What is the History of the Ancient Olympic Games?

The ancient Olympic games were originally a one-day event and the first recorded event was in 776 BCE; however, in 684 BCE, the games were extended to three days, then later to five days. The games were held every four years and are among the most celebrated traditions of ancient Greece.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of the ivory and gold statue of Zeus.

The ancient Olympic games were not merely athletic contests but a festival that honored the Greek god Zeus, (Ζεύς). Through their duration and influence, the Olympics became a cornerstone of Greek culture, fostering unity, showcasing physical prowess, and celebration. In Greek mythology, it is said that Heracles, (Ἡρακλῆς), (Latin, Hercules), the son of Zeus and the mortal woman Alcmene was the founder of the Olympic games.

The ancient Olympics were held in Olympia, (Ὀλυμπία), a sanctuary site in western Peloponnese, a site that honored Zeus, who was the god of the sky and thunder and who ruled as king of the gods on Mount Olympus, (Όλυμπος). The sanctuary housed the magnificent ivory and gold statue of Zeus, designed and created by the sculptor Phidias, (Φειδίας), 480 – 430 BCE. The statue of Zeus was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and served as the central location for these games. The games' religious significance was profound, with numerous rituals and sacrifices performed to seek Zeus's favor and blessing.

Events

The Olympic Games began as a single race, the stade race, (Stadion), a sprint covering roughly 192 meters, (in today's unit of measurement), over time the games expanded to include a variety of events:

Stadion: The original footrace, covering one length of the stadium, approximately 192 meters and the precursor to the modern 200-metre race

Diaulos: A double stade race, twice that of the stadion and the precursor to the modern 400-metre race

Dolichos: A long-distance race, varying from 7 to 24 stades.

Hoplite Race: A race in armor, simulating military readiness.

Pentathlon: A five-event competition including a discus throw, javelin throw, long jump, stadion, and wrestling.

Side note: Athletes when jumping utilized a stone as a weight called halteres to increase the distance of a jump. They held onto the weights until the end of their flight and then jettisoned it backwards. Whereas, the discus was originally made of stone then later it was made of bronze. The technique was very similar to today's freestyle discus throw.

Wrestling (Pale): A grappling event where the objective was to throw the opponent to the ground. This was highly valued as a form of military exercise without weapons. It ended only when one of the contestants admitted defeat.

Boxing (Pyx): Boxers wrapped straps (himantes) around their hands to strengthen their wrists and steady their fingers. Initially, these straps were soft but as time progressed, boxers started using hard leather straps, often causing disfigurement of their opponent's face. Later the Romans adopted boxing into their gladiatorial games, however, in the Roman version the leather straps often had metal studs attached.

Pankration: A no-holds-barred contest combining wrestling and boxing. This was a primitive form of martial arts combining wrestling and boxing and was considered to be one of the toughest sports. Greeks believed that it was founded by Theseus when he defeated the fierce Minotaur in the labyrinth.

Equestrian Events: Including chariot racing and horse racing, held in the hippodromos, (ἱππόδρομος), Latinized to hippodrome from hippos, (ἵππος, horse) and dromos, (δρόμος, road/course), hence race course, race track.

These events tested the athletes' strength, speed, endurance, and skill, reflecting the Greek ideal of athletic excellence. Winning an event at the Olympics brought immense honor and fame, however, it should be noted, unlike the modern games each event had only one victor with no silver or bronze-placed athletes.

Victors, known as Olympionikes, received a wreath made of wild olive leaves, known as a kotinos, from the sacred olive tree near Zeus's temple. Beyond this symbolic prize, winners were often celebrated as heroes in their hometowns and received numerous amphorae of olive oil a very valuable commodity at the time.

Additionally, their hometown often honored the winners with other substantial material rewards, such as money, meals at public expense, or even the erection of a statue in their honor. Poets like Pindar would compose odes celebrating their victories, ensuring their names were immortalized.

Major athletic festivals

However, the Olympics were just part of the larger cycle of Panhellenic Games, which included three other major athletic festivals:

·       The Pythian Games were established in 582 BCE and held in Delphi in honor of Apollo, the god of music, arts, and prophecy. These games included musical and artistic competitions alongside athletic events. Victors received a laurel wreath, symbolizing Apollo's sacred tree.

·       The Nemean Games were established at the sanctuary of Zeus in Nemea in 573 BCE, and dedicated to Zeus. These Games were held every other year, (2nd and 4th year), in the same years that the Isthmian Games are held and were similar to the Olympics, these games included various athletic contests. Winners were crowned with a wreath of wild celery.

·       Isthmian Games, were established near Corinth in 582 BCE the same year as the Pythian Games began in Delphi. They were also held every 2nd and 4th year, like the Nemean Games, but in the spring. These games were held in honor of Poseidon, (Ποσειδῶν), who presided over the sea, storms, earthquakes and horses, and featured athletic and musical competitions, with victors receiving a wreath of pine leaves, later replaced by a wreath of dried celery.

Each of these games shared the common goal of celebrating athletic excellence and honoring the gods, but they also played a crucial role in fostering unity among the often-fragmented Greek city-states.

Conclusion

The ancient Olympic Games continued for nearly 12 centuries until they were suppressed in the late 4th century CE by Emperor Theodosius I, who sought to impose Christianity and suppress pagan traditions. Despite their cessation, the spirit of the ancient Olympics lived on, inspiring the modern Olympic movement that began in 1896.

In conclusion, the ancient Olympic Games were a remarkable fusion of sports, religion, and culture. The games honored Zeus and celebrated human excellence, leaving an indelible mark on history. Alongside other Panhellenic festivals, they exemplified the Greek commitment to both physical prowess and divine reverence, creating a legacy that endures to this day.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Point of interest

The 26.2-mile marathon of today's Olympics can trace its origins back to ancient times, in addition to, the 1908 Olympics.

The modern marathon's distance of 26.2 miles (42.195 kilometers) has its origins in both ancient and modern history. The marathon race commemorates the legendary run of Pheidippides, an ancient Greek messenger who, according to legend ran across the mountain track in full armor from the battlefield of Marathon to Athens in 490 BCE to announce the Greek victory over the Persians. Upon delivering his message, νικῶμεν (nikomen, (We win)), Pheidippides is said to have collapsed and died. It is from the Greek word for (win/victory), that the famous running shoe brand found its name, (Nike).

Originally, the marathon distance was approximately 24.85 miles (40 kilometers), reflecting the distance from Marathon to Athens. However, the distance was standardized at 26.2 miles during the 1908 London Olympics. This change occurred because the course was extended to allow the race to start at Windsor Castle and finish in front of the Royal Box at the Olympic Stadium, making the distance exactly 26 miles and 385 yards, (26.2 miles).

Therefore, the marathon race is named after the Battle of Marathon, a crucial conflict in ancient Greek history. Characters like Pheidippides became symbolic of endurance and heroism, embodying the spirit of the event, which has since evolved into a cornerstone of modern athletic competition.

Causes of Southern Secession in the U.S. Civil War - The Upper South

The second wave of states to leave the Union were the Upper South states. These included Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and pro-confederate Kentucky and Missouri, who held divided loyalties. The Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas had a more extensive free population than the deep South and made up most of the Confederacy. Here, Jeb Smith looks at the causes for the seccession of these states.

This is part 2 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here.

Henry Massey Rector, Governor of Arkansas at the time of secession.

"If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity." 

-Alexander Stephens  

In general, there was a difference in the causes of secession between the original seven seceding "Cotton States" of the Deep South and the remaining Upper South.[1] When the Cotton States left the Union, the Upper South either turned down voting on withdrawal from the Union or voted against secession. Historian E. Merton Coulter writes, "The Majority sentiment in the Upper South had been unionist until Lincoln's call for troops...Upper South…had cried equally against coercion as secession." 

When many historians talk about secession, they almost always ignore the Upper South; they unanimously point instead to the Cotton States. I believe this omission is because connecting slavery as a cause with the Upper South would be much more difficult. Further, looking at their causes of secession exposes the transformation of our Union into a centralized nation under Lincoln. 

Lincoln's Call for Volunteers

"The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State."

-Confederate General John B. Gordon Reminiscences of the Civil War New York Charles Scribner's Sons Atlanta The Martin  & Hoyt Co.1904

Like the Cotton States, the Upper South saw itself as a collection of sovereign states joined by a contract, the Constitution; if that contract was violated or not upheld, it could and should be discarded. Many believed that peaceful secession would be allowed to occur and that the principles of the Declaration of Independence would be allowed to play out peacefully. DiLorenzo quotes the reactions of multiple northern newspapers as showing substantial support for secession. Many in the North perceived that this war was one of the self-governing states versus a controlling central federal government. In Lincoln Unmasked, DiLorenzo tells us that before being deported by Lincoln, northern politician Clement Vallandigham accurately describes Lincoln's purpose for war.

"Overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead...national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation . . . No more state lines, no more state governments, but a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism." 

-Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio 

The North's support for secession was strong before it became clear how much of an impact secession would have on government funding, as the South was the North's "piggy bank." Further, free trade policies in the South would dominate the transatlantic trade since the North desired higher tariffs. If the South had been allowed to form their Confederacy, free trade policies in the South would have drawn even more commerce to Southern ports rather than Northern. So the North would lose the primary contributor to their economic plans, and they would lose out further due to their higher tax rates, and Europeans would trade with the free trade Confederacy. Not a good situation when you are looking to expand central spending. 

Lincoln's call for volunteers to suppress the "rebellion" of the Cotton States caused the secession of the Upper South. The Cotton States felt that the federal government violated their agreement, and the Upper South believed that they had every right to leave, even if the Upper South disagreed with their reasons for leaving. As R. L. Dabney explained, "However wrongfully any State might resume its Independence without just cause, the only remedy was conciliation, and not force, that therefore the coercion of a sovereign State was unlawful, mischievous, and must be resisted. There Virginia took her stand."

According to many Republican politicians, the Union was not a voluntary contract between sovereign self-governing states governed by a constitution, but rather a centralized nation. Washington D.C., rather than "we the people," was the authority. The states, the people, were subjects, servants, and pupils of the state. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said that the Union predated the Constitution. He referred to the Union as a "national government," and a "government proper," a "national union." Lincoln said, "The Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it." He argued that the Union was not "an association of States in the nature of contract." His opinion was that "No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union." 

The choice given to the Upper South was clear. They could either remain under the Republican-ruled coercive national government or join the Confederacy, whose Constitution maintained the Union and a compact of sovereign states. On June 4, 1861, The Western Democrat of Charlotte, North Carolina, said the Confederacy was "The only Republic now existing in America." The old Republic had become a democracy ruled by King Numbers. This was an easy choice for the Upper South. 

The Upper South saw Lincoln's call for volunteers as a violation of the Constitution, a metamorphosis in government, and a violation of their states’ sovereignty. In 1863, the Address to Christians Throughout the World by the Clergy of the Confederate States of America suggested that the yankees, "Fight not to recover seceding states, but to subjugate them." This was a war of self-governing sovereign states versus a federal government that was willing to use military force against its own population to keep them under its jurisdiction. The Union was no longer a collection of self-governing bodies based on consent but a nation controlled by a dictatorial oligarchy. Consent of the governed was eliminated. The Upper South could not go along with what they viewed as oppressive actions by Lincoln and this transformation of the Republic.

"Subjection under an arbitrary and military authority, there being no law of Congress authorizing such calling of troops, and no constitutional right to use them....it is the fixed purpose of the government…to wage a cruel war against the seceding states...to reduce its inhabitants to absolute subjection and abject slavery...Lincoln...is now governing by military rule alone ...without any authority of law, having set aside all constitutional and legal restraints, and made all constitutional and legal rights dependent upon his mere pleasure...all his unconstitutional illegal and oppressive acts, all his wicked and diabolical purposes...in his present position of usurper and military dictator, he has been and is encouraged and supported by the great body of the people of the non slave holding States." 

-Journal of the Convention of the People of North Carolina May 20, 1861, pp11-12

Professor of History at Longwood University Bevin Alexander wrote in his book, Such Troops as These, "Forced to choose between Lincoln's demand and what they believed to be morally correct and honorable, four Upper South states…seceded as well." The Upper South refused to become slaves to any government of unlimited power. In State Sovereignty and the Doctrine of Cohesion, J. K Spaulding wrote in 1860, "Hapless would be the condition of these states if their only alternative lay between submission to a self-construed  government, or, in other words, unlimited powers and the certainty of coercion."

"Virginia...was not willing to secede hastily; but the demand of President Lincoln that she furnish troops to fight her sister States, ended all hesitation...preferring to fight in defence of liberty...to place themselves as barriers in the way of a fanatical Administration, and, if possible, stay the bloody effort to coerce independent states to remain in the Union." 

-Address to Christians Throughout the World by the Clergy of the Confederate States of America Assembled at Richmond, VA April 1863

Preserving the Constitutional Republic

"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."

 -Gen. Robert E. Lee quoted in The Enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee The Ideological Warfare Underpinning the American Civil War, Marshall DeRosa, Lexington Books 2014

"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." 

-Confederate General Patrick Cleburne 1864 

Lincoln and the Republican party had transformed the Union from a confederation of sovereign states to a centralized nation controlled by the majority. He endeavored to expand the central Government beyond its scope in order to achieve a political agenda. The North had abandoned the Constitution and the Republic and replaced them with a centralized democracy; in other words, a limitless government. The Upper South had no choice but to join the Confederate Constitution, which maintained the "original compact" theory of the Union. 

It was believed in the South that it was the North that should secede. Quoting Henry Wise of Virginia, historian James McPherson  says, "Logically the union belongs to those who have kept, not those who have broken, its covenants...the North should do the seceding for the South represented more truly the nation which the federal government had set up in 1789." The South saw the growing majority of the North interfering with the culture within their states and violating the Constitution. They observed that democracy and mob rule would take over America. The South wished to restore America to its original Constitution, a Republic of confederated states, in order to preserve liberty and self-government.

"If they [the North] prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God...They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions."

-Dr. James Henley Thornwell of South Carolina, Our Danger and our Duty Columbia, S. C.: Southern Guardian Steam-power Press, 1862

True unreconstructed Southerners carried no blind patriotism for a tyrannical democracy like "America." In a Democracy, not even the Constitution or the Declaration could protect people from the mob. Decades after the war, Major James Randolph wrote the popular southern folk song, "I'm a good old rebel." Here are some of the lyrics. 

O I'm a good old rebel,

Now that's just what I am.

For this "fair land of freedom"

I do not care a damn...

I hates the Constitution,

This great republic too,...

I hates the Yankees nation

And everything they do,

I hates the Declaration,

Of Independence, too.

I hates the glorious Union-

'Tis dripping with our blood-

I hates their striped banner,

...

And I don't want no pardon

For what I was and am.

I won't be reconstructed,

And I don't care a damn

That was the old southerner. Propaganda like "land of the free," "home of the brave," meant nothing to a people who had their government toppled, their self-governance eradicated, their former ways of life destroyed.

State Secession Documents

With their actions and words, the states of the Upper South made it clear that Lincoln's call for volunteers, state sovereignty, and self-government were the primary causes of secession. 

Arkansas

"If we go to the North we become instruments in the hands of Lincoln to coerce the seceding states. To this a large number of the people will never consent." 

