear decision from Britain’s end, the conference negotiations broke down.[5] The rejection from Jinnah shows that political leaders in India were less willing to entertain British proposals, and aimed to manifest their own ideas of how an independent India should be structured. Therefore, it is evident that increased movements toward independence contributed toward British decolonisation between 1945 and 1970, especially in context of Indian independence.

Increase of Communal Violence: Direct Action Day, 1946

Additionally, the sheer intensity of communal violence within British India had escalated, adding pressure on the British government to decide regarding partition. Under the leadership of Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League called for the ‘Direct Action Day’ in August 1946. Initially meant to be a peaceful demonstration to affirm the demand for a separate Muslim state, it transformed into a massacre in Calcutta in the form of looting, arson and fighting between Muslim and Hindu mobs. Many ordinary people going about their daily lives were killed, beaten, or robbed. This solidified the idea that Muslims and Hindus cannot possibly co-exist in a single state, and potentially unintentionally aided Jinnah’s efforts to create Pakistan. It was a prelude to the partition massacres that would unfold later.[6] Overall, the increase in communal hostility between Muslims and Hindus highlighted Britain’s inability to control the situation in India. It was clear that Britain had been losing authority as was manifested through its ineffective response to the killings.

Mountbatten Plan and Partition, 1947

By 1947, tensions had reached an absolute boiling point. Major cities in Punjab were practically on fire. Gangs walked the streets of various major cities in the region and continuously fired weapons, threw rocks, and set shops on fire. In Bombay, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh communities became increasingly paranoid regarding approaching each other’s ‘zones’, even when there was a delay in episodic stabbings. Most families had to acquire basic arms and barricade their houses to protect themselves from the raging violence. On the political scale, Jinnah and the Muslim League were still vocal about their demands for a separate state for Muslims, known as Pakistan. Louis Mountbatten was sent to India as the next and final Viceroy to attempt a partition plan.[7] The British administration could barely manage the Indian political situation at the time, and Clement Atlee (Who was then the Prime Minister) famously remarked that British rule would end there “a date not later than June 1948”. Considered to be the champion of Muslim minority rights in India, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was renowned for demanding extra political rights for the Muslims. Hence, this would evolve into a demand for an entirely new state.[8] Mountbatten knew that partition had to occur, as by this point, the idea that Muslims and Hindus could co-exist in one state had long been thrown out due to the sheer intensity of communal violence. Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer who had never even visited India, was commissioned with the arduous task of drawing the borders between India and Pakistan. This was to be done purely on religious grounds.[9]Once this was done on August 17, 1947 (two days after the independence of both countries), a massive diaspora would occur. Many refugees and locals would struggle due to this change, and they had to take the perilous journey of migrating to a completely new homeland based on their faith.[10] Thus, the modern states of India and Pakistan were born through bloodshed, diaspora and political turmoil.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

[1] Boissoneault, Lorraine. “The Speech That Brought India to the Brink of Independence”. Smithsonian Magazine. 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/speech-brought-india-brink-independence-180964366/

[2] McLeod, John. “The History of India. Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations.” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group: 2002.) p 122

[3] Chatterjee, Pranab Kumar. “QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT OF 1942 AND THE NATURE OF URBAN RESPONSE IN BENGAL.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 43, 1982: 687–94. pp 687-688

[4] Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. “A History of India.” Sixth edition. (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2016). p 251.

[5] Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. “A History of India.” Sixth edition. (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2016). pp 256-257

[6] Khan, Yasmin. “The Great Partition: the making of India and Pakistan”. New edition. (New Haven; London, Yale University Press: 2017). pp 63-66

[7] Khan, Yasmin. “The Great Partition: the making of India and Pakistan”. New edition. (New Haven; London, Yale University Press: 2017). pp 83-87

[8] Philips, Sean. “Why was British India Partitioned in 1947? Considering the role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah” University of Oxford. https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/why-was-british-india-partitioned-in-1947-considering-the-role-of-muhammad-ali-0

[9] Menon, Jisha. “The Performance of Nationalism : India, Pakistan, and the Memory of Partition”. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). p 29

[10] Singh, Amritjit, Iyer, Nalini, and Gairola, Rahul K., editors. “Revisiting India's Partition : New Essays on Memory, Culture, and Politics.” (Blue Ridge Summit: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2016). pp 165-166

US Civil War – The Confederate General Edward Kirby Smith

General Edmund Kirby Smith was a remarkable man who also was perhaps the Confederacy’s most successful general, even including Robert E. Lee. Because he was transferred to the Trans-Mississippi in 1863, most history narratives tend to lose track of him at that point, discounting the fact that he was the de facto ruler of that part of the country for 2 years. Lloyd W Klein explains.

