Andrew Johnson and The Reconstruction Fiasco

Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency of the United States shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War, following the tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln. His sudden rise to power presented him with the daunting task of determining the fate of the former Confederacy, its people, and its leaders. This unexpected turn of events placed him in the midst of one of the most critical challenges in the nation's history, thrusting him into the spotlight despite his relatively obscure background. His lack of preparation has echoed down through the ages.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

An engraving of President Andrew Johnson.

Rise to the Presidency

Johnson was born into poverty and did not have the opportunity to attend school. Despite this, he apprenticed as a tailor and worked in various frontier towns before settling in Greeneville, Tennessee. Although he never received a formal education, he compensated by hiring others to read to him while he worked and his wife also assisted him in learning. Johnson possessed a remarkable memory and a talent for public speaking, qualities that were highly valued during that time and served as an advantage in his political career. He began his political journey as a town alderman and mayor, eventually moving on to serve in the state house and senate before being elected to Congress.

Johnson's stance during the secession of the Southern slave states, including Tennessee, demonstrated his unwavering loyalty to the Union. Despite the secession, he remained in his position as a senator, distinguishing himself as the only sitting senator from a Confederate state who did not resign upon secession. His commitment to the Union was further solidified when he was appointed as the Military Governor of Tennessee by Lincoln in 1862. Johnson's dedication to national unity was evident when he was chosen as Lincoln's running mate in the 1864 election, becoming vice president after a successful campaign that emphasized the importance of unity in a divided nation.

With the defeat of Lee's and Johnston's armies, along with the capture of Richmond and Jefferson Davis, the Union had prevailed in the war. But now the great question was how to craft a successful peace. The focus shifted to the challenging task of establishing a lasting peace. The tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln added another layer of complexity to the situation, as Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency amidst a nation grappling with grief and uncertainty.

Lincoln’s Concept of Reconstruction

The post-war period presented a multitude of complex issues for Lincoln and other leaders to address. Questions arose regarding the duration of the occupation, the terms for readmitting seceding states, and the division of responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches in shaping the future of the nation. Additionally, the status of newly emancipated Black citizens in the South and across the country posed significant legal and social challenges that demanded careful consideration.

Lincoln's approach emphasized the swift reintegration of the Southern states into the Union, recognizing the importance of jumpstarting the region's economy and avoiding prolonged occupation. While acknowledging the deep-seated racial tensions in the South, Lincoln believed in the potential for southern unionism to facilitate a speedy reconciliation. The abolition of slavery marked a significant moral victory, yet the practical implications of this monumental change required thoughtful deliberation to ensure a stable and just post-war society.

The "10% Plan" served as Lincoln’s initial policy principle, whereby once 10% of the voters in a state had pledged their allegiance to the United States and committed to emancipation, delegates could be elected to draft new state constitutions and establish state governments. This approach, first implemented in Louisiana during the autumn of 1862, granted a full pardon to most Southerners, excluding high-ranking Confederate army officers and government officials. General Benjamin Butler was tasked by Lincoln to oversee elections in New Orleans for the two seats in the US House of Representatives within the occupied territory.

The 10% Plan gained significant popularity due to its political astuteness. Radical Republicans supported it as it ensured emancipation, while conservative Republicans endorsed it for its potential to expedite reunification. As the New York Herald aptly noted, the art of balancing two opposing forces was exemplified: “… the trick of riding two horses wasn’t limited to the circus.”

With Union forces gradually gaining control over Southern regions, Lincoln implemented this wartime measure to reinstate state governments. The plan aimed to incentivize a swift end to the war and advance his emancipation objectives, as it offered protection for private property but not for slaves.

The Wade-Davis Agreement, or Congress's Response to the Ten Percent Plan

Congress felt that Lincoln's measures would allow the South to maintain life as it had before the war. Their measure required a majority – more than 50% not just 10% -- in former Confederate states to take an Ironclad Oath, which essentially said that they had never in the past supported the Confederacy. The bill passed both houses of Congress on July 2, 1864, but Lincoln pocket vetoed it, and it never took effect.

After Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, Congress had the advantage in shaping policy regarding the South. It imposed the tougher requirements for re-admission advocated in the Wade-Davis Bill, resulting in a prolonged and unsuccessful Reconstruction era.

"Restoration": President Johnson's Plan for Reconstruction

Following Abraham Lincoln's death, President Johnson based his reconstruction plan on Lincoln's 10% plan. Johnson implemented his own form of Presidential Reconstruction, a series of proclamations directing the seceded states to hold conventions and elections to reform their civil governments. His plan called for granting amnesty and returning people's property if they pledged to be loyal to the United States. He issued the Amnesty Proclamation on May 29, 1865.

Southern states returned many of their old leaders and passed Black Codes to deprive the freedmen of many civil liberties, but Congressional Republicans refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions. Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congressional Republicans overrode him, setting a pattern for the remainder of his presidency.

Johnson's concept of Reconstruction was characterized by a lenient approach towards the Southern states that had seceded during the Civil War. He aimed to restore the Southern states to the Union as quickly as possible. He believed that the states had never truly left the Union, and thus, their return should be relatively straightforward. He preferred minimal federal intervention in the South’s affairs. He granted widespread pardons to former Confederates who pledged loyalty to the Union, except for high-ranking officials and wealthy planters, although many of these were eventually pardoned as well. He also thought that Southern states should be allowed to manage their own Reconstruction, including the establishment of new governments and the creation of laws and constitutions. This allowed many pre-war political leaders and elites to regain power.

Johnson did not prioritize the protection or expansion of rights for newly freed African Americans. He opposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves, and vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, though Congress overrode his veto. Johnson's opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves, further fueled the conflict with Congress.

Terms of the Amnesty

The Confederate states were required to uphold the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; swear loyalty to the Union; and pay off their war debt. Then they could re-write their state constitutions, hold elections, and begin sending representatives to Washington.

Confederate leaders would have to apply directly to President Johnson in order to request pardon. Johnson issued over 13,000 pardons during his administration, and he passed several amnesty proclamations. The last one, issued Christmas Day 1868, granted sweeping pardons to former Confederates, including former Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

It required that half of all former Confederate states voters swear allegiance to the US and swear that they never supported the Confederacy.  It expressly said that “each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside".

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

There were 14 classes of exemption. These former political and military leaders had to apply to the president for a special pardon.