-The True Democrat Little Rock Arkansas March 15, 1861

Before Lincoln's call for volunteers, the people of Arkansas voted to stay in the Union by a vote of 23,626 to 17,927. On March 4, 1861, the Arkansas convention, led by a unionist president, voted to remain in the Union. However on March 12, 1861, The True Democrat Little Rock Arkansas warned "If Lincoln attempts to carry out the doctrines of his inauguration and to coerce the seceding states, that forces us at once to take our position by their side."

On May 6, 1861, after Lincoln's call for men, Arkansas officials gathered to revote. This time the result was 65-5 in favor of secession. In response to Lincoln's call for volunteers, Henry Rector, the Governor of Arkansas, said, "The people of this commonwealth are free men, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property, against northern mendacity and usurpation." Arkansans' before and after votes and their declaration for secession demonstrate their motives for joining the Confederacy. The relevant section of the secession ordinance reads:

Whereas…Lincoln…has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention, pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas. 

-Arkansas State Convention

Virginia

"Secession placed no State in so embarrassing a position as the great Commonwealth of

Virginia…There is no doubt that the great body of its citizens were opposed to the state’s seceding, but they were equally opposed to the coercion of the States which had already seceded." 

-George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864 BiblioBazaar 2008

After the secession of South Carolina, Virginia stayed in the Union working to restore the seceding states back into the Union. However, on January 7, 1861, Virginia passed an anti-coercion resolution, by a vote of 112-5, describing the right of secession and state sovereignty. This declared that Virginia would oppose any attempt at coercion by the federal government. The resolution declares, "We will resist the same by all the means in our power." The state Governor declared, "I will regard an attempt to pass federal troops across the territory of Virginia, for the purpose of coercing a southern seceding state, as an act of invasion, which should be met and repelled." The general assembly "Resolved... that the basis of all just government is the "consent of the governed," and that such consent is the sanction of free, as force is the sanction of despotic, governments. That where this consent exists, there, whatever the form of the government, is liberty, and where it is wanting, there, whatever the form of the government, is tyranny." However, on April 4, 1861, Virginia voted to stay in the Union by a 2-1 margin. 

Likewise, decades earlier, during the tariff controversy between South Carolina and the federal government the then Governor of Virginia said if any federal soldiers were to step on the soil of Virginia to coerce South Carolina to obey the federal tariffs they had nullified, it would happen only over his dead body. Such was the conviction of Virginian men against tyranny; it was no different in 1860. By calling for volunteers, Lincoln was ignoring Virginia's stance and resolve. 

So when Lincoln called upon Virginia to supply troops to invade the Cotton States, Virginia's decision was predictable. Like most Virginians, Robert E Lee expressed his distaste for coercion when he wrote to his son George Washington Custis Lee in 1861, "A union that can be only maintained by swords and bayonets...has no charm for me." To Virginians, it was a clear distinction between government cohesion and liberty.

"As soon as it was known, that it was the intention of the northern president to usurp war-making powers, and wage war against sovereign states of the confederacy and that Virginia was called on to contribute men and money....no one doubted what her action would be...when the union became an engine for oppression...she could not hesitate to throw herself on the side of freedom."

-Richmond Whig Editorial April 19, 1861, Sic Semper Tyrannis State Independence Quoted in Virginia Iliad H.V Traywick, Jr Dementi Milestone Publishing INC 2016

Virginia voters gathered again after Lincoln's call for troops, and by a vote of 126,000 to 20,400, they left the Union. In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts shows the great impact Lincoln's call for volunteers had on Virginians. Croft reports on the celebration of Virginians in Rockbridge County, who, after Fort Sumter, put up a confederate flag in celebration. In response, pro-unionist Virginians, who were by far the more numerous, erected a new, more enormous flagpole and put an American eagle on it. However, after Lincoln's call for volunteers, those same Unionists who had put the pole up with the American eagle threw it down. Rockbridge County, which had been majority unionist, then voted 1,728 to 1 for secession.

In the book, Three Months in the Southern States, Englishman Lt.-Colonel Arthur J. Fremantle wrote about a conversation he had with a Virginia woman who said that: "She had stuck fast to the Union until Lincoln's proclamation calling out 75,000 men to coerce the South, which converted her and such a number of others into strong Secessionists." Likewise, confederate artilleryman William Thomas Poague wrote, "Had Lincoln not made war upon the south, Virginia would not have left the union."

"Let us consider for a moment the results of a consolidated government, resting on force, as proposed by the dominant party at the north....a consolidated despotism, upheld by the sword and cemented by fear....now it [the union] has been seized upon by a sectional party, it is claimed that its powers are omnipotent, its will absolute, and it must and will maintain its supremacy, in spite of states and people, at the point of the sword." 

-Richmond Whig Editorial A Government of Force April 10 1861 Quoted in Virginia Iliad H.V Traywick, Jr Dementi Milestone Publishing INC

Moreover, Governor John Letcher, (who wanted Virginia to abolish slavery) opposed secession before Lincoln's call for volunteers. After Lincoln's call, however, he became a firm secessionist.  

"The President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia."

-John Letcher Governor of Virginia 

Virginia did not give a lengthy declaration of why it left the Union, just a short ordinance of secession and a mention of Lincoln's call for men.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America…declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."

It was not northern coercion alone that Virginia objected to. When South Carolina and Mississippi were considering passing laws that would negatively affect Virginia financially unless they joined the Confederacy, Governor Letcher said, "I will resist the coercion of Virginia into the adoption of a line of policy, whenever the attempt is made by northern or southern states."

Tennessee

On February 9, Tennessee voters turned down secession by a 4-1 margin. However, things transformed radically after Lincoln's call for volunteers. Governor Isham Harris wrote President Lincoln saying that if the Federal Government would "coerce" the seceded states into returning, Tennessee had no choice but to join its Southern neighbors. He wrote "Tennessee will not furnish a single man for purposes of coercion, but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights, and those of our southern brothers." 

Harper’s Weekly quotes the Nashville Dispatch on April 13, saying, "An enthusiastic public meeting was held here tonight. Resolutions were unanimously adopted, condemning the Administration for the present state of affairs, and sympathizing with the South." Harper’s Weekly also quoted a Memphis paper saying, "There are no Union men now here." On May 9, in an address to the people of Tennessee, Governor Harris said, "Force, when attempted, changes the whole character of the Government; making it a military despotism, and those that submit become the abject slaves of power. The people of Tennessee have fully understood this important fact, and hence their anxiety to stay the hand of coercion. They well know that the subjugation of the seceded States involved their own destruction." 

Harris and the people of Tennessee realized that cooperating in the subjugation of the Cotton States meant accepting their own future subjugation. Governor Harris recalled the Tennessee legislature on May 6 for another vote; voters would then approve secession on June 8 by a 2-1 margin. Reconciliation with a coercive government was out of the question; the Union was no longer. The founder's republic had vanished.

"If ever thus restored, it must, by the very act, cease to be a Union of free and independent States, such as our fathers established. It will become a consolidated centralized Government, without liberty or equality, in which some will reign and others serve the few tyrannize and the many suffer. It would be the greatest folly to hope for the reconstruction of a peaceful Union…The Federal Union of the States, thus practically dissolved, can never be restored."

-Isham G Harris, Senate Journal of the Second Extra Session of the Thirty-Third General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, which Convened at Nashville on Thursday, the 25th day of April, A.D 1861 Nashville J.O Griffith and Company, Public Printers 1861

North Carolina

"I have to say in reply that I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

-John Ellis, Governor of North Carolina Raleigh April 15, 1861, quoted in Harper's Weekly April 27, 1861

Before Lincoln's call to invade the Cotton States, support for the Union was overwhelming in North Carolina; they did not even vote on secession. However, after Lincoln's call for war, they unanimously adopted a secession ordinance. The same issue of Harper's Weekly quoted a dispatch from Wilmington North Carolina; "The Proclamation is received with perfect contempt and indignation. The Union men openly denounce the Administration. The greatest possible unanimity prevails." The effects were felt across political lines. McPherson  writes, "Even the previously unionist mountain counties, seemed to favor secession." 

Governor Ellis' proclamation on April 17 clarified why North Carolina stood with the South; "Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South, and for the violent subversion of the liberties of a free people…this high-handed act of tyrannical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law, in utter disregard of every sentiment of humanity and Christian civilization…but is a direct step towards the subjugation of the whole South, and the conversion of a free Republic, inherited from our fathers, into a military despotism." 

Missouri

"Sir...Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and can not be complied with. Not one man will, of the State of Missouri, furnish or carry on such an unholy crusade."

-Missouri Governor Claiborne Jackson Jefferson City April 17, 1861 Quote in Harper's Weekly April 27, 1861

Missouri was almost entirely pro-union. When confederates sent delegates to Missouri to convince the state to join the South, they were booed and jeered so loudly that none could hear them. On March 21, 1861, the Missouri convention voted 98-1 against secession, but they, like Kentucky, kept their neutrality. 

However, many in the state became outraged that their state sovereignty had been violated during the "Camp Jackson Affair." Union commander Nathaniel Lyon arrested the Missouri State Brigade, whom he feared were planning to seize the arsenal in St. Louis, and federal soldiers killed dozens of citizens during ensuing riots. Since the federal government violated the state's neutral position, support for secession grew within the state. James McPherson  wrote, "The events in St Louis pushed many conditional unionists into the ranks of secessionists." Lyon then pushed the Governor and state legislature out of Jefferson City, creating more anti-union sentiment. These events led to the end of neutrality, which resulted in both a pro-confederate and pro-union government within the state. On November 28, the Confederate Congress accepted Missouri as the 12th confederate state. Pro-confederate Missouri's reasons for secession centered around constitutional violations by the Lincoln administration.

Whereas the Government of the United States…has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof. 

-Missouri Causes of Secession 

Kentucky

By a 3 to 1 margin, Kentucky voted to remain neutral, but after Lincoln's call for volunteers, support for the South began to spread. The Kentucky Governor wrote, "President Lincoln, I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister southern states." On April 16, 1861 Governor B. Magoffin wrote to Simon Cameron, Secretary of War saying "Your dispatch is received. In answer, I say emphatically that Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."

However, the state's neutrality stance was violated by southern troops. In reaction, Kentucky would officially support the Union. Yet a pro-confederate government was established on December 10, 1861, and was accepted into the Confederacy by President Jefferson Davis as the 13th Confederate state. This Confederate government gave its causes of secession centered on limited government, Northern violations of the Constitution, and states’ rights. 

Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government.: therefore, be it ordained, that we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States.

 -Declaration of Causes of Secession Kentucky 

Slavery's Impact on the Secession of the Upper South

"It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against States fighting for their Independence into a war waged against States fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South."

-Woodrow Wilson, "A History of The American People" HardPress Publishing 2013

Slavery's involvement as a cause for secession in the Upper South is overstated. The states of the Upper South had protection for their slave property whether they stayed in the Union or joined the Confederacy. When the Deep South states left the Union, more slave states remained in the Union than joined the Confederacy. Most Upper South state declarations did not even mention slavery; if they did, it was only in passing and usually associated with violations of state's rights or the Constitution. Instead, they heavily spoke on state's rights, state sovereignty, and Lincoln's call for volunteers as the reasons for secession. Those states had previously chosen to stay with the Union before Lincoln's call but could no longer remain under a government of force. 

Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy 

"Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for its preservation, especially when it seemed to them that it was in no danger.'" 

-John G. Barrett, The Civil War in North Carolina U of North Carolina Press 1995

The Union would protect slavery better than a Confederacy. Slavery was constitutionally protected in both the northern and southern states for the entirety of the civil war. Moreover, Lincoln and the North supported the Corwin Amendment, which would permanently enshrine slavery in the U.S. Constitution. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said this of the proposed amendment, "To the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

-Corwin Amendment 

The U.S. supreme court supported the fugitive slave laws, allowing federally funded agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. On the other hand, the Confederacy was unable to protect slaveowners when slaves fled to the North. In his inaugural address, Lincoln pointed this out, saying, "while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other." 

The 1860 Republican platform Plank 4 said that slavery was a state issue, and they would not interfere with it in states that already had slaves. In his inaugural address, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Likewise, on May 26, 1861, General MClellan said, "Not only will we abstain from all such interference (with slaves), we will, on the contrary, with an iron hand crush any attempt at insurrection on their part." It is no wonder a leader of the Whig Party in Missouri said, "Howard County is true to the Union. Our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property."

Even after the deep South left the Union, the federal government decided it would not end slavery, in the House in February and the Senate on March 2, 1861. On July 22, 1861, Congress declared, "This war is not waged, nor (the) purpose of overthrowing… the rights or established institutions of those states." On October 8, 1861, the Washington D.C. newspaper, The National Intelligencer, said, "The existing war had no direct relation to slavery." On November 7, 1861, Commanding General McClellan said, "The issue for which we are fighting, that issue is the preservation of the Union... I express the feelings and opinions of the president when I say that we are fighting only to preserve the integrity of the Union." On August 15, 1864, long after the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln said, "So long as I am President. It shall be carried on for the sole purpose of restoring the Union." 

This is not to say that no one in the Upper South was upset over the Republican's intrusion into the states' rights on this issue in the western territories. There was a minor secession movement within the Upper South on the issue of slavery, especially in Virginia and Arkansas, but they were a minority. In fact, after Lincoln's call for troops, many slave owners in the Upper South argued to stay in the Union since Lincoln was powerless to interfere with slavery. 

"Is there any good reason why we should change our position? I believe that so far as the North is concerned, the prospect for the full recognition of Southern rights is better than it was at the time of Lincoln's election, or at any time within several years before. The Governors of several Northern States, including the great States of New York and Pennsylvania, have recommended the faithful observance of all the laws intended for the protection of slave property, and the repeal of all the personal liberty bills... Lincoln's administration is powerless to harm us. Before its close, his party will be scattered into fragments."

-Rep. Thomas N. Crumpler of Ashe County N.C to the House of Commons on January 10, 1861

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

4 Reasons Why The Man in the High Castle Was a TV Program - and Not Reality

‘The Man in the High Castle’ was an American television series created for a “parallel universe” where Nazi Germany, and the Empire of Japan, respectively, would rule the world after winning World War II. The series was nominated for over two dozen awards, winning three of them. The author of this piece, Ken Buller, has just finished watching the entire series. I guess it’s always better to be late, then to never have watched it. 

Vyacheslav Molotov (left) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (right) at the signing of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

As I was binge watching the series, I couldn’t help but pull out every history book, paper, and lesson I had gone through in school to really dive into what were some of the fatal mistakes that the Axis (particularly Nazi Germany) had made to make it a fictional series, and thankfully, not a reality. The list could probably go on forever, but here’s a list of four of the most important reasons for what I think cost the Nazis and Japanese their empires. 

Strategic Blunders

1. The brain drain. With Hitler’s twisted and demonic ideology, he either drove away or killed millions of high IQ, highly skilled entrepreneurs, manufacturers, scientists, engineers, physicians, financers, etc. I think the quote “Our Germans were better than their Germans,” from the film ‘The Right Stuff’ sums up the incalculable waste of talent he could’ve used. 