General Edmund Kirby Smith, circa 1862.

Background

Smith was born in St Augustine, Florida. His parents were from Connecticut.  At the time of his birth, his parents were residing on the frontier, a region that was previously under Spanish control but had recently been acquired by the United States. Smith's father, Joseph Lee Smith, was appointed as a Superior Court judge in the newly acquired Florida Territory, while his grandfather, Ephraim Kirby, had served as an officer under the esteemed George Washington.

Despite his family's non-military background, Smith's parents insisted that he attend West Point, following his sister's marriage to a graduate from the artillery service in Florida. He followed his older brother in enrolling at West Point where Smith earned a respectable

25th ranking within his class of 41 cadets. However, it was not only military pursuits that captivated Smith's interests. Throughout his life, he harbored a profound fascination for botany and eventually became a highly accomplished botanist. His dedication to this field led to the creation of remarkable collections, which he later donated to renowned institutions such as Harvard, the Smithsonian, and UNC.

Smith's military career flourished during the Mexican War, where he actively participated in significant battles and eventually rose to the rank of captain. Subsequently, he was assigned to combat the Comanche, where he ascended to the rank of major. Smith's military progress continued as he became a captain in the Second US Cavalry, a position bestowed upon him by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. Serving under the command of notable leaders such as Albert Sidney Johnston and Robert E. Lee, Smith found himself among a select group of officers from the 2nd Cavalry who achieved the esteemed rank of full general, alongside Albert Sidney Johnston, Robert E. Lee, and John Bell Hood. Notably, from 1855 until the conclusion of the Civil War, Smith's valet was Alexander Darnes, a 15-year-old enslaved individual of mixed race who belonged to Smith's family.

The War Begins

Smith was in Texas with the 2nd Cavalry when the war started.  On January 31, 1861, Smith was promoted to major and became commander of Camp Colorado. When secessionists began the seizure of Federal property, Smith initially refused to surrender his post to Colonel Henry E. McCulloch's Texas Militia forces but then changed his mind.

With secession, he resigned from the US Army and entered the Confederate Army as a lieutenant colonel, He served as General Joseph Johnston's chief of staff at Harper's Ferry as Confederate troops organized in the Shenandoah Valley. On June 17, 1861, he was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general and placed in command of the 4th brigade of the Army of the Shenandoah. He led this brigade at First Manassas, where he was wounded in action in the head and neck. While recuperating he served as a commander of a Florida department, then promoted to major general and division commander in the ANV.

Although his wound at First Manassas was described as “serious”, In August 1861, Smith met Cassie Selden. While recovering from being wounded he still found time for wooing. The couple married on September 24.

Command of East Tennessee

After recovering from his wound and entering into marriage, he was dispatched to the western region to assume command of the Army of East Tennessee. On October 11, 1861, Smith was promoted to the rank of major general and took command from General Felix Zollicoffer in the District of East Tennessee. Smith's time in Tennessee was met with controversy as he adopted a strict approach, implementing martial law and suspending habeas corpus. Numerous individuals suspected of being Unionists were imprisoned or expelled, leading to a surge in anti-Confederate sentiment.

In August 1862, Smith's army, consisting of 6,500 soldiers, advanced through eastern Kentucky in support of General Braxton Bragg's invading Army of Mississippi. The objective of Bragg and Smith was to bolster pro-Confederate political factions in the Union-controlled border state and recruit new soldiers. While Bragg led his forces northward from Tennessee, Smith directed his troops towards Richmond, Kentucky, targeting the railroad hub in Lexington and the state capital in Frankfort. By August 28th, the Confederate advance, spearheaded by division commander General Patrick R. Cleburne, approached Richmond, Kentucky. Smith's Army of East Tennessee numbered 19,000, while Bragg's Army of Tennessee consisted of 35,000.

On August 29, 1862, a portion of Smith's army encountered an equally sized contingent of Nelson's forces, estimated to be between 6,000 and 7,000 troops. The Battle of Richmond ensued for two days, culminating on August 30, and resulted in a resounding victory for the Confederates. There were at least 5,000 Union casualties versus 750 Confederate losses. Also, substantial territory was surrendered, including the cities of Lexington, Richmond, and Frankfort, the state capital. When Smith subsequently seized control of Frankfort on September 2, it was the only state capital under Federal control to fall throughout the entire war. Out of the 6,800 Union soldiers engaged in the battle, approximately 4,000 were captured, while the remaining either fled towards Lexington or perished or sustained injuries on the battlefield. Additional losses were incurred during the battle, including the capture of Brigadier General Mahlon D. Manson and the injury of Nelson, who suffered a neck wound.