“The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation:

First – All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers, or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate Government.

Second – All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion.

Third – All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate Government above the rank of Colonel in the army or Lieutenant in the navy.

Fourth – All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion.

Fifth – All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States, to evade duty in resisting the rebellion.

Sixth – All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.

Seventh – All persons who have been or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eighth – All military and naval officers in the rebel service who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point, or the United States Naval Academy.

Ninth – All persons who held the pretended offices of Governors of States in insurrection against the United States.

Tenth – All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the so-called Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eleventh – All parties who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States.

Twelfth – All persons who at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military or naval authorities or agents of the United States, as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind either before or after conviction.

Thirteenth – All persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.

Fourteenth – All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's Proclamation of December 8, A.D., 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States since the dates of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate – provided that special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.”

References:

https://thereconstructionera.com/pres-andrew-johnsons-proclamation-of-amnesty-and-reconstruction-may-1865/

https://www.nps.gov/anjo/andrew-johnson-and-reconstruction.htm

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

Congressional Reconstruction, or the Military Reconstruction Acts

Johnson's policies brought him into conflict with the Radical Republicans in Congress, who sought harsher measures for Reconstruction and greater protections for freedmen. This opposition eventually led to his impeachment, though he was acquitted by a single vote in the Senate. Johnson's view was that the war had been fought to preserve the Union, as it was ant bellum. With the war over, he planned to rebuild the country as quickly as possible. He formulated a lenient plan, based on Lincoln's earlier 10% plan, to allow the Southern states to begin holding elections and sending representatives back to Washington.

His amnesty proclamations, however, emboldened former Confederate leaders to regain their former seats of power in local and national governments, fueling tensions with freedmen in the South and Republican lawmakers in the North.

Congressional opposition to Johnson’s policies was primarily the Radical Republicans, a faction within the Republican Party. The Radical Republicans were a group of legislators who advocated for a more stringent and transformative approach to Reconstruction compared to Johnson’s lenient policies. Key figures among his congressional opposition included:

·       Thaddeus Stevens: A powerful member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, Stevens was one of the leading Radical Republicans. He championed civil rights for freed slaves and was a principal architect of the Reconstruction Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment

·       Charles Sumner: A senator from Massachusetts, Sumner was another prominent Radical Republican. He was a strong advocate for equal rights and suffrage for African Americans and played a significant role in pushing for harsher measures against the former Confederate states

·       Benjamin Wade: As President pro tempore of the Senate, Wade was next in line for the presidency during Johnson’s impeachment trial. He was a firm supporter of Radical Reconstruction and believed in using federal power to enforce civil rights and rebuild the South

The Radical Republicans held several key principles that aimed to fundamentally reshape Southern society and ensure the rights of freed slaves. Their approach contrasted sharply with President Andrew Johnson’s lenient policies. There was also a desire among Radical Republicans to punish the former Confederacy and prevent its leaders from regaining power. This included disenfranchising many former Confederates and barring them from holding public office.

Republicans believed in securing civil rights for African Americans. This included passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves. They also supported the Fourteenth Amendment, which enshrined these protections in the Constitution. Republicans advocated for the right to vote for African American men. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Republicans sought to reshape Southern state governments to reflect loyalty to the Union and to ensure the participation of African Americans in the political process. This often meant displacing the pre-war Southern elite from power and instituting new state constitutions that guaranteed civil rights and suffrage for African Americans. They aimed to integrate African Americans into the economic and social fabric of the nation. This included support for institutions like the Freedmen’s Bureau, which assisted former slaves in the form of education, healthcare, and employment opportunities.

To enforce these policies and protect the rights of freedmen, Republicans supported the use of federal troops in the South. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into military districts, where the army oversaw the establishment of new state governments and ensured compliance with federal laws. Passed on March 2nd, 1867, the first Military Reconstruction Act divided the ex-Confederate states into five military districts and placed them under martial law with Union Generals governing. The act also directed that former Southern states seeking to reenter the Union must ratify the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be considered for readmission. The 14th Amendment granted individuals born in the United States their citizenship, including nearly 4 million freedmen. The Military Reconstruction Act also protected the voting rights and physical safety of African Americans exercising their rights as citizens of the United States.

The Conflict

Andrew Johnson and Congress failed to reach an agreement on a strategy to rebuild the nation after the devastating Civil War. The disparity between Congressional Reconstruction, as detailed in the Military Reconstruction Acts, and Johnson's Presidential Restoration plan was evident. Johnson pursued his own version of Reconstruction, issuing proclamations instructing the seceded states to organize conventions and elections to establish new civil governments.

The Southern states, under Johnson's administration, reinstated many of their former leaders and enacted Black Codes that restricted the rights of freedmen. However, Congressional Republicans refused to recognize the legislators from these states and passed laws to counteract the Southern measures. Johnson consistently vetoed these bills, only to be overridden by Congress, leading to a contentious relationship between the branches of government throughout his presidency.

His attempts to remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act, resulted in his impeachment by the House of Representatives. Although he narrowly escaped conviction in the Senate, the power struggle between Johnson and Congress continued to shape the Reconstruction era. Additionally, the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau by the War Department played a crucial role in providing relief and support to refugees and freedmen in the aftermath of the war.

The establishment of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, commonly known as the Freedmen's Bureau, took place on March 3rd, 1865, under the War Department's jurisdiction. Its primary responsibilities included overseeing relief efforts and educational initiatives for refugees and freedmen. This encompassed the distribution of essential provisions such as food, clothing, and medicine. Additionally, the Bureau assumed control over confiscated lands and properties in various regions, including the former Confederate States, border states, the District of Columbia, and Indian Territory.

The Outcome

The Radical Republicans prevailed in implementing their vision of Reconstruction for the first few years after the war. They succeeded in passing significant legislation and constitutional amendments that reshaped the South and sought to protect the rights of African Americans. These included The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Reconstruction Acts of 1867, and other laws that aimed to rebuild the South and integrate African Americans into political and social life. Additionally, The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship and equal protection, and protected voting rights for African Americans were passed Military oversight and the Freedmen's Bureau played critical roles in enforcing these changes, and opposing violent groups in the South. The Congressional Plan of Reconstruction was eventually adopted and remained in effect until 1877.