2. Declaring War on The United States of America. On December 11, 1941, Nazi Germany declared war on the United States due to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor four days earlier. However, according to the terms of their agreements, Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Japan if a third country attacked Japan, but not if Japan attacked a third country. I think if Germany declared war on America, they had a great opportunity through the Kreigsmarine’s U-boat fleet to knock all of his enemies in Europe out, but particularly Great Britain.

3. The Invasion of the Soviet Union. Well, if any of you know about Napoleon, enough said, but that won’t fly with my Editor. Through the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, the Nazis had such an advantage that only a maniac could, and eventually, would ruin it. With their allies in the Balkans, Caucasus, and parts of Eastern Europe, they could have acquired the natural resources and material wealth that they desperately needed in order to maintain their dominance for years to come.

4. Failure to Work with Japan. It seems that throughout the war, Germany and Japan didn’t really work at all and they were more “frenemies” than actual allies. Throughout the war they had some joint operations, but I think they failed to operate on a grand scale. In my previous point, the German forces that were ultimately used on the Eastern Front, could have been used in North Africa, and the Middle East, who could eventually link up with Japanese Forces in India or Central Asia that were pushing in from China and Burma.

In conclusion, I think Adolf Hitler was obviously an evil monster, and because of his horrible ideology, it got in the way of making the right strategic moves at all the right times. I think even if he didn't commit half of the mistakes listed, the war would've gone on for years, and parts of "The Man in The High Castle" we could be living out right now.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Falklands War: What Happened During the Battle of Goose Green?

The Battle of Goose Green stands as one of the most dramatic and significant engagements of the 1982 Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina. This confrontation saw the British Parachute Regiment overcoming a numerically superior Argentine force to capture a strategically vital airfield.

Terry Bailey explains.

What is left of the 1982 Argentinian defensive positions on Darwin Ridge, Darwin, Falkland Islands. Source: Farawayman, available here.

Introduction

In April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory, triggering a military response from Great Britain. The British government, led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was under immense political pressure to reclaim the islands swiftly. The international community, particularly the United States, closely watched Britain's military response. These international overseers added to the urgency of a decisive victory, simply because the international community were pressing for a negotiated settlement. A British task force was en route within 3 days of the Argentine invasion.

It is worth noting that Argentina and Great Britain had spent numerous years talking about the Falkland Islands' future long before the Argentine invasion, including a potential dual sovereignty proposal.

However, now that Argentina had invaded and a British task force had set sail, it looked like war was inevitable. The British forces landed on the Falklands and began their advance. Goose Green, a settlement on East Falkland, became a focal point. The Argentine forces had fortified the area in depth, including the nearby airfield, which was crucial for controlling air operations in the region. Military and political leaders in London and the field recognized that capturing Goose Green would deliver a significant blow to Argentine morale and strengthen the British position.

Brigadier Julian Thompson, the immediate commander of the British land forces, faced considerable pressure from the British government to produce quick results. Although some military advisors suggested bypassing Goose Green to avoid heavy casualties, the political imperative for a visible and symbolic victory prevailed. Consequently, the 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment (2 PARA), under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Herbert "H" Jones, was tasked with the audacious assault.

Strategic Overview

The overall strategy for the British forces involved a multi-pronged advance to recapture key positions on the Falklands. Goose Green, located on a narrow isthmus on East Falkland, was defended by a strong Argentine force commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Ítalo Piaggi, numbering over 1,200 men and were well-entrenched with machine guns, mortars, and artillery support.

In contrast, 2 PARA comprised approximately 600 soldiers, half the strength of the Argentine defenders. Despite this disparity, the British strategy hinged on surprise, speed, and superior training, in addition to the skill of their troops. The plan involved a night march of approximately 21 kilometers to position the battalion for a dawn assault, to use the element of surprise to disorient the defenders and secure key objectives swiftly. However, the media had managed to transmit the story before the assault occurred, thereby, the element of surprise was lost and Argentine forces were substantially reinforced and ready for the assault.

Under cover of darkness on the 27th of May, 2 PARA advanced towards the settlement, navigating difficult terrain and maintaining strict noise discipline aimed at avoiding detection. The plan was to launch a coordinated attack at first light, striking the surrounding Argentine positions with overwhelming force.

The battalion's companies were each assigned specific objectives. 2 Para were unaware that the Argentine forces were expecting an assault and had reinforced the whole Goose Green area.

A Company, under the command of Major Dair Farrar-Hockley, were to take Burntside House as their first objective, B Company, under the command of Major John Crossland, followed in the next phase of the attack and was to secure Burntside Hill and then continue to Boca Hill.

Where A Company had advanced down the left side of the isthmus, B Company were to follow the coast on the right side of the attack. After a significant delay, the advanced initially encountered very little resistance in the forward trenches. Approaching Burntside Hill, they exchanged fire with the Argentine defenders, however, on reaching the top of the hill, they found the first positions empty.

The Coronation Ridge position temporarily halted Major Neame's D Company as they advanced between A and B companies. However, D Company soon encountered heavy fire from an Argentine machine gun which was silenced by two paratroopers, allowing D Company to continue and clear the Argentine position on Coronation Ridge. These early encounters held up the advance for approximately 3 hours.

Then A Company, 2 Paras moved into the gorse line at the bottom of Darwin Hill facing the entrenched Argentines, who looked down on the British and thus were able to pin down the British with heavy machine gun and automatic rifle fire, in addition to, sniper fire, thus holding up the advance for a further hour.

At this point B Company broke off their attack and began to withdraw to the reverse side of Middle Hill and the base of Coronation Point due to being completely exposed to enemy fire, as the whole area was wide open and had no real cover available for the British.

A and B companies utilized this time to prepare temporary defensive positions while a re-organization of the attack was conducted by 2 Para's second-in-command. The British A and B Companies currently were unable to cross the open ground due to Argentine machine guns and sniper fire.

With both A and B Companies' advance halted and the entire attack in jeopardy, the 2 Para Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jones led an unsuccessful charge up a small gully to try to regain the initiative. 3 of his men, his adjutant Captain Wood, A Company's second-in-command Captain Dent, and Corporal Hardman were killed when they followed his charge.

Shortly after that, Jones was seen to run west along the base of Darwin Ridge to a small re-entrant, checking his Sterling submachine gun, then running up the hill towards an Argentine trench. He was seen to be hit once, then fell, got up, and was hit again from the side. He fell meters short of the trench, H Jones was shot in the back and the groin, and died within minutes. Jones was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

After a further 5 hours of fighting and ammunition supplies becoming critical, A Company eventually overcame the Argentine defenders on Darwin Hill, finally reporting it secure at 13:13 hrs local time, and advanced to take Boca Hill. Waving a white T-shirt from a rifle all resistance on the part of the Argentines holding Darwin Ridge ended, securing the outlying areas of Goose Green.

After securing Boca Hill and the battle for Darwin Ridge was over, the interim objectives had taken six hours of fighting, with heavy losses, the commanding officer, the adjutant, A Company's Second-in-Command, and nine non-commissioned officers and soldiers were killed with a further 30 wounded.

C and D Companies began to make their way to the airfield, as well as to Darwin School (to the east of the airfield), while B Company made their way south of Goose Green Settlement.

A Company remained on Darwin Hill. C Company originally held in reserve now advanced to contact and came under effective enemy fire sustaining heavy casualties.

The order to fix bayonets was given and C company continued their advance clearing the enemy positions as they traversed the boggy uneven terrain. The outer defenders fell back into the Darwin-Goose Green track and were able to escape. Sergeant Sergio Ismael Garcia of 25IR single-handedly covered the Argentine withdrawal during the British counterattack. For this, he was posthumously awarded the Argentine Nation to the Valor in Combat Medal.

By last light, A Company was still on Darwin Hill, north of the gorse hedge; B Company had penetrated much further south and had swung in a wide arc from the western shore of the isthmus eastwards towards Goose Green, but were isolated and under fire from Argentine positions and unable to receive mutual support from the other companies.

At this point further Argentine reinforcements were arriving; however, B Company 2 Para managed to bring down artillery fire on these new Argentine reinforcements, forcing them to disperse towards the Goose Green settlement, although some did re-embark and left with the departing helicopters that had deployed them.

At this point, C Company's attack had also stalled, after their battle at the Darwin Schoolhouse, now advancing towards Goose Green airfield they came under intense direct fire from 35 mm anti-aircraft guns from Goose Green.

Whereas, D Company had regrouped just before the last light, and they were deployed to the west of the dairy—exhausted, hungry, low on ammunition, and without water.

Food was redistributed, for A and C Companies with one ration-pack between two men; but B and D Companies could not be reached. At this time, a British helicopter casualty evacuation flight took place, successfully extracting C Company casualties from the forward slope of Darwin Hill, while under fire from Argentine positions.

To Keeble, now in command of 2 Para with the death of Lieutenant Colonel H Jones, the situation looked precarious, the Argentine position had been surrounded but not captured, and his fighting companies were exhausted, cold, and low on water, food, and ammunition.

His concern was that the Argentine reinforcements, dropped by helicopter, would either be used in an early morning counter-attack or used to stiffen the defenses around Goose Green.

He had seen the C Company assault stopped in its tracks by the anti-aircraft fire from Goose Green and had seen the Harrier strikes earlier that afternoon missing their intended targets. In an orders group with the A and C Company commanders, he indicated his preference for calling for an Argentine surrender, rather than facing an ongoing battle the following morning. This train of thought was based on the fact that the Argentine forces were surrounded and all outlying Goose Green Argentine positions were now in British hands.

However, at the same time, he put an alternative plan into action, in case the Argentines decided not to surrender. This plan was to "flatten Goose Green" with all available firepower and then launch an assault with all forces possible, including reinforcements he had requested from Brigadier Thompson.

On Thompson's orders, J Company of 42 Commando, Royal Marines, and the remaining guns of 8 Battery, and additional mortars were helicoptered in to provide the necessary support for a possible assault on the 29th of May.

However, on the morning of the 29th of May 1982, the formal surrender of Goose Green by the Argentine forces took place with 2 PARA securing a decisive victory, although with heavy losses.

Aftermath and Impact

The capture of Goose Green was a pivotal moment in the Falklands War. It demonstrated the resolve and capability of British forces operating far from their native shores of Great Britain in the world of modern combat, boosting morale both for the islanders and the populace in Great Britain. The victory also had a significant psychological impact on the Argentine forces, undermining their confidence and cohesion.

Over 1,200 Argentine soldiers from Goose Green were taken prisoner by the British. In questioning the prisoners it became quite clear that the use of the bayonet by the British was not only a shock to many of the Argentine soldiers but was a decisive factor in the collapse of morale and therefore, the overall collapse of Argentine forces at Goose Green. It should also be noted that the Argentine commander was fully aware that his command was surrounded and the British now could call upon large amounts of fire support.

The political and strategic implications of the battle were profound. Prime Minister Thatcher capitalized on the success, enabling the strengthening of domestic and international support for the British campaign. The victory at Goose Green underscored the effectiveness of British military strategy and tactics, even when facing numerically superior forces, setting the stage for subsequent operations to reclaim all of the Falklands Islands.

Conclusion

The Battle of Goose Green is remembered as a symbol of courage, skill, and determination of the British Parachute Regiment. Despite facing a numerically superior enemy, 2 PARA's audacious assault, tactical superiority and the overwhelming aggressive fighting ability of the British Airborne soldiers secured a crucial victory in the Falklands War, when international pressure was pushing for a negotiated settlement, that may have sided with the Argentine leadership.

The battle not only showcased the effectiveness of British forces but also highlighted the political and strategic dimensions of military decision-making in the heat of conflict. Reflecting on this historic engagement, the legacy of Goose Green endures as a true symbol of bravery and resilience, providing a reminder that extraordinary feats can be achieved when determination and skill combine in the face of adversity.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Note

Battles are often confusing and full of contradictions from either side, and the battle for Goose Green is no exception, however, what is certain is that a smaller numerical force overcame a larger force by closing with the enemy with fixed bayonets and generating enough military violence to overcome the enemy positions.

Point of interest

The English Captain John Strong made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690, and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group. Whereas, Argentina was only founded as a country in 1816 on the 9th of July.

The Argentine sovereignty claim is based upon the inheritance of the islands, known as Las Malvinas in Argentina, from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s. Additionally, the Falkland Islands' proximity to Argentina's mainland appears to be reason enough for the claim by the Argentine government.

Lieutenant Colonel H Jones, Victoria Cross citation

On 28th May 1982 Lieutenant Colonel Jones was commanding the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment on operations on the Falkland Islands. The Battalion was ordered to attack enemy positions in and around the settlements of Darwin and Goose Green. During the attack against an enemy who was well dug in with mutually supporting positions sited in depth, the Battalion was held up just South of Darwin by a particularly well-prepared and resilient enemy position of at least eleven trenches on an important ridge.

A number of casualties were received. In order to read the battle fully and to ensure that the momentum of his attack was not lost, Colonel Jones took forward his reconnaissance party to the foot of a re-entrant which a section of his Battalion had just secured. Despite persistent, heavy and accurate fire the reconnaissance party gained the top of the re-entrant, at approximately the same height as the enemy positions. From here Colonel Jones encouraged the direction of his Battalion mortar fire, in an effort to neutralize the enemy positions.

However, these had been well prepared and continued to pour effective fire onto the Battalion advance, which, by now held up for over an hour and under increasingly heavy artillery fire, was in danger of faltering. In his effort to gain a good viewpoint, Colonel Jones was now at the very front of his Battalion. It was clear to him that desperate measures were needed in order to overcome the enemy position and rekindle the attack, and that unless these measures were taken promptly the Battalion would sustain increasing casualties and the attack perhaps even fail.

It was time for personal leadership and action. Colonel Jones immediately seized a sub-machine gun, and, calling on those around him and with total disregard for his own safety, charged the nearest enemy position. This action exposed him to fire from a number of trenches. As he charged up a short slope at the enemy position he was seen to fall and roll backward downhill. He immediately picked himself up, and again charged the enemy trench, firing his sub-machine gun and seemingly oblivious to the intense fire directed at him. He was hit by fire from another trench which he outflanked, and fell dying only a few feet from the enemy he had assaulted.

A short time later A company of the Battalion attacked the enemy, who quickly surrendered. The display of courage by Colonel Jones had completely undermined their will to fight further.

Thereafter the momentum of the attack was rapidly regained, Darwin and Goose Green were liberated, and the Battalion released the local inhabitants unharmed and forced the surrender of some 1,200 of the enemy.

The achievements of the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment at Darwin and Goose Green set the tone for the subsequent land victory on the Falklands. The British achieved such a moral superiority over the enemy in this first battle that, despite the advantages of numbers and selection of battleground, the Argentinian troops never thereafter doubted either the superior fighting qualities of the British troops or their own inevitable defeat.

This was an action of the utmost gallantry by a Commanding Officer whose dashing leadership and courage throughout the battle were an inspiration to all about him.

His Victoria Cross is displayed at the National Army Museum in Chelsea, London.