Promotion to Command of the Trans-Mississippi & Perryville

Smith was promoted to the newly established rank of lieutenant-general on October 9, 1862. He took command of the 3rd Corps, Army of Tennessee. Subsequently, on January 14, 1863, Smith was transferred to lead the Trans-Mississippi Department; this department included Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, western Louisiana, Arizona Territory, and the Indian Territory. Smith was given the responsibility of leading the Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Theater, which encompassed the western Confederate states. In this position, he successfully maintained Confederate control over the region for 2 years. Throughout the remainder of the war, he remained stationed west of the Mississippi River, with a portion of his time spent in Shreveport, Louisiana. By October, Buell's army had received reinforcements and had become strong enough to become the aggressor. Smith and Bragg, however, were unprepared for Buell's advance and had not yet combined their armies.

Bragg recognized the importance of controlling Kentucky for the defense of the Western theater. This realization was influenced by Kirby Smith, who believed that launching an offensive action could have significant implications for the war. Bragg relocated his 30,000 troops to Chattanooga to join forces with Smith. They met on July 31 and decided to divide their army. Two of Bragg's brigades would join Smith in marching into Kentucky, with the intention that if Buell pursued Smith, Bragg would move north to attack Buell's rear. Additionally, Bragg sent his cavalry, led by John Hunt Morgan, north into Ohio. It was expected that Grant would remain in his position, focusing on the pursuit of Vicksburg. Smith believed that this plan would alleviate supply issues and divert the Union armies from their intended movements. Furthermore, an invasion of Kentucky would pose a threat to Indiana and western Ohio, to establish the Ohio River as the Confederates' northern border.

The plan to invade Kentucky was ambitious but carried significant risks. It relied on flawless coordination between two armies that lacked a unified command structure. Bragg, despite pressure from President Davis to proceed with the invasion, began to have doubts almost immediately. Smith, foreseeing the challenges, quickly abandoned the agreement, realizing that embarking on a solo venture in Kentucky would be highly precarious. The successful execution of the military operation required a high level of coordination between two armies that lacked a unified command structure. Despite initial enthusiasm and pressure from President Davis to seize control of Kentucky, General Bragg soon began to have doubts about the feasibility of the mission. Meanwhile, General Smith, driven by personal ambition, reneged on the agreement and deceived Bragg about his true intentions. He cunningly requested additional troops under the guise of an expedition to Cumberland Gap, only to later reveal his plan to bypass it entirely. This left Bragg in a difficult position, unable to compel Smith to adhere to their original strategy, and forced to redirect his focus toward Lexington instead of Nashville.

The turning point of the campaign came on October 7, 1862, when one corps of General Buell's army confronted General Bragg's forces near Perryville, Kentucky. Despite the Confederates' hard-fought victory in the Battle of Perryville, the arrival of the majority of Buell's army by the end of the day nullified their gains. Faced with the prospect of losing everything they had fought for, Bragg made the controversial decision to withdraw during the cover of night, much to the dismay of his subordinate officers, including General Smith, who had advised Bragg to capitalize on their success and continue the fight. As a result, Bragg's army ultimately retreated from Kentucky, leaving the state under Union control for the remainder of the war.

As forces under Grant tightened their grip on the Mississippi River, Smith attempted to change the trajectory of the war. However, his department never had more than 30,000 men, and they were stationed over an immense area.  Consequently, Smith found it challenging to concentrate his forces effectively to challenge Grant or the formidable U.S. Navy on the river. Despite facing criticism for not coming to the defense of Vicksburg, particularly as Grant's momentum grew, Smith's hands were tied by the constraints of his resources. Ultimately, Vicksburg fell under Union control, further solidifying their hold on the Mississippi River.

Following the Union forces' capture of Vicksburg and Port Hudson, Smith found himself cut off from Richmond, resulting in his isolation from the rest of the Confederacy. Despite this, Smith established his authority over a semi-autonomous region, effectively governing an area that operated almost independently. Throughout the remainder of the war, Smith faced the daunting task of governing the district and waging war with minimal support and limited communication with the Confederate government.  in Virginia, Despite these obstacles, Smith persisted in his efforts to reclaim Vicksburg from the Union, albeit from the western side of the Mississippi, but his endeavors proved unsuccessful.

Smith's interest in this region stemmed largely from the influence of Arkansans and Missourians in the Confederate Congress, who played a significant role in securing his appointment. Consequently, Smith's semi-autonomous Confederate region became derisively referred to as "Kirby Smithdom." This term reflected the perception that Smith held a considerable degree of authority and control within his designated territory, separate from the central Confederate command.