However, in the longer term, the Radical Republicans' achievements were significantly rolled back during the late 1870s. The disputed 1876 presidential election resulted in a compromise in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. This effectively ended Reconstruction. Southern white Democrats, known as "Redeemers," regained control of state governments. They systematically dismantled Reconstruction-era reforms and restored white supremacy through laws, violence, and intimidation. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These laws undid many of the advances made during Reconstruction. In conclusion, while the Radical Republicans initially succeeded in imposing their Reconstruction policies, their gains were largely undone by the end of the 19th century, leading to nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement for African Americans in the South.

A Better Plan?

Extending the period of federal military presence and oversight in the South could have provided more protection for African Americans and ensured the implementation of Reconstruction policies. This would have helped prevent the rise of white supremacist groups and the rollback of civil rights gains.

Providing substantial economic support to freed slaves, such as land redistribution (e.g., the "40 acres and a mule" promise), would have given them a stronger economic foundation. This could have involved breaking up large plantations and distributing land to former slaves, ensuring they had the means to achieve economic independence. Investing more in education and social services for African Americans would have helped integrate them into American society and economy. The Freedmen's Bureau, which provided education and assistance, could have been expanded and extended. Ensuring the protection of African American voting rights through continued federal oversight and enforcement mechanisms would have been crucial. This could have included measures to prevent voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, such as federal oversight of elections and strict penalties for violations. Building broader political coalitions that included poor whites who might have also benefited from economic reforms could have helped sustain Reconstruction efforts. This would involve addressing class issues alongside racial issues to create more progressive change.

Ideally, a comprehensive land reform program should have been implemented, granting freed slaves their own plots of land for agricultural purposes. The planter class should have lost their privileges and influence. However, the Federal government was keen on expediting the recovery of the southern economy, often prioritizing revenue generation over social justice.

What followed the end of Reconstruction led to a regression in the limited progress achieved in terms of equality, and many of the issues surrounding Reconstruction continue to persist in American society today.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

The Moon Eyed People: Legends of Southern Appalachia

The legend of the moon eyed people of southern Appalachia has captivated the imaginations of Cherokee Native Americans as well as European settlers, and modern residents of the region alike. The Cherokee legend proclaims that long before the Cherokee people came to the mountains of the southeast, another race of people called the moon eyed people lived in caves and atop the mountains in large forts. Roy Williams explains.

John Sevier.

The moon eyed people were supposedly nocturnal and could not see well during the day, they also supposedly had pale skin due to their lack of exposure to sunlight. Certain stone structures such as the one at Fort Mountain in northwest Georgia are associated with this legend. The Cherokee legend claimed that the moon eyed people and the Cherokee went to war in the past and eventually the Cherokee drove them out from their mountainous territory. This myth captivated the minds of early European settlers who used this myth to claim the ahistorical connection that a previous white race had built the large stone structures in the Appalachian Mountains that the Cherokee claimed the moon eyed people had built.

The legend of the moon eyed people gives us a unique window into the minds of early European settlers in North America. The claim that a previous white race built the stone structures on the mountaintops of southern Appalachia such as the one at fort mountain spread like wildfire as it entered the public consciousness for Euro Americans. The legend was augmented and reconfigured to argue that the moon eyed people were a lost colony of Welsh men who were descendants of the Welsh prince Madoc who supposedly sailed to the Americas long before Christopher Columbus. This legend spread so prolifically that President Thomas Jefferson included correspondence to Lewis and Clarke indicating that they should keep their eyes open for evidence of “Welsh Indians” in their exploration of the territories included in the Louisiana Purchase.

John Sevier

John Sevier was the first governor of Tennessee between 1803 and 1809. Sevier fought in the Cherokee and Chickamauga wars as Euro-American settlers pushed further into Cherokee territory. Sevier supposedly interacted with a Cherokee chief named Ocotosota in the mid-1780s. The source claims that Ocotosota said that he, "told of the fort being built by white men from across the great water."  Ocotosota told him that the ruins atop fort mountain were built by white men known as the moon eyed people. This source however is difficult to determine in reliability since chief Ocotosota died in 1783, probably before governor Sevier ever interacted with him.

Benjamin Smith Barton’s book, New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America (1797) is another source for these early interactions between the Cherokee and Euro-Americans settlers in describing the myth of the moon eyed people. Barton citing colonel Leonard Marbury describes the story in which the Cherokee expelled the moon eyed people from the mountains of southern Appalachia. Marbury recounts that, "the Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain 'moon-eyed-people,' who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." While this source has issues in determining its validity due to the separation of experience between Barton and Marbury, it does provide another clue into the legend of the moon eyed people and early Euro-American colonial thought.

Cultural significance

The legend of the moon eyed people should not be doubted when considering the cultural significance it plays to the Cherokee people. However, early Euro-American settlers’ perception of this myth should be scrutinized appropriately. The legend of the moon eyed people bears a striking resemblance to the mound builder myth which proliferated in early colonial America and into the 19th century. Native Americans told Euro-American settlers that they had not built the mounds throughout the United States. Archeological and historical research has proved the Mississippian civilization of North America built these structures hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before contemporary Native Americans came to live in these regions such as the Creek and Cherokee people. Euro-Americans settlers took this to mean that a previous advanced white civilization had constructed these structures. The legend of the moon eyed people follows the same trajectory. Euro-American used these structures to create a narrative, from the mounds built by the Mississippians to the enigmatic structures on Fort Mountain in Northwest Georgia to lay claim over the Americas in establishing their legitimacy as heirs to the lands. The mound builder myth has been refuted by archeological surveys proving that the Mississippian civilization built these structures. The ruins atop fort mountain will probably follow the same fate as a forgotten ceremonial or defensive structure built by Native Americans in the distant past. The legend of the moon eyed people endures as an important element of Cherokee culture, however any pseudohistorical claims about lost Welsh princes or ancient white civilizations in North America must be cast aside as a byproduct of the racial ideology of early European settlers.

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

References

Tibbs, David (2008). "Legends of Fort Mountain: The Moon-Eyed People / Prince Madoc of Wales". Historical Marker Database. Retrieved April 30, 2013.