Other British awards

The Distinguished Service Order was awarded to Maj. C.B.P. Keeble, the Battalion second in command

The Military Cross Was awarded to:

Maj. J.H. Crossland: OC B Coy

Maj. C.D. Farrar-Hockley: OC A Coy

Lt. C.S. Connor: Recce Pl. Cmdr

Distinguished Conduct Medal was awarded to:

Cpl. D. Abols for his daring charges, which turned the Darwin Hill battle

Sgt. J.C. Meredith, Pl Sgt, 12 Platoon, D Company

Pte S. Illingsworth was posthumously awarded the DCM

The War of 1812: The Battle of New Orleans & The Mississippi River

The Mississippi River — trade route, boundary line, and burial ground. According to www.nps.gov the Mississippi River flows 593,003 cubic feet of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. This equates to 4.4 million gallons per second, with each droplet telling a story and holding a memory. Researching currents and flood stages gives us a hint at her moods, but she has long been a crucial player in the history of American. Here, Bethany Bellemin will look at the river’s importance in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

The Battle of New Orleans. By Edward Percy Moran, 1910.

Key Players

1812. The testing time for a new American had begun. The British fleet had been confiscating crewmen from United States’ vessels claiming them as deserters of the British navy. While some of them had been deserters looking to start a new life, other sailors taken were simply American citizens going about their lives. After a few years of this injustice, the Americans had finally had enough. War was officially declared against the former mother country on June 18, 1812. It was going to be a conflict with far more significance than either side realized.

For two years war waged bringing the most pivotal battle with it. The beginning of the end started on December 21, 1814. The war had come to New Orleans, Louisiana. The ensuing conflict would prove to be a crucial and defining moment, not just for the war, but also for the entire nation.

December 1, 1814. General Andrew Jackson, the man of the hour had arrived. Robert Tallant, an authority on the Battle of New Orleans called him, “The toughest fighting man in the country.” (The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, 84). Jackson was preparing for the looming battle ahead with an ill-prepared army, and he was running out of time. With his troops low on ammunition and food, Jackson prepared his defense and hoped the supply boats would arrive in time. The British, under the command of Major General Pakenham, was sailing in with a fleet, fully prepared for a quick seizure of the city and the mouth of the Mississippi River. The British army had determined to conquer New Orleans using her access to the interior via the river and put a chokehold on America. It was known that whoever controlled the river controlled the nation. The city of New Orleans knew they were a pawn in the game and the control of the river was the key element to the upcoming events in which they would be participating whether they wished to or not. There was no ignoring the British ships silhouetted against a gulf sky.

The supplies Jackson was waiting for were running late, and his temper was running short. The keelboats hauling the goods had stalled upriver with their captains refusing to deliver the load unless they were paid a higher fee. It was a classic trade monopoly that the river has witnessed time and time again.

Enter Henry Miller Shreve, inventor and entrepreneur of growing renown along the river. With lives and the fate of the nation at stake, he knew what he had to do. In December 1814, he set off down the river in his steamboat the Enterprise which he had loaded with supplies for the small army amassing at the mouth of the Mississippi. Shreve was already tackling the Livingston-Fulton embargo on river trade and was no stranger to opposing injustice in the trade routes. Fighting for his country was just as close to his heart. He also made certain that the three keelboats delivered their load to Jackson: regardless of the captains' complaints against the action. A deal was a deal in Shreve’s mind and was as irrevocable as the flow of the river.

Now the spotlight moved to Jean Lafitte, privateer and businessman. He never revealed in his life why he disliked the British so much, but it is a known fact that he opposed them enough to refuse their offers attempting to cajole him into joining the British army, which also seemed to have lit the match that pushed him to offer his influence and abilities in the aid of his new country. He was not American born but he was American made. Jackson is said to have taken an instant liking to him which is recommendation enough from the stern general.

Alongside Henry Shreve, and the temporary ally, Jean Lafitte, Jackson was now ready. Lafitte was able to supply the flints needed to outfit the army Jackson commanded, many volunteers lacking any weapons whatsoever. (The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, 119). Jackson, Shreve, and Lafitte: men that ran in very different circles and yet their decisions had brought them all together in this moment. The three men were perhaps unknowingly cornerstones for this battle, would all carry have a lifelong respect for each other.

Why New Orleans

The battle of New Orleans would forever mark the young country of America. Sometimes called the Second War for Independence, it was proof that the new country was here to stay. It would set the nation apart, a new land with opportunity and justice for all. And everyone from every people group were eager to take part in the battle. Even the Choctaw nation took an interest, making up a small group of eighteen and heading down the river to help defend Louisiana. The United States had an army of 2,131 while the British were known to be marching in with at least 12,000 seasoned soldiers. The odds were not in New Orleans’ favor. Robert Tallant made this empowering statement about Jackson’s troops: “It is doubtful if a braver little army every marched in the history of the world.” (The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, 128-130). It is also to be noted that it is the first recorded time that all different people groups of the country fought united against a common foe. For the first time, the former colonists really felt like Americans.

The Mississippi River was a major deciding factor on the outcome of the war. Even the British were aware that the river would determine the winning side. Controlling the watery trade route could split the nation in half and ensure the ability to deliver ammunition along the waterways to the nation that held the power. It was well known that the majority of news, military orders, and citizen mail for the southern portion of the country went down the waterway as well; trade was not the only thing that was in jeopardy. New Orleans had long known that the war would come to them, it was inevitable. She stood at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico and going by her was the only way the interior could be reached by boat. If she fell, potentially so did the nation.

The first shots fired in defense of New Orleans were from aboard the Carolina, a steamboat merchant vessel that sailed down the Mississippi to the British encampment. Shots were exchanged beginning at 7 p.m. on December 23, 1814. It had started.

It was a long battle, lasting from December 23 to its finale on January 8, 1815. The casualties for the Battle of New Orleans were grossly unbalanced with the British recording over 2,000 casualties among their troops. In contrast, Jackson’s smaller force, with their base camp at the now famous Chalmette Plantation, endured less than 100 casualties. This success in preservation can be attributed to the guerrilla warfare style of the Americans and the fact they knew the lay of the land. Also fighting for one's own country has a higher moral fiber than fighting to conquer another’s homeland. The British soldiers were certainly less enthusiastic than their commanders about the whole affair.

A Pointless Battle or Something More?

Ironically, the war ended before the famous battle on December 24, 1814, in Ghent, Belgium. But news had to come by ship and that took time. Edith McCall, a historian on Captain Shreve, notes it was seven weeks before the news of the treaty reached New Orleans. She further states that “the Battle of New Orleans soon became known as ‘the needless battle,’ for it was fought two weeks after the war was officially over. However, no one argued that it had been a useless battle, for it won new respect for the American military forces.” (Mississippi Steamboatman: The Story of Henry Miller Shreve, Edith McCall, 29-30). The War of 1812 was considered officially ended by Congress ratifying the treaty on February 16, 1815. The United States finally saw itself as a separate country and not just a singular group of colonies that still reflected Britain. Now she saw herself as a nation that could stand the test of time and make her mark on the world.

All the men that played a part in it, the knowns and the unknowns, showed that the country was built on initiative. Shreve taking his steamboat with munitions; Jackson pushing his troops to march from Pensacola, Florida to New Orleans as quickly as possible; Lafitte relentlessly offering his aid in the conflict from supplying weapons to sharing knowledge of the swamp lands: this was initiative and these are the types of men that laid the foundation for their sons and grandsons and further down to the ones who would enlist in World War Two in the fight to protect their country and stop Nazi Terrorism. This is the backbone of America, and it took a battle that was fought too late after a war to prove it to herself.

Robert Remini, another historian covering the famous battle, remarks that “the Battle of New Orleans was one of the great turning points in American history. The country had gone to war with England in a desperate effort to prove that its independence won in the revolution was no fluke, no accident, no grant by a reluctant mother country…in that one glorious moment the nation had demonstrated that it had the strength, will, and ability to defend its freedom and prove to the world that it was here to stay, that its sovereignty and rights were to be respected by all.” (The Battle of New Orleans: Andrew Jackson and the First Military Victory, Robert V. Remini, 195). The United States was now a player among the powers of the world.

The Mississippi River was the heartbeat of a growing nation at a time when roads were few and railways were fewer. Even for the people that did not live near her shoreline, the river was the line of communication and trade from north to south. For those who were directly influenced by the waterway, the river was their very own to protect and utilize. Fishing, trade, and all manner of livelihood ebbed and flowed with the river's currents. Keeping the waterway in the hands of the Americas ensured she would last as long as the river ran. The people of New Orleans and of the swamplands considered her home, but she also became a symbol: no one will easily lose what he is willing to die to protect. The Battle of New Orleans was a group of people with little connection before the event. In their attempts to protect a river they forged a bond; and in doing so solidified the United States of America. That is one of the things that makes America what it is. And we can can thank a river for that.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

When it comes to history, I always tell people don’t take just one person's word for it. Research it and find your own conclusions based off of the facts that present themselves. That’s what makes us all historians: the curious mind and the searching heart. I found these books to be invaluable in my study of The Battle of New Orleans and hope you find in them a piece of the past to hold onto for yourself as well.

It Happened on the Mississippi River, James A. Crutchfield, Morris Book Publishing, 2009.

The Battle of New Orleans: Andrew Jackson and the First Military Victory, Robert V. Remini, Penguin Books, 1999.

The Story of the Battle of New Orleans, Stanley Clisby Arthur, 1915, republished Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2015.

Mississippi Steamboatman: The Story of Henry Miller Shreve, Edith McCall, Walker Publishing Company, 1986.

Sink or Be Sunk!, Paul Estronza La Violette, Annabelle Publishing, 2002.

The Greatest Fury: The Battle of New Orleans and the Rebirth of America, William C. Davis, Caliber by Penguin Random House, 2019.

Master of the Mississippi, Florence L. Dorsey, Pelican Publishing, 1998.

The Pirate Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans, Robert Tallant, Pelican Publishing, 1951. (You will notice this was one of my favorite books to quote in this article. A well written and engaging narrative of Lafitte and the Battle of New Orleans).

The Vicksburg Campaign: Part 1 - The Strategic Problem of Vicksburg

The Vicksburg campaign was a series battles from 1862 to 1863 in the US Civil War. The fighting was focused on Vicksburg, Mississippi. In part one of a two-part series, Lloyd W Klein looks at the strategic importance of Vicksburg.

The bombarding and capturing of Fort Hindman, Arkansas Post, January 1863. By Currier and Ives.

"See what a lot of land these fellows hold, of which Vicksburg is the key! The war can never be brought to a close until that key is in our pocket.”

-- Abraham Lincoln

“ … the nailhead that holds the South's two halves together."

– Jefferson Davis

The vital importance of controlling the Mississippi River was apparent from the beginning of the Civil War. The river not only served as a crucial supply route but also facilitated the transportation of troops and military provisions, while also aiding in effective communication. By gaining control over the Mississippi River, the Union would effectively cut off the Confederacy's access to this vital thoroughfare, creating a division between the western and eastern southern states. Furthermore, this strategic move would enable Northern traffic to freely navigate the entire length of the river, essentially transforming it into a logistical superhighway that would greatly influence operations in the Western theater.

By June 1862, the Union army and naval forces had captured New Orleans and many other forts and cities along the Mississippi River. However, the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg in Mississippi remained under their control. With General Halleck's transfer to Washington as the commander-in-chief, General Grant assumed command of the Army of Tennessee and was entrusted with capturing Vicksburg.  This was no easy task. It had been tried by others without success.

Admiral Farragut had attempted an assault up the river in May 1862 after he captured New Orleans.  He demanded surrender but he had insufficient troops to attack. Returning with a flotilla in June 1862, his attempts to bombard the fortress into surrender were unsuccessful. Throughout July, the Navy shelled Vicksburg and engaged in minor battles with Confederate vessels in the area, yet their forces were not enough to attempt a landing, leading to the abandonment of the mission.

Geography

Vicksburg held immense strategic significance due to its geographical location overlooking a sharp 180-degree bend on the Mississippi River, situated atop a towering 200-foot bluff. Because of the horseshoe turn, ships were essentially forced to face toward it, then away from it, and had to maneuver slowly. Perched on high, steep bluffs 200 feet above the river and heavily defended by forts and earthworks, it was heavily defended with formidable forts and earthworks. It was called the "Gibraltar of the Confederacy" for good reason, as it appeared impregnable to any military force of that era.

North and east of Vicksburg, the Mississippi Delta was formed by the convergence of the Yazoo River with the Mississippi River. Spanning over 7000 square miles, this alluvial floodplain boasts an intricate network of streams, rivers, bayous, and swamps. Some of these waterways were navigable, while others were impassable. The Delta is a 7000 square mile alluvial floodplain, with many streams, rivers, bayous, and swamps, some of which were navigable, some of which were entirely unpassable. Its geological origin is that of regular flooding of both rivers over thousands of years, creating a flat, fertile land with swamps and other wetlands. It was a land inhabited by swarms of mosquitoes carrying malaria, poor roads, and untamed wilderness. Additionally, it housed some of the largest, most productive, and isolated cotton plantations. The slave population in this area developed its own unique culture and music, which eventually emerge as Mississippi Delta Blues.

A bayou is a sluggish and narrow river characterized by an ill-defined shoreline, often associated with a marshy lake or wetland. It can also refer to a creek whose direction of flow changes daily due to tidal shifts. Bayous typically contain brackish water and are frequently boggy or stagnant. On the other hand, a swamp or marsh is a low-lying wetland predominantly covered by woody vegetation. These areas experience saturation of water in the ground and are either partially or intermittently submerged. Swamps and marshes serve as transitional zones between land and water. Wetlands encompass not only floodplains but also other areas that are prone to flooding or remain underwater.

The Initial Advance

Ulysses S Grant assumed command of the Army of Tennessee and immediately devised a strategic plan. Departing from Memphis, he aimed to trace the path of the Mississippi Central Railroad towards the south, reaching Holly Springs. Meanwhile, General Sherman was entrusted with leading four divisions, totaling around 32,000 soldiers, down the river. Grant, on the other hand, would continue his advance with the remaining forces, approximately 40,000 strong, along the railroad line towards Oxford. The Confederate forces, under the leadership of Lt. Gen. John C. Pemberton, posed a formidable challenge, with 12,000 troops stationed in Vicksburg and Jackson, Mississippi, while Maj. Gen. Earl Van Dorn commanded around 24,000 soldiers in Grenada.

Grant faced numerous obstacles in his mission, including the Confederate Army's opposition, the demanding terrain and geographical features, the prevalence of diseases, and logistical difficulties in maintaining a steady supply chain. However, his most significant concern came from the political realm. President Lincoln envisioned a two-pronged offensive strategy, with Major General John McClernand authorized to advance down the river, while Nathaniel Banks would move upstream from New Orleans. This political pressure added an additional layer of complexity to Grant's already challenging circumstances.

General Grant's initial strategy to reach Vicksburg by taking the most straightforward overland route, following the train road, proved to be unsuccessful. The problem with this direct approach was that it was too predictable and vulnerable: any threat to the single-lane Mississippi Central Railroad would have disastrous consequences. Unfortunately for Grant, the Confederates had Nathan Bedford Forrest, a skilled commander who posed a significant threat to this route. As a result, Grant's offensive failed as raids by Van Dorn and Forrest disrupted his supply lines and communication networks. The destruction of the supply depot at Holly Springs forced Grant to abandon his original plan.