Being cut off from the main Confederate army, one might assume that Smith's forces would suffer from starvation and lack of military supplies. However, the reality was quite different. The territory under Smith's control was remarkably well-supplied, as the Union army would discover in 1864. This unexpected abundance of resources further bolstered Smith's position and allowed him to sustain his troops and continue his resistance against the Union forces.

Red River Campaign

The Red River expedition, a military operation conducted by the Union during the American Civil War, involved approximately 30,000 federal troops led by Major-General Nathaniel P. Banks. This campaign aimed to secure the key Confederate supply depot in Shreveport and disrupt the Confederacy's supply lines by controlling the Red River and its surrounding region. The plan was devised by Major-General Henry W. Halleck as a diversion from Lieutenant-General Ulysses S. Grant's strategy to encircle the main Confederate armies by utilizing Banks's Army of the Gulf to capture Mobile. However, the expedition ultimately failed due to poor planning and mismanagement, unable to achieve any of its objectives.

In March 1864, Union forces, comprising both army and navy components, embarked on a march into Louisiana along the Red River. They encountered logistical challenges caused by the low water levels on the river, necessitating the construction of dams and the removal of obstacles to enable their gunboats to proceed. As the Union forces advanced, they faced resistance from Confederate troops in a series of engagements, including the Battles of Mansfield on April 8, 1864, and Pleasant Hill on April 9, 1864. These battles ended in Confederate victories, compelling the Union forces to retreat. The situation worsened for the Union troops as the water levels of the Red River continued to decrease, making it increasingly difficult for their gunboats to navigate. Moreover, they found themselves isolated and susceptible to Confederate attacks.

Despite being significantly outnumbered, General Smith skillfully orchestrated the defeat of both Union advances. On April 8, Confederate troops under the command of Major General Richard Taylor successfully repelled Union General Nathaniel Banks's Red River Campaign. Recognizing their perilous situation, Union forces retreated from the Red River in late April 1864. Throughout their withdrawal, they encountered constant harassment and attacks from Confederate forces. By the time May 1864 rolled around, it was clear that the Red River Campaign had come to an end. The Union forces regrouped in Alexandria, Louisiana, and abandoned their original objective of capturing Shreveport.

Price’s Campaign

Later that year Smith went on the offensive. Major General Sterling Price's Army of Missouri, consisting of twelve thousand soldiers, was sent on an ill-advised and disastrous raid into Missouri. The objective of this raid was to capture St. Louis. It is worth noting that Price himself was a former governor of the state. Price's request for additional troops was denied, leaving him with only twelve thousand cavalry soldiers for the expedition when he wanted, and needed, many more. Price’s raid was initially conceived as a full invasion of Missouri with three goals: divert attention from the river to cross troops into the western theater for defense of Mobile and Atlanta, affect the 1864 election, and lure Missouri into leaving the Union. As commander of the Confederate Missouri state troops at the outbreak of war and field commander of the army in Arkansas, Price was the natural choice.

On August 28, 1864, Price's Raid commenced as he departed from Camden, Arkansas. It became evident that Price had not adequately planned his expedition, as the events that unfolded over the next three months proved to be disastrous. Engaging in a series of battles, Price's forces suffered heavy losses, and by the end of the raid, only six thousand survivors remained as they limped back into Arkansas. This outcome highlighted the poor execution and planning of Price's campaign, ultimately leading to its failure and further solidifying its place in history as a significant Confederate defeat.

Throughout the Civil War, Smith had the advantage of easier access to supplies compared to other Confederate areas due to Galveston TX remaining an open port. The Trans-Mississippi region was a major supplier of food crops so that was never an issue. John Magruder was able to reopen the port at Galveston so arms could come in through the blockade. This also allowed for a smooth flow of resources and provisions, ensuring that Smith's forces were adequately equipped. Additionally, the states of Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri, where Smith operated, were known for their agricultural productivity. These states were able to produce an abundance of food, further supporting Smith's troops and contributing to their overall sustenance during the war.

Remainder of the War

For the remainder of the war, the hostilities that occurred west of the Mississippi River were characterized by skirmishes and guerrilla raids. Smith, who had effectively defended his territory known as Smithdom, was situated away from the main action. On the Union side, General Thomas had a remarkable record of winning battles he commanded, while Kirby Smith held a similar distinction for the Confederates. Despite the ongoing clashes, the war in the West gradually came to a close.

By April 1865, the surrender of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Joseph Johnston marked the effective end of the war in the Eastern theater. However, Smith's forces continued to hold out for approximately one more month. Eventually, on May 26, 1865, Smith relinquished his command to General Edward R. S. Canby at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This surrender signaled the defeat of Smith's command, making it the final major Confederate force to concede at the end of the Civil War. Following his surrender, Smith made his way to Galveston, Texas before eventually fleeing to both Mexico and Cuba. However, he eventually returned to Lynchburg, Virginia to sign an oath of amnesty on November 14, 1865.