"Forsyth County News ('Fort Mountain')". Archived from the original on February 4, 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

Barton, Benjamin Smith, M.D. (1797). New views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Bioren for the author. p. xliv. at Internet Archive

Feder, Kenneth L. (2005). "The Myth of the Moundbuilders" (PDF). Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Central Connecticut State Univ: McGraw Hill. pp. 151–155, 159–160, 164–166. ISBN 978-0-07-286948-4. Retrieved May 19, 2012.

The American Dream in Action: 3 Corporate Success Stories

Although America’s history is rife with rags-to-riches stories, American Industrialist Andrew Carnegie is probably the best embodiment of the American Dream. Carnegie first worked for pennies a day only to eventually become one of the richest men in history with a net worth of around $309 billion in today’s money. Additionally, other historic figures like Harland Sanders and Biddy Mason experienced similar entrepreneurial success and accumulated wealth beyond their wildest dreams. Their fascinating life stories highlight the potential for economic mobility in America as even people from the poorest backgrounds successfully can achieve huge success.

Cindy Cummings explains.

Harland Sanders

Harland Sanders was the multi-millionaire founder of international fried chicken restaurant, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). Born in 1890 on an Indiana farm, Sanders became accustomed to hard work at a young age as he helped his parents maintain the farm. But, due to conflict at home, Sanders moved out and left school at age 13. He held numerous local jobs, before moving to Alabama to work for the Southern Railway. As an adult, Sanders had a further slew of odd jobs, none of which lasted for long: attorney, insurance seller, lamp manufacturer, tire seller, and gas station owner. In 1930, Sanders, who had a keen interest in food, converted his gas station into a restaurant and began to sell popular ham and steak dinners.  

Finally, in 1952, Sanders developed his “Secret Recipe” (aka KFC) and patented his unique method of pressure frying chicken. The first KFC restaurant was then opened by Sanders’ friend and franchisor Pete Harman in Salt Lake City, Utah. During the early 1960s, 600 KFC restaurants were opened across locations including the UK, Mexico, and Canada. Finally, in 1964, Sanders sold the company for $2 million.

Sanders’ hard work, determination, and success continues to inspire entrepreneurs, of which there are some 30 million in the U.S. today (although estimates vary). Those serious about launching their business should ideally start with LLC (limited liability company) formation. An LLC is a legal structure that separates a business owners’ personal and business assets. So, that means all personal assets (money, home, and car) remain untouchable if the business is sued. In fact, 35% of small businesses are LLCs, which makes it the most popular legal structure. But always keep in mind, the best state for your LLC is usually your home state. In most cases, home state LLCs are the simplest and cheapest to set up and maintain.

Biddy Mason

Bridget “Biddy” Mason was born a slave and died free as America’s first female real estate entrepreneur. Born in 1818, Mason spent the first eighteen years of her life enslaved in Georgia, before she was purchased by a Mississippi slave owner. In 1851, Mason’s owner moved with her and her three daughters to California, a state where slavery was outlawed. It is here that Mason petitioned a court for her and her family’s freedom, which they were promptly granted. This marked a turnaround in Mason’s life. Over the next decade, she worked as a nurse and midwife for a local LA  doctor, and safely delivered hundreds of babies.

Mason was financially-savvy and saved her money. She soon purchased a small piece of land for $250, and became one of LA’s first black landowners. She later sold this property for a profit. Mason continued to buy up property, build commercial buildings, and open numerous businesses, including, a daycare center and grocery store — despite the fact she couldn’t read or write. Other business owners purchased properties surrounding hers and this area became Downtown LA. By the time of Mason’s death in 1891, she had around $300,000 to her name, which equates to $8.5 million today.  

Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie founded one of the biggest steel businesses in American history. He was born in 1835 into a working class family, who, in an attempt to drag themselves out of extreme poverty, emigrated from Scotland to the U.S. in 1848. Later, Carnegie would become one of the richest men in history. Carnegie got his first job at 13 as a worker in a cotton mill where he was paid $2.50 a week, which he soon left to start at a telegraph company with a better wage ($20 a month). In 1853, he was hired as a telegrapher at Pennsylvania Railroad and used this time to develop professional connections. At age twenty-four, Carnegie was promoted to Western Division superintendent.

After smart financial investments, Carnegie’s total annual income averaged $42,000, and turned his focus to the ironworks trade — a decision which would eventually lead to his huge fortune. In 1892, Carnegie (along with several partners) founded the Carnegie Steel Company. This business became largely responsible for the country’s newfound status as the world’s biggest steel producer. Financier J.P. Morgan purchased Carnegie Steel in 1901 for $480 million, of which Carnegie earned $250 million. This led Carnegie to be worth $309 billion in today’s money.

There’s nothing like a good rags-to-riches story to motivate and inspire. The impact of these historical figures certainly continue to shape the ambitions of entrepreneurially-minded Americans today. 

World War 2 in North Africa - The Long Range Desert Group

The Second World War brought about a new dimension of warfare that saw the utilization of vast and often unforgiving terrains as strategic battlegrounds. Among the most inhospitable of these were the deserts of North Africa. The Long Range Desert Group (LRDG), a special operations unit of the British Army, was formed in response to the challenges posed by desert warfare. Established in July 1940, the LRDG was tasked with conducting deep reconnaissance, sabotage, and raids behind enemy lines but reconnaissance was its primary mission.

Terry Bailey explains.

A Long Range Desert Group vehicle in the desert in March 1941.

Concept and founding of the LRDG

The concept of the LRDG was born out of necessity. In 1940, the British Army faced the daunting task of navigating and fighting in the North African desert, a vast and largely unmapped region that stretched across thousands of square miles. Conventional military tactics were rendered ineffective in this environment due to the hostile terrain and extreme temperatures, in addition to, the lack of water, which all presented significant challenges. The British recognized the need for a specialized unit capable of operating in such conditions.

The idea for the LRDG was proposed by Major Ralph Alger Bagnold, OBE, FRS, a British Army officer of the Royal Engineers who had extensive experience in desert exploration. Before the war, Bagnold had spent years studying and surveying large parts of the North African deserts, leading expeditions, and developing techniques for traversing and navigating the desert, moreover, the techniques needed to extract vehicles.

His geographic knowledge of the region, coupled with his understanding of the challenges posed by the desert, made him the ideal candidate to lead the new unit. In June 1940, Bagnold was permitted to form the LRDG. The unit was initially composed of volunteers from commonwealth countries, such as New Zealand, African commonwealth countries and Australia, individuals were chosen for their physical fitness, resourcefulness, self-reliance and ability to endure the harsh conditions of the desert. The LRDG was structured into small, highly mobile patrols, each equipped with modified vehicles capable of carrying large quantities of fuel, water, and supplies.