Chickasaw Bayou

Meanwhile, Sherman moved downriver to Johnson's Plantation and attempted a direct northeast advance toward Vicksburg. However, this strategy required traversing through swamps and facing strong defenses on hills overlooking a bayou. Despite launching attacks for three consecutive days at Chickasaw Bayou (December 26 - 29, 1862), Sherman's forces made no progress. The heavily fortified hills and the challenging terrain hindered their advancement, leaving them unable to break through.

On December 27, the Union army pushed their lines forward through the swamps toward the Walnut Hills, which were strongly defended. On December 28, several futile attempts were made to get around these defenses. On December 29, Sherman ordered a frontal assault, which was repulsed with heavy casualties, and then withdrew.

The problem was that the bayou ended in a wall of hills, the Walnut Hills, which provided a strong defensive advantage. The strategic significance of this attack was in its proximity to Vicksburg, which is exactly what enabled Pemberton to bring sufficient manpower for its defense. Another factor was that Porter’s bombardment failed to have an important effect. Sherman had over 30,000 men of whom 1700 were casualties; Pemberton had about 14,000 with less than 200 casualties.

General McClernand and Arkansas Post

Meanwhile, General McClernand led his Corps to Memphis and proceeded down the Mississippi River, where he instructed Sherman to join forces with him, disregarding Grant's directives. Their target was Arkansas Post, home to Fort Hindman at the junction of the Arkansas River, located 50 miles upstream. With the support of Admiral Porter's ironclads bombarding the fort, they managed to land sufficient numbers of troops to capture the fort and take prisoners despite sustaining heavy losses.

Initially skeptical of the expedition, Grant expressed disapproval in a letter to Halleck. However, the successful outcome compelled Grant to recognize its importance and collaborate with McClernand. The capture of Fort Hindman was crucial in preventing potential threats from the rear, underscoring the necessity of neutralizing such strongholds to secure Grant's position.

Although McClernand incurred over 1000 casualties in a 30,000-man army, he captured 5000 Confederates. Grant would need to win a victory over the rebels and his rival in his army. As a Democratic congressman from Illinois and a close friend of Lincoln, McClernand enjoyed a political alliance with the President. However, his position as a political general had its drawbacks. While serving as second in command at Belmont and later as a division commander at Donelson, Grant knew that if he failed, he would be next in line. Despite this, Grant maintained direct communication with Lincoln, bypassing the chain of command, and freely offered his advice and criticism of others. His ultimate goal was to secure an independent command.

Grant’s Bayou Operations

From January to March 1863, Grant’s basic plan was to get close to Vicksburg with his army so that in the Spring, he could be ready, without being exposed to the town's formidable artillery. Grant sought to create alternative routes that could serve as highways for his troops by preparing waterways in the vicinity,. These operations involved a series of seven initiatives or "experiments" that took place from January to March 1863. Although all of these attempts ultimately failed, Grant's willingness to explore various possibilities demonstrated his fearlessness in the face of potential failure. This mindset, characterized by creativity and thoughtfulness, ultimately led to his success. Grant's relentless pursuit of alternative strategies showcased his determination to find a solution, even if it meant considering unconventional approaches.

Grant’s Canal

One in particular deserves special mention. Grant's Canal was an attempt to create a canal through De Soto Point in Louisiana, across the Mississippi River from Vicksburg, Mississippi. In 1862, Farragut had explored the option of bypassing the fortified cliffs by constructing a canal across the river's bend, the De Soto Peninsula. Brigadier General Thomas Williams was sent to De Soto Point with 3,200 men to dig a canal capable of bypassing the Confederate defenses. Diseases, especially malaria, yellow fever, and dysentery, as well as falling river levels, prevented Williams from successfully constructing the canal, and the project was abandoned.  In January 1863, the project regained momentum when General Grant took an interest in its potential.

Encouraged by Grant, who had received favorable feedback from the navy regarding President Lincoln's support, Sherman's troops resumed excavation in late January 1863. Mockingly referred to as "Butler's Ditch" by Sherman, referencing Major General Benjamin Butler, who had initially dispatched Williams for the task, the canal was a mere 6 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Recognizing the extensive engineering challenges, Grant initiated modifications by relocating the entrance upstream to capitalize on a stronger current.

Reports indicated that the water in the canal was stagnant and lacked any current, necessitating the need for a deeper channel for the Union Navy ironclads to navigate through. Grant, recognizing this issue, also gave orders to widen the canal. However, as the month drew to a close, it became evident to Grant that the canal project would not be successful. Union officers who visited later discovered that the water level was only 2 feet and observed the absence of any current, despite earlier reports of depths reaching up to 8 feet and widths up to 12 feet in certain areas. The situation took a turn for the worse when a sudden rise in the river caused the dam at the canal's entrance to break, resulting in flooding in the surrounding area. Consequently, the canal began to fill up with sediment and backwater. In a desperate attempt to salvage the project, two large steam-driven dipper dredges named Hercules and Sampson were deployed to clear the channel. However, their efforts were thwarted by Confederate artillery fire from the bluffs at Vicksburg, forcing them to retreat. By the end of March, all work on the canal was abandoned.

In April 1876, the Mississippi River changed course, forming a channel through De Soto Point. Vicksburg became isolated from the riverfront after the oxbow lake formed by the course change became cut off from the river. It was not until the completion of the Yazoo Diversion Canal in 1903 that Vicksburg regained its connection to the river. Although most of Grant's Canal has been destroyed over time due to agricultural activities, a small section measuring approximately 200 yards in length still remains. It is worth noting that General Grant did manage to alter the course of the Mississippi River, a remarkable feat of engineering. However, this achievement came too late to hold any military significance.

Lake Providence

Brig. Gen. James B. McPherson constructed a canal stretching several hundred yards from the Mississippi River to Lake Providence, enabling access to the Red River via Bayous Baxter and Macon, as well as the Tensas and Black Rivers. This strategic waterway would allow Grant's forces to link up with Banks at Port Hudson. By March 18, the connection was navigable, but the limited number of "ordinary Ohio River boats" provided to Grant for navigating the bayous could only accommodate 8,500 men. Although this was the only one of the bayou expeditions to successfully bypass the Vicksburg defenses, it was not enough for a successful Vicksburg operation. It did allow the possibility of sending reinforcements to Banks.

Yazoo Pass

The Yazoo Pass initiative aimed to reach the elevated terrain above Hayne's Bluff and below Yazoo City by breaching the Mississippi River levee near Moon Lake, approximately 150 miles above Vicksburg, near Helena, Arkansas. This plan involved traversing the Yazoo Pass, an ancient route from Yazoo City to Memphis that had been obstructed by the 1856 levee construction, isolating the Pass from the Mississippi River to Moon Lake. The route would lead through the Coldwater River, then the Tallahatchie River, and finally into the Yazoo River at Greenwood, Mississippi. It may also have been intended as a method to raid the railroad bridge at Grenada.. Despite the Union's efforts to blow up the dikes on February 3, obstacles such as low-hanging trees and deliberate Confederate obstructions hindered progress. These setbacks allowed the Confederates to hastily erect "Fort Pemberton" near the junction of the Tallahatchie and Yalobusha Rivers, effectively repelling the Union naval forces.

Steele’s Bayou

On March 14, Admiral Porter attempted to reach Deer Creek by sailing up the Yazoo Delta through Steele's Bayou, which is located just north of Vicksburg. The purpose of this maneuver was to outflank Fort Pemberton and enable the landing of troops between Vicksburg and Yazoo City. However, the Confederates obstructed their path once again by felling trees and causing the paddlewheels of the boats to become entangled with willow reeds. This situation raised concerns that Confederate troops might seize the boats and sailors, necessitating Sherman to move troops by land to rescue them.

Duckport Canal

Another canal project known as the Duckport Canal was initiated to create a waterway from Duckport Landing to Walnut Bayou, aiming to allow lighter boats to bypass Vicksburg. However, by the time the canal was nearly completed on April 6, the water levels had significantly decreased. As a result, only the lightest flatboats were able to navigate through the canal, rendering it ineffective for larger vessels.

Milliken's Bend

The main challenge Grant faced in dealing with Vicksburg was its formidable position as a fortress situated on elevated bluffs along the river. The city boasted massive batteries that could outmatch any Union ships on the river. Additionally, Vicksburg was surrounded by nine major forts or citadels and protected by 172 guns, which commanded all possible approaches by both water and land. Furthermore, the city housed a garrison of thirty thousand troops, making it a highly fortified and well-defended stronghold.

Moreover, the turn in the river beneath the town ensured that any naval force would face immediate and devastating bombardment, making it a formidable barrier for potential invaders. However, the protected northern invasion route through a maze of swampy bayous posed a significant obstacle for Grant's army. While his troops could camp on the west side of the river, the logistics of launching an attack from that position were complex and uncertain. The necessity of eventually crossing the river to the other side raised questions about how the supply line and reinforcements would be managed during the movement.

Grant wasn’t actually directly across the river, because the large Cypress Swamp comprises the west bank. He was located at Milliken’s Bend, upriver from the 180-degree turn in the river. Despite the seeming disadvantage of being further away, this positioning allowed for a level of strategic ambiguity that Pemberton underestimated. Milliken's Bend, situated in Louisiana about 15 miles upriver from Vicksburg, served as a crucial staging area for Grant's army by 1863. The distance from Pemberton's forces provided Grant with the element of surprise and control over the river traffic, enhancing his strategic advantage.

The construction of bridges, corduroy roads, and the clearing of swamps by McClernand's troops from Milliken's Bend to the proposed river crossing at Hard Times, Louisiana, below Vicksburg, demonstrated the meticulous planning and effort required to overcome the challenging terrain. By filling in the swamps and creating a 70-mile road by April 17, the Union forces were able to establish a vital connection for their movements toward Vicksburg. This logistical feat showcased the determination and resourcefulness of Grant's army in navigating the difficult landscape to achieve their strategic objectives.

April brought receding waters and the emergence of roads from Milliken’s Bend to points downriver on the west bank. Grant planned to march his troops over those roads to a location where he could ferry them to the east bank of the river.

The Plan Emerges

Grant pored over maps and developed a plan requiring naval cooperation by January. Grant expressed that the next step was to get south of the city when he first landed at Young’s Point, in late January. In early February 1863, Grant conveyed to General Halleck and Admiral Porter his conception for the campaign. He later convened a staff meeting to outline his intentions. He expressed his desire to lead his army south of Vicksburg, cross the river, and sever the vital railroad link between Vicksburg and Jackson. However, despite his clear plan, Grant chose to delay the execution of his strategy until Spring. According to Grant's account in his memoirs, he attributed this delay to the high water levels of the river in January, which made it impractical to commence the campaign at that time.

Grant directed his army to march southward along the west bank of the Mississippi River, aiming to position his forces well below Vicksburg. The next step in his plan involved transporting his troops across the river, a task that required navigating past the formidable guns of the city. Once safely on the Mississippi shore south of Vicksburg, Grant intended to strike inland, engaging any Confederate forces encountered along the way, with the ultimate objective of capturing Vicksburg. Grant's meticulous planning involved extensive study of maps and charts, as he single-handedly devised this approach. However, his subordinates, including Sherman, McPherson, and Logan, expressed reservations about the plan, deeming it too risky. By using the new road, and a large Bayou, Grant was capable of reaching Hard Times Landing without being detected. The army marched south on the west side of the Mississippi River and crossed the river south of Vicksburg at a place named Hard Times.

Hard Times is just beyond Big Cypress swamp. At that location, the Mississippi River takes a wide inward turn. Bayou Vidal, which may have once been the main river channel, provided a direct route for Grant's forces. This route was approximately six miles beyond Grand Gulf on the opposite side of the river, where they boarded transports to cross over to Bruinsburg. Grant recognized the significance of this route and understood that he could continue to utilize it for transporting supplies as long as necessary.

Grant had three options for attacking Vicksburg: The first option was to return to Memphis and approach the city from the north and east via an overland route. However, Grant dismissed this option as it would have negatively impacted morale to retreat. The second option involved directly assaulting the city by crossing the Mississippi  River. Grant rejected this option, believing it would result in a significant loss of life or even defeat. The third option was to march his troops down the west bank of the Mississippi, cross it, and approach the city from the south and east. Upon hearing Grant's plan, Sherman expressed doubts and suggested that Grant should reconsider option #1 and return to Memphis. Blair after the war also expressed his skepticism at the time. 

The Naval Rendezvous

Grant’s particular genius in the war was his brilliant collaborations with the navy. His victories at Forts Donelson and Henry for example were made possible by the combination of ground and water approaches. In that sense, the concept of combined arms forces was an innovation General Grant developed. Vicksburg is the outstanding application of the model.

The Union troops needed to rendezvous with their Navy to cross into Confederate territory, but the success of this operation depended on the ability of the boats to evade the guns defending Vicksburg. It was crucial for there to be an adequate number of gunboats and transport ships positioned south of the city to ensure the plan's success. Once the Union Navy had navigated downstream past Vicksburg, there was no turning back due to the strong river current.

On the evening of April 16, two weeks before the planned river crossing, Admiral David Porter guided the Union fleet past the Confederate batteries at Vicksburg to join forces with Grant. Despite being detected by Confederate lookouts as they rounded De Soto Point, the fleet pressed on and engaged in battle with the Confederate batteries. Despite sustaining damage from enemy fire, the Union fleet successfully fought their way through to rendezvous with Grant.

Porter directed to ensure the concealment and protection of the boilers on the steamships by utilizing barriers made of cotton, hay bales, and bags of grain. This strategic measure would prove beneficial in the future as well. Additionally, to provide an extra layer of defense, coal barges, and surplus vessels were securely fastened to the sides of the critical vessels. Commencing at 10 pm on April 16, Porter assumed command of a fleet consisting of seven ironclad gunboats, four steamers, the tug Ivy, and a variety of towed coal barges, as they embarked on a downstream journey. The Union vessels were illuminated by Confederate bonfires, becoming targets for a relentless two-hour barrage from the Vicksburg guns. Despite the intense fire, the ironclads and supply-laden transports successfully navigated past the Vicksburg guns. The Confederate cannons unleashed a total of 525 rounds, resulting in sixty-eight hits. Remarkably, only one vessel was lost, and there were no casualties among the crew. Additionally, the Confederates had placed ropes strung across the river with explosives attached that could be moved by pulleys.

Grant realized that it would be impossible to provide his army with supplies using the muddy west bank road. As a result, a second convoy was organized to address this issue. On the night of April 22, six transport vessels, without any escorts, were tasked with towing barges loaded with 100,000 rations and other essential supplies, attempting to pass through the Vicksburg batteries. Grant, recognizing the importance of additional supplies, ordered another group of vessels to bring reinforcements one week later on the same night. This time, six protected steamers, under the command of Colonel Clark Lagow from Grant's staff, towed twelve barges filled with rations. Despite facing heavy fire from the Vicksburg batteries, five of the steamers and half of the barges successfully made it through. The vessels were primarily manned by army volunteers from "Black Jack" Logan's division, as the civilian crews were too fearful to navigate through the dangerous Vicksburg gauntlet. Although the run was mostly successful, the leading vessel, a hospital ship, was unfortunately sunk, resulting in the loss of two lives.  Meanwhile, by cutting a new road through the swamp, when necessary, McClernand's corps worked its way south and was joined by one of McPherson's divisions.