After the conclusion of the war, Smith briefly took on the role of managing the Accident Insurance Company in Louisville, Kentucky in 1866. Subsequently, he served as the president of the Pacific and Atlantic Telegraph Company for two years. In 1868, Smith established a school in New Castle, Kentucky, but unfortunately, it was destroyed by fire the following year. Undeterred, in 1870, Smith and his fellow Confederate General Bushrod Johnson were appointed as co-chancellors of the University of Nashville. Additionally, they jointly oversaw the management of the Montgomery Bell Academy, a preparatory school for boys. In 1875, Smith accepted a position as a professor of mathematics and botany at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, where he remained a faculty member until his passing.

Kirby Smith passed away in Sewanee on March 28, 1893, and was laid to rest on the campus of the University of the South. Notably, he held the distinction of being the last full general of the Confederacy to pass away.

At one time, a statue of Smith held a prominent position of honor. In 1922, the state of Florida erected a statue of General Smith as one of the two statues representing Florida in the National Statuary Hall Collection at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. However, in 2018, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed legislation to replace Smith's statue with one honoring African-American civil rights activist and educator Mary McLeod Bethune. The statue was subsequently removed in 2021, with plans to send it to St. Augustine, Smith's birthplace. However, the residents of St. Augustine declined to accept the statue. Another Florida county initially agreed to house the statue, but faced opposition from mayors and public figures, leading to a re-vote that resulted in a 4-1 decision against accepting the statue. As a result, the statue is currently being stored temporarily at the Museum of Florida History, away from public display, as no suitable exhibition space has been found.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/e-kirby-smith

·       https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/edmund-kirby-smith-rebel-lord-of-the-trans-mississippi/

·       https://www.thoughtco.com/general-edmund-kirby-smith-2360303

·       https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/edmund-kirby-smith-9253/

·       Davis, William C. (1999), The American Frontier: Pioneers, Settlers, & Cowboys, 1800–1899, Norman: University of Oklahoma Pres.

·       Prushankin, Jeffery S. (2005), A Crisis in Confederate Command: Edmund Kirby Smith, Richard Taylor and the Army of the Trans-Mississippi. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press

·       https://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/edmund-kirby-smith

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/richmond

·       http://battleofperryville.com/

Cincinnatus - Man, Myth, and the Making of Rome

Throughout Roman history, few figures capture the imagination quite like Cincinnatus (c. 519 BC to c. 430 BC). Often hailed as the embodiment of Roman virtue, this legendary figure has been compared to the likes of George Washington and immortalized in the naming of the city of Cincinnati.

But who was Cincinnatus, really? A revered Roman general, a simple farmer thrust into power, or a character of mythology more than history?

Tom Curley explains.

Cincinnatus abandons the Plough to dictate Laws to Rome. By Juan Antonio de Ribera, circa 1806.

The Life of Cincinnatus

Cincinnatus, born in 519 BC, emerged from a notable patrician family during the final years of Rome's monarchical system. This era marked the transition to what would become the Roman Republic. At this time, Rome was more a minor city-state than the colossal empire it would later become.

Cincinnatus rose to prominence as a consul amidst a period of social unrest. The lower plebeian class actively sought more rights, challenging the near-absolute control of the ruling patrician class. Contrary to romantic visions of a perfect republic, this period was marked by intense, sometimes violent, socio-political struggles.

During these conflicts, Cincinnatus faced personal loss with the death of his son. This profound event led him to retire from public life, seeking solace in the more spartan existence of farm life.

However, his retreat from the political arena was not the end of his story. It was merely a prelude to his legendary role later in Roman history.

The First Dictatorship

The crisis began when the Aequi, an eastern neighbor of Rome, violated a treaty, leading to inevitable war. Rome's response was swift but perilous. Two Roman consuls led armies against the Aequi, but one was quickly besieged and trapped.

In this desperate situation, the Roman Senate turned to Cincinnatus. They appointed him as dictator, a term familiar today but with a different meaning in ancient Rome. In the Roman context, a dictatorship was a temporary measure, granting absolute power to one individual during times of dire crisis. This power was not meant to be permanent but was a response to emergencies requiring swift and decisive leadership.

When senators approached Cincinnatus with the news of his appointment, he was ploughing his farm. He asked them, "Is everything all right?" they replied that they hoped "it might turn out well for both him and his country."

Cincinnatus acted promptly. He called a public meeting, summoning every able-bodied military man to join a massive army. Leading this force, Cincinnatus successfully besieged the Aequi. Notably, he chose not to slaughter them but instead subjected them to the humiliation of passing under the Roman yoke, a symbol of defeat.