Training and Equipment

The training of the LRDG was rigorous and focused on survival, navigation, and combat in the desert. Bagnold emphasized the importance of self-reliance, as the patrols would often operate hundreds of miles from the nearest friendly forces. The men were trained in desert navigation using the Sun and stars, in addition to, the maintenance and repair of their vehicles under extreme conditions.

The vehicles used by the LRDG were a critical component of their success. Initially, the unit relied on Chevrolet trucks, which were modified and would carry extra fuel and water, as well as weapons and supplies. The trucks were stripped of unnecessary weight to improve their performance in the sand, and equipped with wide tires to reduce the risk of bogging down. The LRDG also used the iconic Willys Jeep, which proved to be highly effective in the desert environment.

The vehicles of the LRDG were armed with a variety of weapons, including an assortment of machine guns, including the Bren gun, in addition to, the Boys anti-tank rifles. It is worth noting that captured weapons were often utilized by the LRDG, especially the much sought-after Italian Breda 37 or the German MG34 and later the MG42. The personal weapons of patrol members included the Sten submachine guns, Lee-Enfield rifle and later the Thompson submachine gun. Patrols were heavily armed to defend themselves if necessary, but their primary focus as indicated was on reconnaissance, therefore, avoiding direct engagements with the enemy was key to success.

Operational Deployment

The LRDG's first operational deployment took place in September 1940, shortly after the unit's formation. Their initial mission was to gather intelligence on Italian forces in the Libyan Desert. The LRDG's patrols successfully penetrated deep into enemy territory, providing valuable intelligence to the British Army. This intelligence was crucial in planning the early stages of the Western Desert Campaign. The German and Italian forces were nervous about the open desert, allowing the LRDG to penetrate deep into the Axis power's flank often unmolested offering advantageous intelligence-gathering opportunities.

As the war progressed, the LRDG's role expanded. The unit conducted a wide range of missions, including assisting in sabotage, raids on enemy supply lines, and the destruction of airfields and communications infrastructure alongside the SAS and other units. The LRDG's ability to operate virtually undetected in the desert allowed them to carry out these missions with minimal interference from the enemy, however, aircraft were always a concern. Their deep reconnaissance operations were instrumental in gathering information on enemy movements, which was used to plan large-scale offensives.

One of the LRDG's most notable operations was the raid on the Italian airfield at Kufra in early 1941. The LRDG, in collaboration with Free French forces, launched a surprise attack on the airfield, destroying several aircraft and disrupting the Italian supply lines. The success of this operation demonstrated the effectiveness of the LRDG's tactics and their ability to strike deep behind enemy lines.

Close association with L Detachment, SAS, (eventually becoming the SAS regiment)

The LRDG's expertise in desert warfare soon caught the attention of other special forces units, including the newly formed L Detachment, Special Air Service (SAS). The SAS, founded by David Stirling in 1941, was a unit dedicated to carrying out raids and sabotage operations behind enemy lines. The harsh conditions of the North African desert made it an ideal testing ground for the unconventional tactics of the SAS. Recognizing the LRDG's unparalleled knowledge of the desert, Stirling sought their assistance.

The LRDG provided the SAS with vital instruction in desert navigation, survival, and vehicle maintenance. In many ways, the LRDG served as the operational mentor for the fledgling SAS, helping to shape their desert tactics to match Stirling's vision and approach to warfare.

The partnership between the LRDG and SAS soon evolved into joint operations. The LRDG's reconnaissance capabilities and knowledge of the terrain complemented the SAS's focus on direct action and sabotage.

One of the most famous joint operations took place in December 1941, when the LRDG transported a SAS detachment to raid the German airfield at Sirte. The raid destroyed several German aircraft and marked the beginning of a series of successful collaborations between the two units. The LRDG also played a critical role in supporting the SAS during Operation Crusader in November 1941. As part of the British Eighth Army's offensive to relieve the siege of Tobruk, the LRDG assisted the SAS in conducting a series of coordinated raids on enemy airfields and supply lines. These raids disrupted the Axis forces' ability to reinforce their front lines and contributed to the eventual success of the operation.

Evolution and later operations

As the war in North Africa continued, the LRDG adapted to the changing circumstances. The unit's patrols became more specialized, with each patrol focusing on specific types of operations, such as deep reconnaissance, or assistance with sabotage and direct action. The LRDG also began to incorporate elements of psychological warfare, using deception and misinformation to confuse the enemy. These deception operations were coordinated and led from Cairo by A Force under Brigadier Dudley Clarke.

In 1942, the LRDG was involved in one of the most daring operations of the war— a multifaceted large-scale operation. Working in conjunction with the SAS, SIG and the Royal Navy, and other components the LRDG conducted a series of raids on the port's defenses, paving the way for a larger assault by Allied forces. The operation, codenamed "Operation Agreement," was ultimately unsuccessful.

Working as part of the larger force undermined the efforts of the LRDG and SAS, simply because large-scale operations were not part of the modus operandi of these units, thus ignoring the concept of small-unit operations and the requirement for stealth.

The LRDG continued to play a vital role in the North African campaign until the Axis forces were defeated in 1943. Following the end of the campaign, the LRDG was redeployed to other theatres of war, including the Aegean and the Balkans. In these regions, the LRDG initially operated as traditional infantry.

However, in December 1943, the LRDG was re-organized into two squadrons of eight patrols. Patrols were then parachuted north of Rome to obtain information about German troop movements and also carry out raids.

In August 1944, two patrols parachuted into Yugoslavia. One patrol destroyed two 40-foot (12 m) spans of a large railway bridge, which caused widespread disruption to the movement of German troops and supplies.

In September 1944 a team were parachuted into Albania, their mission was to follow the German retreat and assist Albanian resistance groups in attacking them.

In October 1944, two patrols were parachuted into the Florina area of Greece. Here they mined a road used by the retreating Germans, destroying three vehicles and blocking the road. Firing on the stranded convoy from an adjacent hillside, they directed RAF aircraft in to destroy the rest of the convoy.