Diversionary Tactics

To enhance the element of deception during his planned landing, Grant employed diversionary tactics to divert Pemberton's attention away from the south and the river crossing site. These tactics were executed through two well-conceived feints.

Snyder’s Bluff

While he was moving south with McClernand and McPherson on the west (Louisiana) bank, Grant had Sherman’s Fifteenth Corps threaten Vicksburg from the north. On April 27, Grant ordered Sherman to proceed up the Yazoo River and threaten Snyder’s Bluff northeast of Vicksburg. On the 29th, Sherman debarked ten regiments of troops and appeared to be preparing an assault while eight naval gunboats bombarded the Confederate forts at Haines’s Bluff.

Sherman’s division remained north of Vicksburg. General Sherman led a highly successful diversionary attack by utilizing a combined naval and infantry operation. Blair's division, consisting of eight gunboats and ten transports, secretly and quietly moved to the mouth of Chickasaw Bayou the night before the operation. At 9 am, all gunboats, except one, opened fire on the enemy forces in the bayou, while one gunboat and the transports moved upstream.

At the Battle of Snyder’s Bluff, the troops proceeded upstream until approximately 6 pm, crossed Blake’s Levee, and launched an assault on the artillery near Drumgold’s Bluff. This location was significantly north of Vicksburg, diverting focus from the ongoing activities downstream. The attack faced insurmountable challenges due to the strategic positioning of batteries on Drumgold’s and Snyder’s Bluffs, as well as the course of the Yazoo River that General Sherman's forces had to navigate.

At first,  heavy casualties were sustained. The next morning more troops were deployed, but the difficult terrain of swamps and marshes posed formidable barriers to any progress. Sherman eventually retreated to Milliken’s Bend, realizing that his contingent, which constituted only a fraction of General Grant's overall command, would likely have failed to capture the bluffs even if a direct attempt was made.

Sherman withdrew on May 1 and hastily followed McPherson down the west bank of the Mississippi. His troops were ferried across the river on May 6 and 7.

This diversionary maneuver effectively drew Pemberton's attention away from Grant's actual landing site. Pemberton sent 3,000 troops that had been marching south to oppose Grant.

Grierson’s Raid

The success of this diversion was remarkable, as it involved a daring cavalry raid that originated from La Grange, TN and penetrated central Mississippi on April 17. This marked the commencement of a relentless 17-day campaign characterized by constant movement, widespread devastation, and frequent clashes. Upon its conclusion, General Grant aptly hailed it as "one of the most remarkable cavalry exploits of the entire war."

Under the leadership of Grierson, a force of 1,700 soldiers from the 6th and 7th Illinois, as well as the 2nd Iowa Cavalry regiments, embarked on this audacious mission from La Grange. Over the course of 17 days, Grierson's troops covered a staggering distance of 800 miles, engaging Confederate forces repeatedly. They successfully disrupted two vital railroads, took numerous prisoners and horses, and inflicted significant damage to enemy property. Their journey culminated in Baton Rouge on May 2, where Grierson joined forces with Nathaniel Banks in the ongoing siege at Port Hudson.

By skillfully diverting attention to the north and east of Mississippi, this raid effectively diverted Confederate focus away from the gathering of troops at Grand Gulf. Through the deployment of small patrols and deceptive maneuvers, Grierson managed to confuse the enemy regarding his true location, intentions, and direction. Operating deep within enemy territory, his forces systematically dismantled rail infrastructure, liberated enslaved individuals, razed Confederate storehouses, disabled locomotives, and obliterated commissary stores, bridges, and trestles. The lack of a viable response from General Pembleton further contributed to the raid's triumph. While Forrest was engaged in Alabama, combating Streight's Raid, other Confederate cavalry units were dispatched but proved unable to catch up with Grierson's swift movements. This strategic diversion ultimately hindered Pemberton's ability to effectively counter Grant's advance from the south, as he found himself inadequately equipped to confront the Union forces due to the distractions caused by Grierson's audacious exploits.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Further Reading:

·       Donald L Miller, Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy. Simon and Schuster, 2019.

·       Grant’s Memoirs

·       Sherman’s Memoirs

·       Grant by Chernow

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/vicksburg

·       https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-vicksburg

·       https://civilwarmonths.com/2023/04/15/vicksburg-grant-and-porter-assemble/amp/

·       https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/achenblog/wp/2014/04/25/ulysses-s-grant-hero-or-butcher-great-man-or-doofus/

·       https://www.historynet.com/vicksburg-the-campaign-that-confirmed-grants-greatness/

·       https://www.vicksburgpost.com/2003/01/27/water-returned-to-citys-doorstep-100-years-ago/?fbclid=IwAR1X5nFZ8F-l_0sbr3Ki1HBygBiPb-GCgxl4aBCznjSOgKAvVdURVJUvJDA

·       https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/nature/river-course-changes.htm?fbclid=IwAR3mflQUgR8JaUEIcrm2v_lLlfdGup44_XwzxIcJ1mTAyyCT2h_umfcT2Sc

·       https://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-colonel-benjamin-griersons-cavalry-raid-in-1863/

·       https://www.historynet.com/griersons-raid-during-the-vicksburg-campaign/

·       https://www.thoughtco.com/major-general-benjamin-grierson-2360423

·       https://emergingcivilwar.com/2021/04/29/that-other-cavalry-guy-benjamin-h-grierson/

·       https://www.historyonthenet.com/grant-vicksburg

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/port-gibson

·       https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/battle-of-port-gibson/

·       https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/battleportgibson.htm

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/grants-vicksburg-supply-line

·       https://www.historynet.com/mississippi-nightmare/

·       https://www.thoughtco.com/battle-of-champion-hill-2360280

·       https://www.rebellionresearch.com/battle-of-raymond?fbclid=IwAR1L1PcCwGRCFLg-Bv7neO1tG6cv7RsnmZO8kNvv5XVjUBkM6t3CiPtu96c_aem_th_AaSypV4shWeio-QbLLXIuILea41vtkZsruFEMGykenl_kK8dPEuWWYZiUP44s9G8ws4&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

·       Klein LW, Wittenberg EJ. The decisive influence of malaria on the outcome of the Vicksburg campaign. Surgeon’s Call: The Journal of the National Civil War Medicine Museum. 2023; 28(1): 4 – 14.

What was the Unseen Ship Near the Titanic's Tragic End?

April 14, 1912, is etched in history as the night the RMS Titanic met its tragic fate. As the luxury liner sank beneath the icy waters of the North Atlantic, a mystery emerged that continues to baffle historians and enthusiasts alike: the tale of a ship seen near the Titanic, shrouded in controversy and intrigue. This is the story of that mysterious ship and its connection to the sinking of the Titanic.

Richard Clements explains.

The SS Californian.

The Titanic's Final Voyage

The RMS Titanic, deemed "unsinkable," embarked on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York City on April 10, 1912. Boasting opulence and advanced engineering, the Titanic was a marvel of its time. However, on the night of April 14, disaster struck. At 11:40 PM, the ship collided with an iceberg, and within hours, it was evident that the Titanic was doomed. Distress signals were sent, flares were fired, and the call for help echoed across the cold, dark sea.

The Mystery Ship

As the Titanic's distress flares illuminated the night sky, survivors and crew members reported sighting a nearby ship. This vessel, dubbed the "mystery ship," seemed tantalizingly close yet failed to respond to the Titanic's desperate pleas for assistance. Eyewitness accounts describe the ship's lights, which appeared to draw closer and then inexplicably move away. The identity and actions of this ship have been subjects of intense scrutiny and debate ever since.

The SS Californian

Amid the chaos, the SS Californian, a Leyland Line steamer, was stationed in the vicinity, allegedly within sight of the Titanic. Under the command of Captain Stanley Lord, the Californian had halted for the night amidst ice warnings. Crew members aboard the Californian reported seeing flares fired from a ship, but Captain Lord did not take immediate action, believing they were not distress signals.

Third Officer Charles Groves and Apprentice James Gibson both testified that they saw the flares and informed Captain Lord. However, Lord, convinced that the ship was too far away to be in distress, chose not to wake the wireless operator. As the night progressed, the Californian's crew watched as the lights of the distant ship seemed to vanish, an observation that coincided with the Titanic's final moments.

Investigations and Controversy

Following the disaster, American and British inquiries sought to unravel the events of that night. Both inquiries delved into the actions of Captain Lord and the Californian's crew, questioning why they did not respond to the distress signals. The American inquiry, led by Senator William Alden Smith, concluded that the Californian was indeed the ship seen by the Titanic, condemning Captain Lord for failing to act.

The British Board of Trade's investigation also criticized Lord, but with less severity, acknowledging the challenges of recognizing distress signals at sea. Despite these findings, supporters of Captain Lord argued that the lights seen from the Californian were from another ship, not the Titanic.

The Samson Myth

In an attempt to exonerate Captain Lord, some theorists proposed the presence of another vessel, the Norwegian sealer SS Samson. According to a journal purportedly kept by a crew member of the Samson, the ship was near the Titanic but avoided responding due to illegal sealing activities. However, evidence debunks this theory: the Samson was documented in Icelandic ports before and after the disaster, making it impossible for her to be near the Titanic on April 14.

Modern Perspectives

With advances in historical analysis and technology, modern researchers have revisited the Titanic's final hours. Tim Maltin, a Titanic historian, attributes the confusion to abnormal atmospheric conditions that night. These conditions, he argues, caused the lights of ships to appear closer than they were. This phenomenon explains why the Titanic and Californian misjudged each other's distance and movements.

Maltin's research, supported by testimonies and scientific analysis, suggests that the "mystery ship" seen from the Titanic was indeed the Californian. The illusion of the ship moving away was due to the Californian's slow drift and swinging to starboard, making it appear as if it were sailing off when it was, in fact, stationary.

Technological Insights

Recent technological advancements have furthered our understanding of the events. For instance, reanalysis of wireless communication logs and synchronization of ship clocks have provided clearer timelines. These studies reveal that the times recorded by the Titanic and Californian match precisely with the observations of lights disappearing and flares being fired, confirming the proximity of the Californian.

Moreover, Leslie Reade's extensive research, detailed in "The Ship That Stood Still," and Walter Lord's work, "The Night Lives On," have been instrumental in piecing together the puzzle. They emphasize that the Californian's failure to respond was a tragic error compounded by misinterpretations and human error rather than outright negligence.

Conclusion

The story of the mystery ship near the Titanic remains a captivating tale of maritime history. The interplay of human decisions, technological limitations, and atmospheric illusions created a perfect storm of confusion on that fateful night. While the SS Californian was undeniably the closest ship capable of rescuing the Titanic's passengers, the peculiar conditions led to a series of misjudgments that prevented timely aid.

This enduring mystery serves as a poignant reminder of the fragility of human perception and the profound impact of seemingly minor decisions. As we reflect on the Titanic's tragic end, we are reminded of the importance of vigilance, clarity, and prompt action in times of crisis. The tale of the mystery ship will continue to intrigue and teach future generations about the complexities of maritime history and human fallibility.

Richard Clements in his own words:

I am a dedicated writer with a passion for history and uncovering its mysteries. I specialize in creating engaging and well-researched content that brings historical events and intriguing mysteries to life. With a keen eye for detail and a love for storytelling, I have written on various historical topics, from ancient civilizations to modern history. My work aims to captivate readers and provide them with a deeper understanding of the past and the mysteries that intrigue us. He posts on X/Twitter here.

References

Ponic, Jason. “The SS Californian: The Ship That Watched Titanic Sink.” History101, 31 July 2023.

Lord, Walter. The Night Lives On: The Untold Stories and Secrets Behind the Sinking of the “Unsinkable” Ship – Titanic. Open Road Media, 2012.

Reade, Leslie. The Ship That Stood Still: The Californian and Her Mysterious Role in the Titanic Disaster. W.W. Norton & Company, 1993.

Maltin, Tim. “There was a ‘Mystery Ship’ Between the Titanic and the Californian.” timmaltin.com, 14 April 2019.

U.S. Senate Inquiry. “Titanic Disaster Hearings: The Official Transcripts of the 1912 Senate Investigation.” Greenlight Publishing, 1998.

The Daring 1962 British Hostage Rescue in Limbang, Malaysia

The December 1962 British Raid on Limbang was a confrontation between British forces and the Tentara Nasional Kalimantan Utara (TNKU). The TNKU were holding hostages and the British forces were sent to free them. This happened as part of the prelude to the 1960s Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.

Terry Bailey explains.

A British soldier being winched onto a helicopter in Borneo in 1964, with another soldier kneeling in the front of the photo.

Prelude to the Raid

In the early 1960s, Southeast Asia was a cauldron of political turmoil. The Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation, also known as Konfrontasi, saw Indonesia opposing the creation of Malaysia, which it perceived as a neo-colonial project. Amidst this geopolitical struggle, the North Kalimantan National Army (Tentara Nasional Kalimantan Utara, TNKU), a group of Indonesian-backed insurgents, sought to destabilize the region further. They aimed to establish an independent North Borneo, free from British influence and the proposed Malaysian Federation.

Sarawak, a British protectorate became a focal point of this conflict. In December 1962, the TNKU escalated their campaign by seizing the town of Limbang, a strategic and symbolic target. The insurgents took several hostages, including the British District Officer, his wife, and other expatriates. They fortified the town and threatened to execute the hostages if their demands were not met, sending shockwaves through the British colonial administration and necessitating an immediate response.

The Amphibious Assault

42 Commando, which was in Singapore at the time, were flown to Labuan and given the task of clearing Brunei Bay, 'L' Company was detached with the task of securing the town of Limbang and gaining the release of the European hostages, which included a district officer, from the town of Limbang, held by the numerical strong force of rebels.

42 Commando Royal Marines, a unit renowned for its versatility and combat prowess, were the perfect solution to the problem, therefore, L company of 42 Commando Royal Marines, led by the company commander Captain Jeremy Moore, were embarked on board HMS Albion, the commando amphibious assault ship anchored off the coast of Brunei. Moore, who would later rise to prominence as a key figure in the South Atlantic conflict, (Falklands War), was tasked with planning and executing the daring hostage rescue and securing the town of Limbang from the rebels.

Side note:- Captain Jeremy Moore, retired Major General Sir John Jeremy Moore, KCB, OBE, MC & Bar (Born 5th of July 1928 – Deceased the 15th of September 2007) was the British senior Royal Marine officer who served as the commander of the British land forces during the 1982 South Atlantic conflict, (Falklands War). Moore received the surrender of the Argentine forces on the islands.

The Limbang operation was fraught with challenges, the town was located deep inland along a river, requiring a complex amphibious operation. The TNKU insurgents were well-armed and entrenched, and the lives of the hostages hung precariously in the balance. Nevertheless, the Royal Marine Commandos were undeterred. With meticulous planning and the element of surprise on their side, they prepared for one of the most daring rescue missions in British military history.

The Raid Unfolds

On the night of the 12th of December, 1962 under the cover of darkness, two assault craft carrying the Royal Marine Commandos embarked on the perilous journey up the Limbang River. The initial phase of the raid was executed with precision; the Royal Marines disembarked near the town's police station, which the insurgents had turned into their headquarters.

However, the element of surprise was partially compromised when the TNKU insurgents spotted the approaching craft and opened fire. The Royal Marine Commandos responded swiftly and effectively. Under heavy fire, they stormed the police station and nearby buildings, engaging in intense close-quarters combat. The TNKU, although numerically superior, were no match for the well-trained and determined Commandos.