His triumph was remarkable, but even more extraordinary was what followed. After just 15 days in power, having resolved the crisis, Cincinnatus relinquished his dictatorial powers. He returned to his farm, displaying a rare example of humility and restraint.

The Second Dictatorship

Cincinnatus' retirement was interrupted 19 years later, marking his return to power under dramatic circumstances. At the age of 80, he was once again called upon to assume the role of a dictator. This time, the crisis revolved around Spurius Maelius, a plebeian accused of aspiring to be king, a serious threat to the power patricians of the Roman Republic.

Cincinnatus' response was swift and decisive. He organized the patricians to confront this would-be king. The situation escalated quickly, resulting in Spurius being driven into flight and subsequently killed in the ensuing chaos.

Remarkably, Cincinnatus' commitment to the ideals of the Republic remained steadfast. After just 21 days as dictator, having neutralized the threat to the Republic, he once again relinquished his absolute power and returned to his farm.

The Legend of Cincinnatus

The story of Cincinnatus is a symbol of Roman virtue and integrity. In classical Rome, there was a deep nostalgia for the 'good old days' of the Republic, where Romans were seen as honest, virtuous, and selfless. The ideal Roman was often portrayed as a farmer-soldier, embodying simplicity, bravery, and dedication to the state. Cincinnatus was the epitome of this ideal.

His life contrasted sharply with the later, more famous figures of the Roman Republic and Empire, such as Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and Augustus. These powerful and ambitious leaders sought to entrench power around themselves, moving away from the virtues of the early Republic.

The American Cincinnatus

Cincinnatus' legend found new life after the American Revolutionary War. The founders of the United States consciously sought to emulate the Roman Republic's virtues in shaping their new nation.

Cincinnatus became a role model, particularly in the figure of George Washington. Washington's actions after the Revolutionary War – relinquishing command of the army, refusing to establish a monarchy, and retiring after two terms as President – mirrored the virtues attributed to Cincinnatus.

How Much Do We Really Know About Cincinnatus?

The life of Cincinnatus, as fascinating as it is, raises a critical question: how much of it is actually true?

The early Roman Republic's history, particularly the time of Cincinnatus, suffers from a lack of written sources. Most of what we know was written much later, leading to uncertainties about the accuracy of these accounts.

Moralizing History

Cincinnatus was likely a real historical figure. However, our primary source of information about him is the historian Livy, who wrote centuries after Cincinnatus' time. Livy is known for infusing his historical writing with moral lessons at the expense of strict historical accuracy. This approach makes it challenging to distinguish between fact and moralistic embellishment.

For example, Livy describes Cincinnatus' victory over the Aequi in 458 BC as a "spectacular triumph." However, he then contradicts this by noting that the Aequi continued to be a threat, attacking Rome again in 457 BC and 455 BC. Such inconsistencies cast doubt on the scale and impact of Cincinnatus' victories.

The interplay of sparse evidence, embellishments over time, and inherent contradictions in the historical narrative is what makes ancient history so intriguing. Figures such as Cincinnatus occupy a unique space, straddling both mythology and history. 

Does the absolute truth really matter? The exact details of Cincinnatus' life may forever remain shrouded in mystery. However, the impact and influence of such figures are undeniably real and tangible. Their stories have shaped cultures, inspired leaders, and fostered ideals that have transcended generations.

Tom Curley is the founder of HistoryHogs.com.

American Bravery at the Alamo - The First Chapter

The April 1838 Convention of Limits Treaty was agreed between the United States and the Republic of Texas. Texas had won its freedom from Santa Anna and the Mexican Government in 1836. The treaty, which was signed before Texas was part of the United States, recognized Texas claims to disputed territory in Red River and also on the Eastern boundary. Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

The Fall of the Alamo or Crockett's Last Stand, circa 1903. By Robert Jenkins Onderdonk.

Here is the part that is most commonly known by Americans.

Perhaps the most memorable part of that period 187 years ago was one of the most iconic battles in history for Texas independence. This historic engagement has become widely known as The Alamo. The defense of the San Antonio mission was not only the intersection of unwavering American resolve but also the union of three US heroes; Colonel William Travis, Colonel Jim Bowie, and perhaps the first celebrity in American history in Colonel David “Davy” Crockett.

The 2023 Commemoration of the Battle of the Alamo was open to both the public and the press. The events ran into March 2023 and featured events such as “Dawn at the Alamo”, “Never Surrender or Retreat” and an “Evening with the Heroes.”