The Long Range Desert Group's contribution to the Allied war effort in North Africa and other theatres cannot be overstated. Their pioneering tactics in desert warfare, combined with their close collaboration with the SAS, set the standard for special operations units in the years to come. The LRDG's emphasis on self-reliance, mobility, and deep reconnaissance became the hallmark of modern special forces operations.

The LRDG's legacy is also evident in the continued importance of desert warfare training for modern military units. The techniques and strategies developed by the LRDG during the Second World War are still studied and applied by special forces units around the world. The unit's ability to operate in extreme conditions, far from conventional supply lines, remains a key element of special operations doctrine.

Moreover, the LRDG's association with the SAS forged in the Second World War provided a lasting legacy. The SAS, which would go on to become one of the World's elite special forces units, owed much of its early success to the guidance and support provided by the LRDG. This partnership laid the foundation for the development of modern special operations tactics, which continue to evolve and adapt to new challenges.

In conclusion, the Long Range Desert Group was more than just a reconnaissance unit; it was a pioneering force in the development of special operations warfare. From its formation in 1940, the LRDG demonstrated that small, highly mobile units could achieve strategic objectives far behind enemy lines, even in the most inhospitable environments. Their collaboration with the SAS not only enhanced the effectiveness of both units but also set a precedent for future special forces operations.

Reflecting on the LRDG's contributions to the Second World War, it is clear that their legacy extends far beyond the sands of the North African desert. The principles of adaptability, self-reliance, and innovation that defined the LRDG continue to inspire military units around the world. In many ways, the LRDG was a precursor to modern special forces units that play such a critical role in today's conflicts, proving that even in the harshest of environments, a determined and well-prepared force can achieve remarkable success.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

Notes:

Numerous small specialist units existed in the British forces throughout the Second World War. The LRDG and SAS were just two such units. The collective knowledge and experience of all these small specialist units laid the foundation for not only Britain's Special Forces of today but the World. Although each country trains and operates their special forces slightly differently from one another the foundation and concept of all special forces around the world can be traced back to the numerous individual units formed in the early years of the Second World War including the LRDG.

The Special Forces units formed by the USA in the Second World War worked very closely with the British Special Forces units in the latter years of the war, a practice that continues to this day.

In Great Britain today 4 special forces units and 1 special forces support unit operate:

SAS

The Special Air Service, (SAS), an independent unit of the British Army

SBS

The Special Boat Service, (SBS), is a specialization of the Royal Marine Commandos operating under the Admiralty as an independent unit.

MAWC

The Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre, (MAWC), is a specialization of the Royal Marine Commandos operating under Admiralty control.

SRR

The Special Reconnaissance Regiment, (SRR), is a unit dedicated to reconnaissance within the British Forces. It was formed to relieve the SAS and the SBS of that role.

SFSG

The Special Forces Support Group, (SFSG) consists of elite troops operating in Special forces environments alongside other special forces units.

The SFSG's primary role is to support Special Forces operations. It was formed as a Tri-service group, composed of a detachment of Royal Marine Commandos, the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Air Force Regiment.

Point of interest:

Otto Johann Anton Skorzeny a German SS-Obersturmbannführer (Lieutenant Colonel), in the Waffen-SS known for the Gran Sasso raid, 12th September 1943, studied British Special Forces' tactics and operations intending to develop similar German units.

Was the U.S. Civil War Fought for Slavery or States’ Rights?

When it comes to slavery's involvement in secession, most everyone fits comfortably within one of two groups, neither of which is correct. The first argues that slavery had nothing to do with secession; the other claims slavery was the sole cause. Jeb Smith explains.

This is part 3 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, and part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here.

General John Gordon.

"Slavery is only one of the minor issues and the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part is the maintenance of the independence of these states....neither tariffs, nor slavery, nor both together, could ever been truly called the cause of the secession.... the sovereign independence of our states. This, indeed, includes both these minor questions, as well as many others even greater and higher." 

-Daily Richmond Examiner August 2, 1864, quoted in Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters Shotwell Publishing 2018

"In his message, Mr. Lincoln announced a great political discovery. It was that all former statesmen of America had lived, and written, and labored under a great delusion that the States, instead of having created the Union, were its creatures; that they obtained their sovereignty and independence from it, and never possessed either until the Convention of 1787."

-Edward A Pollard The Lost Cause : A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates E. B. Treat & Co. Publishers NY 1866

Slavery had varying degrees of influence on the Deep South's decision to secede.[1] There is no question that some in the South were willing to leave the Union to preserve slavery if it came to that. Southern slave owners viewed northern abolitionists as foreign invaders dictating their lives. To Southerners, slavery was a constitutional, Biblical, and state right, and no Northern radical was to have greater authority. Thomas Jefferson said that slavery was "The exclusive right of every state." 

The Cotton States had great economic importance riding on slavery, Mississippi alone had four billion dollars’ worth of value invested in slaves, and almost the whole economic system of the state depended on slavery. They wished to defend the financial system that had brought them so much prosperity. Yet even in Mississippi, slavery was not the sole cause of secession. James McPherson quotes the Jackson Mississippian, "Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it."

As I have already mentioned, I think that many causes led to the secession of the Deep South. Yet, I would not wholly disagree if someone were to say that slavery was the leading cause of withdrawal in the Deep South. But there is a vast difference between saying that the South left solely to keep slaves in bondage and saying that the federal intrusion on the states' rights over the issue of slavery was the leading cause of separation. Many overstate slavery's involvement in the Deep South secession because slavery was the "occasion" to which the fight over the nature of the Union was fought.

"That institution is not a cause of this war, but simply an occasion of it. It is only the object against which the radicalism of the North has arrayed itself in Abolitionism. Had not this object existed, that Dragon from the bottomless pit, would have discovered some other eminence of Southern life, on which to expend its fury. We are leading the great battle for the sum of modern history--for the regulated liberty and civilization of the age. It is conservative religion against atheism--constitutional law against fanatical higher law--social stability against destructive radicalism."

-Rev. William A. Hall, The Historic Significance of the Southern Revolution Printed by A. F. Crutchfield Petersburg Virginia 1864

The leading cause of separation was not preserving something these states already had legal protection for, that is, slavery. Instead, it was the federal expansion past its constitutional limits and encroachments upon the states' rights. Is the federal government restricted to the powers given in the Constitution? Or was it released to step outside of its delegated powers, thus nullifying the Constitution and limited government? In 1864 Confederate general Patrick Cleburne said, "Between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter. Give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself."