Lieutenant Peter S Waters' team advanced toward the hostages' location, facing fierce resistance. Waters himself was wounded, but he continued to lead his men with unwavering resolve. The Royal Marine Commandos fought their way through, neutralizing the insurgents and securing the hostages. The rescue was not without cost; 5 Royal Marine Commandos were killed, and several others were wounded. However, L' Company secured Limbang and the release of the hostages in less than 20 minutes.

Side note:- Lieutenant Peter Waters, was second in command 2 i/c of L, (Lima), Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines.

Immediate Outcome

The raid on Limbang was a resounding success. The hostages were rescued, and the TNKU insurgents were either killed or captured. The operation demonstrated the effectiveness, flexibility and professionalism of the Royal Marine Commando forces who had conducted a complex amphibious assault under extremely challenging conditions. The successful rescue bolstered British morale and reaffirmed their control over Sarawak during a volatile period.

In the immediate aftermath, the British authorities worked to stabilize the region. The surviving TNKU members were pursued, and their operations in Sarawak were significantly disrupted. The success of the raid also sent a strong message to other insurgent groups, showcasing the British resolve and capability to protect their interests and maintain order.

Long-term Aftermath

The raid on Limbang had far-reaching implications for both the region and the individuals involved. For Sarawak, the raid marked a turning point in the conflict. The TNKU's power and influence waned significantly following their defeat in Limbang and the region. British forces, bolstered by their success, continued to clamp down on insurgent activities, eventually restoring relative stability to the region.

For the Royal Marines, the raid became a celebrated chapter in their long and esteemed history. The bravery and professionalism displayed during the operation were widely recognized and honored. Captain Jeremy Moore, in particular, received commendations for his leadership, and he continued to have a distinguished military career, as indicated above, eventually commanding British land forces during the South Atlantic conflict, (Falklands War).

The raid also had a lasting impact on the local population of Limbang. The successful rescue operation fostered a sense of gratitude and loyalty towards the British, who were seen as protectors against the insurgent threat. This goodwill helped to strengthen the relationship between the British administration and the local communities, facilitating cooperation and development in the years that followed.

Conclusion

The 1962 Royal Marine Commando raid on Limbang remains a showcase of the courage, skill, flexibility and determination of the Royal Marine Commando forces during a turbulent period in Southeast Asia. The daring rescue mission not only saved the lives of the hostages but also delivered a decisive blow to the insurgents, helping to stabilize the region and reaffirm British control. The legacy of the operation endures, remembered as just one of the many defining moments in the history of the Royal Marines and a pivotal event in the broader context of the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Awards and commendations

BRIDGES, Ernest Robert

Lieutenant Colonel

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)

Mentioned in Despatches

CAMERON, Angus Arthur

Corporal

RM 16834

3 Cdo. Bde. RM

Royal Marines

Mentioned in Despatches

Corporal Angus Cameron received a Mention in Despatches for gallant and distinguished service in operations in Brunei during the period 8-22 December 1962

LESTER, William John

Corporal

CH/X 5001

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Military Medal (MM)

Corporal William Lester was awarded the Military Medal for gallant and distinguished services in operations.

MOORE, John Jeremy

Major General

3 Cdo. Bde. RM

Royal Marines

Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB)

Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)

Military Cross (MC)

Bar to the Military Cross

Major General John Jeremy Moore served as the commander of the British land forces during the Falklands War in 1982.

RAWLINSON, Robert Croft

Corporal

RM 17402

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Military Medal (MM)

Corporal Robert Rawlinson was awarded the Military Medal for gallant and distinguished services in operations. He commanded one of the two sections of the Commando that assaulted Limbang Police Station, Sarawak, on the 12th of December 1962 to release hostages being held there.

UNDERWOOD, Bryan Albert

Marine

RM 20505

3 Cdo. Bde. RM

Royal Marines

Mentioned in Despatches

Marine Bryan Underwood received a Mention in Despatches for gallant and distinguished service in operations in Brunei during the period 8-22 December

Killed in Action

FORMOY, Ronald David

Marine

RM 16883

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Ronald Formoy, Lima Company, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

ENNINGS, Richard

Marine

RM 19233

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Richard Jennings, Lima Company, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

KIERANS, Gerald

Marine

RM 16941

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Gerald Kierans, Lima Company, from Widnes, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

MACFARLANE, Walter Grant

Sergeant

CH/X 4743

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Sergeant Walter Macfarlane, Lima Company, from Middlesborough, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

POWELL, Fred Stewart

Marine

RM 21017

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Fred Powell, Lima Company, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

Notes:

Sarawak

Sarawak is a state in Malaysia. The largest among the 13 states, with an area almost equal to that of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak is located in the region of East Malaysia in northwest Borneo, and is bordered by the Malaysian state of Sabah to the northeast, Kalimantan (the Indonesian portion of Borneo) to the south, and Brunei in the north.

Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy

In Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War, Jeb Smith argues that the winner writes the history. This is evident in many ways and categories. The North propped itself up and vilified its enemy, the South. Today, we will take a look at Abraham Lincoln and race.

This is part 1 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War.

A U.S. Postage stamp issued in 1958. It commemorates the 1858 Lincoln and Douglas debates.

People are taught that Lincoln was a strong abolitionist, a champion of racial equality, and a great emancipator. They portray Lincoln as going to war to free the slaves; Lincoln advocated freedom and liberty for all; he is the savior of the Union and Constitution to boot. Lincoln was a kind, warmhearted, caring person, who never told a lie, and a great leader who united and led America to renown. This image comes perhaps from a desire for who they want him to be rather than who he was. Just as Southerners idolize their heroes, modern statists do the same with theirs, such as Lincoln. What most people think they know about Lincoln is well off the mark. We will look at his views on race below.[1]

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

 -Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debate Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

I understood Lincoln as someone who desired equality for all. Instead, I found Lincoln was a white supremacist who viewed blacks as inferior beings. During a debate with Stephen A. Douglas on August 21, 1858 in Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln stated, "Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this…We cannot then make them equals." In response to the Dred Scott ruling, Lincoln said, "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." At the eulogy of Henry Clay in 1852, Lincoln gave a speech in which he called the declaration of independence the "The white man's charter of freedom."

Fear

Lincoln often used the N-word, and was known for his racist jokes. Abolitionist John Hume described Lincoln as "strongly prejudiced against the black man." According to Bennett's calculations, Lincoln stated publicly, at least twenty-one times, that he was opposed to equal rights for Blacks. Bennett writes, "Lincoln never pretended to be a racial liberal or a social innovator. He repeatedly said, in public and in private, that he believed in white supremacy." Lincolns close friend and biographer Ward Lamon said Lincoln had an "abhorrence of negro suffrage and negro equality." According to Lincoln, God has "Made us separate." Lincoln feared whites and blacks interbreeding. A former slave turned influential abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, spoke of Lincoln as "The white man's president." 

"Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.…he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers… he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered." 

-Frederick Douglass Oration in memory of Abraham Lincoln April 14, 1876 

"If Mr. Lincoln were really an Abolition President, which he is not; if he were a friend to the Abolition movement, instead of being, as he is, its most powerful enemy...Whoever lives through the next four years will see Mr. Lincoln and his Administration attacked more bitterly for their pro-slavery truckling, than for doing any anti-slavery work. He and his party will become the best protectors of slavery where it now is...Slavery will be as safe, and safer, in the Union under such a President, than it can be under any President of a Southern Confederacy. This is our impression, and we deeply regret the facts from which it is derived." 

-Fredrick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, December 1860

According to Bennett, for over two decades in Illinois as a lawyer and politician, Lincoln never supported abolitionists, rights for blacks, or their progress in that direction. Lincoln never spoke out against the state laws that did not allow blacks to gather in large numbers, learn to read, or play percussion instruments. In 1848 Lincoln supported the Illinois state law of not allowing blacks to migrate to the state and not allowing blacks citizenship. In 1836 Lincoln voted in support of denying blacks the right to vote, and he also voted for an Illinois state law that taxed blacks without representation. In 1858 Lincoln refused to sign a bill that would allow them to testify against whites in court. In Charleston, Lincoln declared, "I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." and "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes"

As a lawyer, Lincoln helped defend the fugitive slave law, publicly supported the fugitive slave law, and spoke out against its repeal. Nathaniel Stephens said Lincoln had a "wholehearted, one might say, serene, support of the fugitive slave law." Ward Lamon said Lincoln was the "steady though quiet opponent of abolitionist Owen Lovejoy." Donald Riddle said: "He did not make any attempt to advocate or support anti-slavery or abolitionist messages." In 1858 Lincoln declared, "I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all." 

When asked what he thought of having abolitionists in his party, Lincoln said: "As long as I'm not tarred with the Abolitionist brush." Bennett quotes multiple sources, such as Lincoln's close friend General James Wadsworth saying the welfare of Blacks "didn't enter into his policy at all." Donn Piatt said Lincoln "Laughed at the abolitionist as a disturbing element easily controlled." Eli Thayer said Lincoln spoke of abolitionism "In terms of contempt and derision." Abolitionist Sumner said Lincoln "does not know how to help or is not moved to help" and "I do not remember that I have had any help from him... he has no instinct or inspiration." Abolitionist John Hume stated, "The president was in constant opposition" to abolitionism. The abolitionist Journal The Liberator editorial on July 13, 1860, called Lincoln "The slave hound of Illinois" for his support of the fugitive slave law. Lincoln scholar David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered states plainly, "Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist."    

Bennett argues Lincoln has received the glory that the white and black abolitionists, citizens, newspaper editors, churches, members of Congress, and pastors had worked decades for. The most prominent abolitionists in the political sphere were men like Senator Sumner, Senator Lyman Trumbull, Salmon Chase, Wendell Phillips, etc. They deserve the glory that Lincoln was falsely given. Congress were the ones that abolished slavery in the territories and authorized black troops. And the people of the states, both North and South, passed the amendment to outlaw slavery after Lincoln's death.

Forever Free From African Americans

"I wish to make and to keep the distinction between the existing institution, and the extension of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me." 

-Abraham Lincoln Peoria, Illinois: October 16, 1854

Lincoln never intended to end slavery where it already existed, only the extension out into the West. In December 1860, Fredrick Douglass said, "With the single exception of the question of slavery extension, Mr. Lincoln proposes no measure which can bring him into antagonistic collision with the traffickers in human flesh, either in the States or in the District of Columbia." Lincoln did not want the West to become "An asylum for slaves and n******." On October 16, 1854, Lincoln stated, "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new western] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." 

The West was to be kept for whites to be segregated from blacks' presence, live off Republican federal land grants, and become industrial. Southern agrarians were to be fenced into the South; otherwise, they would bring their despised black slaves along. Robert Fogel summarizes the abolitionist stance by quoting William Seward and Owen Lovejoy, among others, as "They were quite sincere when they assured voters that as "True republicans" they "Cared nothing for the N*****" and that the republican party aimed to make white labor respectable and honorable by keeping negroes, free and slave, out of the West." In Lincoln Unmasked, Professor Thomas DiLorenzo quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson saying, "It is the black man whom the abolitionist wishes to abolish, not slavery."

Western expansion

Ward Lamon said that originally Lincoln was not against slavery in all the western territories, only those north of the 36°30′ degrees line. However, abolitionists threatened to pull support for his election unless he stood against all western expansion. Lamon also tells us that Lincoln would rather see slavery expanded than "See the union dissolved." Lamon said of Lincoln, "It was therefore as a white man, and in the interest of white men, that he threw himself into the struggle to keep blacks out of the Territories. He did not want them there either as slaves or freemen…" Bennett quotes Lincoln warning whites that if slavery was allowed in the territories, "Negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n******." According to DiLorenzo, Indiana (which voted for Lincoln) despised blacks so much that they gave out a $500 fine to anyone who encouraged blacks to come within their state. And ten years of prison for marrying a black. Illinois senator Lyman Trumbull, quoted by DiLorenzo, said, "Our people want nothing to do with the negro." It seems Republicans believed in a form of secession based on race rather than states.

"We, the Republican Party, are the white man's party. We are for the free white man, and for making white labor acceptable and honorable, which it can never be when Negro slave labor is brought into competition with it." 

-Lyman Trumbull Illinois Republican, United States Senator Quoted in The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War by Kenneth M. Stampp Oxford U Press 1981

Republicans did not care for equality with blacks, and they wanted separation from them. The Northern whites worked hardest to be segregated from the presence of blacks, while southerners worked with, ate with, lived with, played with,  and went to church with blacks.

"Many of those attaching themselves to the Republican party...were not in sympathy with Abolitionism. They were utterly opposed to immediate emancipation, or for that matter, to emancipation of any kind. They wanted slavery to remain where it was, and were perfectly willing that is should be undisturbed. They disliked the blacks, and did not want to have them freed, fearing that if set at liberty they would overrun what was then free soil."        

-John F Hume The Abolitionists 1830-1864 G.P Putnam's Sons NY London Knickerbocker Press 1905 

The fight over the extension of slavery was political. Northern industrialists needed the West free of blacks and agricultural interests. Dr. Charles Pace wrote in Lincoln As He Really Was, "Lincoln was an abolitionist when it suited him." And "Abolitionist activity was rising fast, fueled by northern capitalist and political interests needing an issue to neutralize the agrarian south." Lincoln and northern whites would fight against its extension into the West when it was politically helpful. Secretary of  State William Seward said: "The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been a concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." They had less concern with slaves in the South; as John Hume wrote of Lincoln, "He was opposed to slavery more because it was a public nuisance than because of its injustice to the oppressed black man."

"To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration."                                   

-Frederick Douglass Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln April 14, 1876

Before military defeats and public opinion began to change, abolitionists were condemned by the President. When Union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in federal occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relieved Fremont of his command. When Union general David Hunter issued general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be "Forever free," Lincoln revoked the proclamation. Hunter was then pressured into disbanding the regiment made up of freed slaves he had begun to form. Late in 1862, Lincoln supported slavery continuing in Union-held territory in V.A and L.A and encouraging the slave owners to peacefully come back into the Union. Mark Neely JR wrote that in 1861, "He more than once actually forced others who were trying to free slaves to cease doing so." Not surprising when Lincolns' wife, Mary, was from a slave-owning family in Kentucky. In August 1862, Adam Gurowski summer up Lincoln's actions writing in his diary, "The president is indefatigable in his efforts to save slavery." 

Even after the war, Lincoln, the North, and the Republicans maintained slavery in states like Delaware and Kentucky. Lincoln had no problem calling on men from the slave states of the Upper South to suppress the rebellion in the Cotton States. 

"The Republican party does not propose to abolish slavery anywhere and is decidedly opposed to Abolition agitation. It is not even, by the confession of its President-elect, in favor of the repeal of that thrice-accursed and flagrantly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850." 

-Frederick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, December 1860

In his book Battle Hymns; the Power and Popularity of Music in the Civil War, Christian McWhirter quotes Federal general Phillip Kearny who said, "I think as much of a rebel as I do of an abolitionist." Today we have presented to us the idea of Northern tolerance and southern bigotry, but the reality was something else entirely. 

Abraham Lincoln the Great Emancipator? 