Most Americans know the story of massacre of all 189 defenders of the mission at the hands of the Mexican Army on March 6th, 1836. Legends surrounding the deaths of all three, especially Crockett have become popular chapters in American history. It is not known whether he was captured or died as portrayed in John Wayne’s 1960 version of The Alamo, but it is widely believed that he was one of its last remaining defenders.

This however was not the first act of valor by Texans at the mission against the Mexican forces.

The Alamo

The Alamo (or Mision San Antonio de Valero) was built in 1718 by Franciscan Monasteries who wished to convert native Indians to Christianity. Secularized in 1793, the original construction did not have military intentions and the roof on the main church was never completed.

The first documented military use of the mission was around 1801, also at which time the mission took the name that would last through the centuries and was also the name of the Spanish Army Unit that was stationed there. In 1813, the mission was reportedly used as a barracks for Mexican revolutionaries and American volunteers.

In 1820, Moses Austin (father of the Stephen F. Austin) petitioned Spain for an American settlement in Mexico. The Mexican Constitution of 1824 allowed foreign settlers to gain land title and tax exemption. In the 1830s, the Mexican government also armed Texian settlement garrisons with artillery pieces for protection against local American Indians, indigenous people, and native tribes.

Relations, however were soon strained between Mexico and the American settlers and Tejanos (Texians of Mexican descent living in the province of Oahuila y Tejas, or Texas.) The Mexican government, realizing the delicate situation moved swiftly to recover the cannons.

1830s battles

At the Battle of Velasco in 1832, Mexican troops clashed with Texas Militia, attempting to stop the transport of a cannon. In 1835, at Gonzales Texas, settlers draped a cloth over a six-pound bronze Spanish cannon that read “Come and Take It.”

When Mexican Dragoon cavalry crossed the river and attempted to take possession of the cannon and also a one-pound Spanish Bronze Esmeril, they were fired upon. The Texas Revolution had begun.

Mexican President Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna, sent 600 troops under General Coz north to quell the uprising. Coz became convinced upon arriving in San Antonio that the rebellion army would attack and fortified the city and the Alamo, which at that time sat just outside of the town.

His instincts proved to be quite correct.

On October 12, 1835, Steven F. Austin and Sam Houston arrived outside of San Antonio with an army of 300 men comprised of Texans and Tejanos, and began the Siege of Bexar. Texian artillery under Colonel Neill would pound the Alamo with a barrage during the attack.

After nearly eight weeks, Texian leaders were contemplating lifting the siege and withdrawing to winter quarters. It was then that two significant events transpired in the Texian camp. A Mexican defector rode into the camp, joined the Texans and told of deplorable conditions in the Alamo including rationing, starving horses, low military supplies and morale.

Ben Milam, a soldier with the Texas Militia who was himself the only the age of 47, stood up and rallied the troops at the nightly campfire and proclaimed “Who will come to San Antonio with Ol’ Ben Milam!”

Rejuvenated, the Texian Army attacked. Milam was killed in heavy street fighting but the Texians pressed on. By early December, Cos was forced to pull his artillery pieces and wounded soldiers behind the walls of the Alamo. The Mexican troops would construct some of the very fortifications that the Texian defenders would utilize twelve weeks later. On December 9th, the Mexican army raised a white flag of surrender from behind the walls of the Alamo. The victorious Texas army allowed the Mexicans to keep their regimental colors and muskets for the long march back to Mexico City. Among the military supplies that were surrendered by the Mexicans were approximately twenty cannons including; a 5-inch caliber Howitzer, three and four pound mounted artillery pieces, and small ordinance. All of these pieces would be re-purposed for the defense of Texas.

The celebration would be short-lived.

Back to San Antonio

A furious Santa Anna would shortly be assembling an army and conducting a Winter march back to San Antonio and a date with destiny and Travis, Bowie, and Davy Crockett. This time, Santa Anna would personally lead his troops.

In the end, both battles at the Alamo during the Texas Revolution would work against Santa Anna. After the massacre in March 1836, the death of all 189 defenders became a rallying cry for the Texians.

On April 21 at the Battle of San Jacinto, when Santa Anna’s army was defeated in less than 20 minutes, Sam Houston’s army broke over the Mexican breastwork defenses yelling, “Remember the Alamo!”

Whether the Army of the Republic of Texas victory at the Siege of Bexar or the legendary last-stand of the outnumbered defenders three months later, history is clear.

We shall always remember all of the events surrounding the complete story of the Alamo. At least those of us who know the full history.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington, Pennsylvania.

US Relations with Latin America at the Start of the 20th Century

The conventional argument by scholars is that the relationship between the United States and Latin America was acrimonious in the late nineteenth century. Here, scholar Paul Parobek seeks to present an alternative view – that the relationship between the United States and Latin America in the nineteenth century was not acrimonious, but rather, was harmonious.