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-10th amendment U.S. Constitution

"The Constitution... contains no grant of power to the Federal Government to interfere with this species of property...slave property rests upon the same basis, and is entitled to the same protection, as every other description of property." 

-Isham G. Harris Call for a Referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention January 7, 1861

In 1862 Rose Greenhow wrote, "Slavery, although the occasion, was not the producing cause of dissolution." R.L.Dabney wrote, "Slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people, but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights." Just as decades earlier, John Calhoun had identified the tariff of abominations as "The occasion, rather than the real cause" of dispute. The real issue was over a limited central government.

Where you stand on the "real cause" will necessarily cause disagreement on any issue that arises; a national bank, internal improvements, slavery and so on. If the two sides fundamentally disagreed on the Constitution and the purpose of the central government, they could then never agree on any of these side issues. In Virginia Iliad, H.V Traywick quotes an article in the N.Y. Times on April 8, 1861, saying, "Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting decision...The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a negro slave on American soil." 

Since the ratification of the Constitution, a conflict had been fought over whether we were to maintain a federated republic as understood by the states or if we were to become a centralized nation to benefit the most powerful interests and political parties. This debate raged politically on many battlefields before 1860. However, slavery was the chosen battleground of the nationalists in the fight to transform the Union in 1860. Instead of just a political issue, they would transform it into a moral issue.

The Republicans violated the Constitution and the Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 Supreme Court ruling by trying to decide the fate of slavery by federal rather than state and individual control. Democratic plank 9 of the 1852 elections plainly stated that an attack on slavery was an attack on states' rights; you cannot separate the two issues. You cannot have the federal government decide on slavery without it greatly exceeding its original intent and purpose. 

That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers. 

Democratic Plank 1 1852

That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences.  

Democrat Plank 9 1852 

The South viewed slaves the same way they did any other legal property. If the Government interfered with slaves, what would stop them from doing the same with any other property? If this violation by the Federal Government were allowed to happen, no rights would be safe: The Constitution would then be of no value. The Union of states that delegated certain limited powers to the Federal Government would be destroyed. And finally the Government would become limitless in power.

If the government was allowed to abandon any of its limitations, it would begin to dictate all manner of regulations and exert jurisdiction it previously was never considered to have. After a quick look at our lives today, who can say the South was incorrect in their assessment? The effects of the federal government stepping into areas past its jurisdiction delegated by the states are commonplace today. The Constitution is set aside so long as the masses' emotions are stirred over any one topic. Politicians and media provoke the mob, and no Constitution or ideas about limited Government can stop them. We have become an unlimited democracy ruled by a mob; the North destroyed the old Republic and Constitution in 1860. As a result, most outlaws in America today are found among elected officials and judges, and we simply accept their lawlessness because we have grown accustomed to servitude. 

Well before the war, on July 4 1854, famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison publicly burned a copy of the Constitution and spoke of it as a "Covenant with Death,  an agreement with Hell." Abolitionist John Brown seceded from the Union and created his own anti-slavery provisional Constitution. In the book, The South Vindicated from the Treason and Fanaticism of the Northern Abolitionists 1836; former South Carolinian congressman William Drayton wrote, "The abolitionists in urging their designs against the South, are guilty of infringing the acknowledged rights of those states ...it looks to revolution, it teaches that the constitution "is null and void" when opposed to their schemes." In other words, whatever the issue was, the Constitution could take a back seat if it impeded the political agenda of the day. 

An unregulated democracy, such as our Government today, has more power and violates our rights more than when we were under King George; it is not even comparable. In Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists, Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy write, "By focusing upon slavery, the bona fide story of the death of real states’ rights and the beginning of Imperial America is overlooked...we stand naked before the awesome power of our federal master."

Unlike today, antebellum America was a time when the federal government did not spread into the dominion of the states. Through the states, people were allowed self-rule and self-governance. Southerners understood that if the federal government was allowed to infringe on the states' rights on the issue of slavery, it would become an authoritarian body that no longer followed its limitations under the Constitution. These were the costs of the South's defeat in the Civil War; self-governance, and limited government. 

To desire a limited government and maintain the Constitution as handed down for generations, one did not need to be pro-slavery. Northerner writer Frederick Law Olmsted opposed slavery but objected to abolishing it "by federal edict." In 1864, Vermont Bishop John Henry Hopkins wrote, A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery, where he supported the South and the compact theory of the Union, arguing for gradual and consensual abolition.

Southerners heeded the warnings of the Founders. In a letter to Charles Hammond on August 18, 1821, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "When all Government domestic and foreign in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one Government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the Government from which we separated."

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries, thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

– Thomas Jefferson, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank" February 15, 1791 

A government of unlimited or undefined powers will eventually become totalitarian. This was widely known amongst Southerners. Thomas Jefferson believed that states' rights were the best protection to preserve liberty and a republican form of Government. John Taylor of Caroline warned, "If a government can take some, it may take all." St. George Tucker taught, "Power when undefined, soon becomes unlimited." In the first annals of Congress, James Jackson said, "We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government." James Rosch quotes John Randolph of Roanoke addressing Congress "If they begin with declaring one law of one state unconstitutional, where were they to stop? They might go on until the state governments, stripped of all authority...a great consolidated empire established upon their ruins...in such a contest the states must fall, and when they did fall, there was an end of all republican Government in the country." 

In other words, the only method to prevent an unlimited government is to counter all minor steps it takes beyond its authority. To do so, there must be a check from outside the government itself since it will not limit its own powers, only expand them. In our federated Republic, this check was the state governments who were to maintain the Founders’ principles for their peoples. Future president John Adams, a Massachusetts federalist, agreed that arbitrary power could not be left unchecked;

"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterward. The nature of the encroachment upon the American Constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. "

– John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774 

The claim that the Deep South left the Union to preserve slavery does not make sense; no one was trying to abolish slavery within those states. In his book, The Yankee Problem, Clyde Wilson quotes Horace Greeley at the 1860 Republican convention saying, "An anti-slavery man per se cannot be elected, but a tariff, river-and -harbor- Pacific Railroad, free homestead man, may succeed although he is anti-slavery." Historian David Donald wrote, "No responsible political body in the north in 1860 proposed to do anything at all about slavery where it actually existed." On Tuesday, March 5, 1861, the N.Y. Times editorial (which celebrated Lincoln's inaugural) said the president’s address was "explicit and emphatic in its guarantees to the alarming interest of the southern states." Lincoln "Disavowed all thought" of "interfering with slavery in any state where it exists."