"If Mr. Lincoln had been told, when he entered on the Presidency, that before his term of office would expire he would be hailed as "The Great Emancipator," he would have treated the statement as equal to one of his own best jokes."

 -John Hume The Abolitionists 1830-1864 G.P Putnam's Sons NY London Knickerbocker Press 1905 

"Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do and for what he never intended to do," writes Bennett. Today we are brought up to believe the Emancipation Proclamation (E.P.) was part of the desired agenda to end slavery by Abraham Lincoln. Or worse, we are told with this presidential Proclamation; that all slaves were made forever free. Thus Lincoln was the great emancipator who ended slavery. But that story is far from the truth. 

The E.P. did not apply to slavery within the United States, and it did not free a single slave. According to Hume, Missouri abolitionists wanted the Proclamation applied to their state, and Lincoln refused the request. Instead, the E.P. applied only to Confederate-controlled areas and not to the Northern slave states still in the Union. A Confederate state only had to rejoin the Union, and slavery would be protected. Hume writes, "It was not ...intended to help the slave but to chastise the master. It was to be in  punishment of treason…The proclamation, it will be recollected, was issued in two parts separated by one hundred days. The first part gave the Rebels warning that the second would follow if, in the meanwhile, they did not give up their rebellion. All they had to do to save slavery was cease their treasonable practices." William Seward said of Lincoln's proclamation, "Where he could, he didn't. Where he did, he couldn't." The London Spectator, on October 11, 1862, read, "The Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." 

The Proclamation would end with the war, and any slave freed by it would become subject to local state laws. The document did not apply to the legality of slavery. Lincoln wrote, it was "Merely a war measure" and "Have effect only from its being an exercise of war power." Lincoln stated, "It would have no effect upon the children of the slaves born hereafter."

The Proclamation was given at the end of 1862 after the North suffered multiple setbacks. Some viewed it as an act of desperation. Lincoln gave the Proclamation as a war measure, "As a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion." The war lasted longer than anticipated, and abolitionists put pressure on Lincoln; states threatened to withhold men and their support unless Lincoln helped the Northern war effort by going after slavery to weaken the South. Lincoln and his cabinet were concerned that a rebellion would start in the North if they did not begin emancipation and certainly did not want to lose some of their most ardent supporters.

Others said its purpose was to encourage slave revolts in the South. To encourage slaves to arise and kill women, children, and masters in a revolution while the men fought at the front. The Harrisonburg Patriot and Union newspaper called it a "Cold-blooded invitation to insurrection and butchery." Of course, many slaves, innocent women, and children would be killed if an uprising happened, but it was endorsed so long as it helped bring traitors under the master's authority in D.C.

The Emancipation Proclamation

The E.P. was not Lincoln’s desire, but he was "forced into glory," as Bennett would say. Bennet quotes Lincoln, "I am driven to it." And he said he had great "reluctance" about beginning emancipation. Abolitionists set up a meeting for September 24 with a plan to withhold support for the war and to call on Lincoln to resign. Knowing this meeting and the growing feeling amongst various state governors and the people, Lincoln issued the preliminary Proclamation just two days before the meeting. Lincoln said on July 12, "The pressure in this direction [immediate emancipation] is still upon me and is increasing." Lincoln said, "For a length of time, it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a military measure." Lincoln scholar David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered quotes Lincoln writing an admirer, saying, "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess that events have controlled me." In his diary, Adam Gurowski wrote, "The patriots of both houses... the American people whipped Mr. Lincoln into the glory of having issued the emancipation proclamation." Bennett described the E.P in complete contradiction to how many school children understand it when he wrote, “The high point of a brilliant campaign in favor of slavery not freedom, and was designed not to emancipate all slaves immediately but to protect the emancipation of all slaves." 

As Bennett shows in his book, the E.P. was a conservative pushback against the radicals. On July 17, 1862, congress passed the second confiscation act. This act declared all rebel slaves in the confederacy "Forever free." On September 22, 1862, Lincoln signed the preliminary emancipation nullifying the emancipation act of congress, re-enslaving slaves. The emancipation proclamation did not free slaves in the United States, and it did not free any slave that the confiscation act would not have. It was a reaction to the radical abolitionists in congress. As Bennett writes, "The proclamation had as its purpose and effect the checking of the radical [abolitionist] program." 

Both DiLorenzo's Lincoln Unmasked and Bennett correct multiple false quotes attributed to Lincoln or those taken out of context to claim he was an abolitionist or desired equality among the races. I would recommend both authors to those interested. I will let Lincoln's close friend and admirer Ward Lamon sum up Lincoln's opinions on the emancipation proclamation.

"He did so with avowed reluctance...he never at any time favored the admission of negroes into the body of electors...he claimed that those who were incidentally liberated by the federal arms were poor-spirited, lazy and slothful...he longed to see them transported to Hayti, central America, Africa, or anywhere so that they might in no event, and in no way, participate in the government of his country...he was no Abolitionist in the popular sense."

-Ward Lamon The Life Of Abraham Lincoln From His Birth To His Inauguration As President James R. Osgood And Company, 1872

The Corwin Amendment

As Professor DiLorenzo points out, the previously proposed 13th amendment was called the Corwin Amendment; and it was something Lincoln supported. The amendment would forever allow slavery in the United States and make it unconstitutional to abolish it. It reads:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he supported the amendment saying, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln then sent a letter to the governors of the states transmitting the approved amendment. He told New York Senator William Seward to advocate for it in the Senate. He also instructed Seward to pass a federal law that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some Northern states used to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act. DiLorenzo sees Lincoln's inaugural address as the most pro-slavery speech given by a president. 

"Lincoln's first inaugural address...is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery." 

-Thomas DiLorenzo The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire LewRockwell.com 

Lincoln the Ultimate Segregationist

"Horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once---a thousand times agreed... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation...Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; ... Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

-Abraham Lincoln Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2 Speech at Springfield, Illinois June 26, 1857

Lincoln never wanted slaves freed and made equal. Instead, he wanted to make America white from "Sea to shining sea," as Bennett stated. He promoted the removal of slaves from America back to Africa. In his July 17th 1858 speech in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln stated, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." The same year at Ottawa, he declared, "If all earthly power were given  me...my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia."

It is true that Lincoln disliked slavery, but not as much as white and blacks living together. So Lincoln spent many thousands of tax dollars on his colonization plan to send the future freed slaves back to Africa. He either wanted them deported or in their all-black state. While in the White House, he held a meeting with free blacks; he asked them to lead by example for future freed slaves. 

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side….It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated…You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country… an extremely selfish view of the case. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us."

-Abraham Lincoln Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes August 14, 1862, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5.Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865

Conclusion

According to our "greatest" president, for the good of humanity, free blacks should lead by example and go live in a foreign country. As a member of the Illinois legislature, Lincoln urged the legislature "To appropriate money for colonization in order to remove Negroes from the state and prevent miscegenation." In 1853 Lincoln gave a speech to the Springfield colonization society; his colonization plan would "Free slave holders from the troublesome presence of free Negroes." When pushing for his colonization plan, he said, "Where there is a will, there is a way." 

He promoted three aspects of his agenda. Gradual emancipation, compensation to slave owners, and colonization in Africa or Central America. His friend Henry Whitney said there was nothing besides preserving the Union that Lincoln felt more important. Ward Lamon said Lincoln "Zealously and persistently devised plans for the deportation of the negro." In the diary of Gideon Welles, we read, "Following the preliminary Proclamation, and as part of the plan…was the deportation and colonization of the colored race."

In Lincoln’s first state of the Union address, he suggested free blacks be included in his colonization plan when he said: "It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization." Lincoln called for three constitutional amendments for gradual emancipation, compensation, and colonization in his second inaugural address. He stated, "I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." On December 31, 1862, Lincoln signed a contract to send 500 American-born Negroes to an island off the coast of Haiti; many died, and the survivors were brought back to America. Until his death, Lincoln negotiated with European nations to deport blacks to Africa. 

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery...showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negroes and his canting hypocrisy…Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base."

 -Frederick Douglass The Life and Writings of Fredrick Douglass International Publishers Co 1950

In short, Lincoln was the ultimate segregationist. He didn't just want blacks removed from schools, restaurants, and work areas; he wanted them removed from the country. 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

The Collapse of the Bison Population in the US: Evaluating the Legislation of HR. 921

Over the course of the 19th century a significant environmental cataclysm befell the United States’ Great Plains. The bison which roamed the plains for millennia went from a population ranging between 30-50 million in the early 1800s to less than 1,000 at the turn of the century. Multiple historiographical traditions exist in attempting to discern what occurred and what ultimately spelled the death knell for the great buffalo herds, however, the importance of consulting primary sources can still elucidate greater understanding in comprehending the complexity of the rapid downfall of the bison.

Roy Williams explains.

Indians hunting the bison by Karl Bodmer.

For the last century, images of bison carcasses and skeletons piled high have haunted the memories of American conservationists. Artistic renderings such as American Progress by John Gast which shows the steady retreat of the bison and the Native Americans who depended upon it at the march of civilization as a hallmark of the ideology of manifest destiny. Artistic renderings also show the wanton mass killing of bison from settlers shooting the animals from trains for cheap thrills. What then caused this massive collapse of the bison populations? The answer, like most of is buried within a labyrinth of complex interactions.

Popular mythology has created a narrative built upon the legacy of the Indian Wars and the genocidal heritage of United States policy towards Native Americans in arguing that the Reconstruction era United States government willfully and intentionally sought to destroy the bison as a form of ecocide and biological warfare against Great Plains Native Americans tribes in attempting to cut off their primary form of subsistence and force them into state sponsored subservience in reservations. While Native Americans of the Great Plains had always depended on the bison as a supplemental source of food, before the introduction of European horses and diseases, they primarily depended upon agriculture. The addition of European diseases such as smallpox forced Great Plains Native Americans to adapt and reconfigure their way of life to nomadic sole dependence upon the bison for subsistence, trade, and political autonomy. This change put additional stress on an animal population which already had to contend with the dynamic and volatile nature of the Great Plains environment. Each year natural factors such as wolf predation, disease, and drought significantly reduced bison numbers. The introduction of European horses also dramatically increased hunting efficiency leading to greater harvests and additional pressure on herd populations. These numbers could rebound with steady levels of human predation but could not endure multiple upheavals which would ultimately lead to their near extinction.

Phillip Sheridan

One of the most frequently cited primary source examples of United States government complicity in destroying the bison is the 1875 speech of Phillip Sheridan before the Texas legislature. Supposedly, the Texas legislature was considering conservation measures and protections for bison to reduce the number of market hunters who were driving the southern herd to near extinction. Phillip Sheridan is cited as appearing before the legislature to oppose these protections arguing that,

 “These men [buffalo hunters] have done more in the last two years, and will do in the next year, more to settle the vexed Indian question than the entire regular Army has done in the last thirty years. They are destroying the Indians' commissary; it is well known that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. For the sake of lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle and festive cowboy, who follows the hunter as a second forerunner of an advanced civilization.”

The only problem with this primary source rests in the reality that Phillip Sheridan never appeared before the Texas Legislature in 1875 because there never was any consideration by the Texas legislature to protect the southern bison herd. No archival data supports this primary source as being legitimate, the only appearance of this source rests in the memoirs of a hide hunter named John Cooke, with The Border and the Buffalo multiple years after the supposed encounter. More troubling however, is the reality of another primary source which flies directly in the face of historiographical traditions claiming a conspiratorial link between United States government’s policy against the bison.

Legislation

The legislation of HR. 921 stands as one of the most important primary sources in reconsidering the collapse of the bison populations. If the United States government intentionally committed a conspiracy of destroying the bison to force Great Plains into subservience on the reservation system, why did both the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States of America in 1874 introduce a bill to regulate the hunting of bison only to Native Americans? Congressman Fort of Illinois introduced the bill with the goal of stopping the early extermination of the bison, recognizing that bison were “killed every year in utter wantonness without any object whatever except to destroy them.”  The fact that H.R. 921 passed in the House with a tally of 132 ayes and the nays remaining uncounted, shows that there was ample interest in protecting the bison from the onslaught of illegal hide hunters. H.R. 921 was designed to protect bison and give favorable hunting rights to Native Americans, stating, “That it shall hereafter be unlawful for any person who is not an Indian to kill, wound, or in any manner destroy any female buffalo, of any age.”

H.R. 921 ultimately failed to pass, dying at President Grant’s desk due to a pocket veto, however the significance of its passage in both the house of Representatives and Senate cannot be understated. The most likely culprit of the collapse of the bison of the Great Plains rests in the ascendancy of market hunting. For a time, it was profitable to hunt bison on a vast industrial scale. These hunts prioritized female bison for their tongues and robes providing the best meat and the best quality leather for production. The industrial revolution occurring in the east fueled the need for more leather products putting unsustainable strain on the bison populations. For a time, bison boomtowns popped up overnight in the northwest territories trading goods at extortionate rates to Native Americans who had honed and perfected their hunting techniques and could trade bison materials for these goods. This interaction in addition to the larger share of market hunting by white hide hunters ultimately spelled doom for the bison populations. The reason for this conclusion is not revolutionary in nature, the bison followed the same trends as any other animal in the United States that experienced the pressures of market hunting. The beaver of the northeast and northwestern United States was reduced to virtual extinction from market hunting. The whitetail deer and alligator of the southeast were also led to near extinction from the combined forces of deforestation and market hunting which prioritized meat and leather over the preservation of animal species. The collapse of the bison provides a cautionary tale of the dangers that unregulated capitalism can inflict upon the natural environment. Without the presence of clear and strict conservation measures, environmental cataclysm can and will occur again. Rather than being a story of intentional and willful political malevolence, the tale of the bison represents the dangers that unregulated capitalism can inflict upon nature.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

Dodge, Richard Irving. The Hunting Grounds of the Great West. 1877. The Newberry Library. Accessed July 2, 2024. https://www.americanwest.amdigital.co.uk/Documents/Detail/the-hunting-grounds-of-the-great-west.-a-description-of-the-plains-game-and-indians-of-the-great-north-american-desert/4455563?item=4455597.

Flores, Dan. The Natural West. University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.

Gast, John. American Progress. Oil on canvas. Brooklyn, New York: Autry Museum of the American West, 1872.

Geist, Valerius. Buffalo Nation. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press, 1996.

Isenberg, Andrew C. The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Kindy, Dave. “How Buffalo Bill and a Civil War General saved Yellowstone National Park.” The Washington Post, March, 6, 2022.

Krech, Shepard. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York, New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.

Library of Congress. The Far West-Shooting Buffalo on the Line of the Kansas-Pacific Railroad. 1871. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington D.C. Accessed July 2, 2024. https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3c33890/?st=image.

Meriwether, Lewis, and William Clark, Jonathan Carver, and Alexander Mackenzie. The Travels of Capts. Lewis & Clarke. Philadelphia: Hubbard Lester, 1809.

Protection of Buffalo. HR 921. 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., Congressional Record, Pt.3: 2104-2109.

Ramsay, Crooks. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1849, 31sr Cong., 1st sess. (Serial 550), 1022.

Sandoz, Mari. The Buffalo Hunters. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1978.

Wade, Mason. The Journals of Francis Parkman. vol 2 New York: Harper, 1947.