Elihu Root in 1902.

‘Pan-Americanism’ refers to the sense of solidarity between the United States and Latin America. It is often overlooked in the scholarship, however, there is a plethora of archival evidence that can attest to it as this scholar found during his research. Pan-Americanism became a policy of Secretary of State James G. Blaine (March to December 1881, and 1889-1892) sought to solidify American relations with Latin America by using trade.

Secretary of State from 1905-09 Elihu Root was aware of the growing distrust of the United States by certain segments of Latin American. This can be attributed to a sense of cultural superiority known as American Exceptionalism among certain segments of American society and Secretary of State Richard Olney’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine that made the United States fiat in the hemisphere. Secretary Root explains in a letter to Senator Tillman why Latin Americans were distrustful of the United States:

The South Americans now hate us, largely because they think we despise them and try to bully them. I really like them and intend to show it. I think their friendship is really important to the United States, and that the best way to secure it is by treating them like gentlemen (Jessup, 1938, p. 469).

A tour of Latin America

Secretary Root took a tour of Latin America that covered a large part of coastal South America (see footnote [1]) that was previously neglected by American policymakers but had numerous American corporations after carefully examined the situation in Latin America in 1906. The opening session of the Pan-American Conference started off in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Secretary Root gave his interpretation of Pan-Americanism in a long speech where he pronounces the equality and solidarity of all the nations of the western hemisphere and international security while in Brazil:

No nation can live unto itself alone and continue to live. Each nation’s growth is a part of the development of the race…It is with nations as it is with individual men: intercourse, association, correction of egotism by the influence of other’s judgement, broadening of views by the experience and thought of equals, acceptance of the moral standards of a community the desire for whose good opinion lends a sanction to the rules of right conduct - these are conditions of growth in civilization… To promote this mutual interchange and assistance between the American Republics, engaged in the same great task, inspired by the same purpose, and professing the same principals, I understand to be the function of the American Conference now in session. There is not one of all our countries that cannot benefit the others; there is not one that cannot receive benefit from the others; there is not one that will not gain by the prosperity, the peace, the happiness of all… (Peter Myers, 1916, pp. 3-4).

Secretary Root used the Third Pan-American Conference to further rectify any misunderstandings the Latin Americans had towards the United States:

We wish for no victories but those of peace; for no territory except our own; for no sovereignty except the sovereignty over ourselves. We deem the independence and equal rights of the smallest and weakest member of the family of nations entitled to as much respect as those of the greatest empire, and we deem the observance of that respect the chief guaranty of the weak against the oppression of the strong. We neither claim nor desire any rights or privileges or powers that we do not freely concede to every American republic (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xv).

Significance

The trip was significant as it was meant to clear up any perceived misunderstandings and to restore relations between the United States and Latin America. Further, Bacon and Scott point out that the trip was “it was intended to be a matter of international importance” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xiii). They further explain that the trip had two objectives:

And by personal contact, to learn the aims and views of our southern friends, and to show also, by personal intercourse, the kindly consideration and the sense of honorable obligation which the Government of the United States cherishes for its neighbors to the south without discriminating among them, and to make clear the destiny common to the peoples of the western world (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xiii). 

Finally according to Bacon and Scott, the trip “was the first time that a Secretary of State had visited South America during the tenure of his office, and the visit was designed to show the importance which the United States attaches to the Pan American conferences…” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xiii).

The election of President McKinley appeared to have affected Latin American perceptions of the United States as the solidarity was not one-sided. The Brazilian ambassador to the United States expressed his gratitude to Secretary Root for stating that “in nothing else since you came to your high post you have taken a more direct and personal interest. You seem to divine in the spirit that animates you with regard to our continent the mark that your name will leave in history” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. 4).  Dr. Luis M. Drago of Argentina welcomed Secretary Root, stating in his opening speech that “…the traditional policy of the United States, without accentuating superiority or seeking preponderance, condemned the oppression of the nations of this part of the world and the control of their destinies by the great powers of Europe” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. 96). Similar sentiments were found throughout his tour of Latin America.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

[1]. According to Bacon and Scott,  Root travelled to Sio Paulo and Santos in Brazil followed by Montevideo, Uruguay; Buenos Ayres, Argentina; Santiago, Chile; Lima and University of San Marcos, Peru; Panama; Cartagena, Columbia; and San Antonio, Nuevo Laredo, City of Mexico, Puebla, Orizaba, and Guadalajara all in Mexico Bacon, R. and Scott, J. B. (eds.) (1917) Latin America and the United States: Addresses by Elihu Root. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.