On September 23, 1862, the N.Y. Times printed the preliminary emancipation proclamation with a headline that read, "the war still to be prosecuted for the restoration of the union." And in a letter to the federal minister in Paris, the secretary of the state William Seward wrote, "The condition of slavery in the several States will remain just the same, whether it succeeds or fails. The rights of the States, and the condition of every human being in them, will remain subject to exactly the same laws and form of administration, whether the revolution shall succeed or whether it shall fail." Union generals such as McClellan and McDowell returned fugitive slaves to their masters during the war.  

Since slavery wasn't being threatened where it existed in the Union, it would be hard to accept that Southerners would fight a war and leave the country just to have slavery extended into new territories. In fact, if slavery were extended, it would provide more competition to the southern slave state's monopoly on cotton. In 1843 many wealthy southern planters and men, such as John Calhoun, voted against Texas joining the Union because they said it would reduce the price of cotton. Furthermore, the South forfeited federal protection for their runaway slaves under the fugitive slave laws by leaving the Union. They were also giving up their right to bring slaves into the territories of the United States. 

If the South fought only to preserve slavery, with no regard for states' rights, they could have remained in the Union. During the war, Lincoln told southerners if they laid down arms, they could come back into the Union with slavery intact. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to reconcile slave states back in the Union. John Cannan in The Peninsula Campaign writes, "The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1 and still keep its slaves," and the South understood it as such. In July 1863, a Raleigh newspaper stated, "Peace now would save slavery, while a continued war would obliterate the last vestiges of it." Confederate Major General John Gordon wrote, "At any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union" Yet, for other reasons mentioned, the South chose to continue the fight.

Slavery was permitted in the South, but that does not mean it was always celebrated. Today we have legalized abortion, perhaps some view abortion as many southerners viewed slavery, as a necessary evil. 

Virginia freed more slaves before the Civil War than New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New England combined. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said that slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a "Great independent country with no slavery." But for the typical Southerner, the issue over slavery was much more profound as it involved states' rights and the nature of the Union.

"When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government." 

-Joseph E Brown Georgia Governor to Jefferson Davis over the Conscription act 1862

In antebellum America, the states resisted federal expansion in various ways. The first issue between central and state governments arose over the alien and sedition acts. Later problems involved internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of the militia, fugitive slave laws, etc. No matter the subject, states generally held firm and fought against federal expansions. The South was doing what states had done in antebellum America, resisting national expansion when it went past its constitutional bounds. The outcomes of the Republican victory have resulted in our current overbearing government, which has no regard for its ostensibly limited powers, proving the South correct.

"The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity, the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the Founding Fathers--a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property, including slave property, and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict. The accession of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening future."

-James M. McPherson  Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism A New Look at an Old Question Kent State U Press 1983

South Carolina Secession Document

"The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of confederated republics, but of a consolidated Democracy... the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations."

-Address of South Carolina to Slave-Holding States, Convention of South Carolina 1860

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union. If the state declaration of the causes of secession is read in full, it gives an excellent example of slavery as a state's rights issue. In the document, quoting from a resolution of the state convention of 1852, it was declared "That the frequent violations of the constitution by the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union." At that time they had refrained, but their situation had only worsened and they could no longer remain. In their declaration of the causes of independence, the writers wanted it known that state rights were the true motivator of secession. That is why at first glance through the text, you will see "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES," with minor variations in the phrasing, capitalized three times in the document.

The document goes into the history of states' rights in America. It mentions the federal government's failure to uphold the Constitution and the government's interference with the rights of the states. South Carolina stated that if they were to stay in the Union, the "guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost" and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned six times, states' rights, independent states, and state sovereignty are mentioned sixteen times. States' rights are discussed without any connection to slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states' rights. Just as Southern democrats had been saying for decades in their political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states' rights.

"For more than thirty years the people of South Carolina have been contending against the consolidation of the government of the United States...the United States Government has steadily usurped powers not granted- –progressively trenched upon States Rights." 

-Charleston Mercury South Carolina April 20, 1861

Slavery in the Territories

"The struggle in our territories...has not been a struggle for the emancipation of slaves. It has been a contest for power...The Northern people, in attempting to preclude the Southern people, by the legislation of Congress...a party hostile both to the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court, have been placed in control of the Government...Whether all the States composing the United States should be slaveholding or non-slaveholding States, neither the Northern nor Southern States ought to have permitted to be a question in the politics of the United States."

-Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs C.S.A 1861- Provided by the Abbeville Institute September 4, 2014

The fight over the expansion of slavery into the new western territories was a political battle. Were the states coming into the Union allowed their state rights as all previous states had been, or was the federal Government allowed to infringe on those rights and command them? Were states sovereign or subject to federal control? The South fought for these new states coming into the Union to be allowed to decide on their own about slavery regardless of the outcome. 

Further, was the federal Government allowed to command where slave owners were allowed to go within the Union? Could they prevent their migration to the western territories, thus giving political control to the Republican party? Were Southerners full citizens in their own country with the same rights as non-slave owners? Would the Federal Government be allowed to discriminate against any minority group that lacked the powers to defend themselves? 

But the southern objection was more than a fight for seats in Congress, as slavery was very unlikely to extend west. According to David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered, "Slavery did not go into New Mexico or Arizona, Kansas, after having been opened to the peculiar institution for six years, had only two negro slaves." To many Southerners, the fight was to maintain states’ authority in the Union and preserve the Constitution and people's self-government.

That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery. [Emphasis added.]    

-Southern Democrat Party Platform 1860 

 

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 Disappeared Dead of Waterloo: Were Their Bones Sold?

On June 18, 1815, the fields near the small village of Waterloo in modern-day Belgium witnessed one of history's most significant and brutal battles. The conflict, which marked the final defeat of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, left an indelible mark on the landscape and history alike. Yet, despite the staggering death toll, estimates suggest around 50,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or captured, the mass graves expected to hold the remains of these fallen warriors remain conspicuously absent. This mystery has led historians and archaeologists to a grim and unsettling theory: that the bones of Waterloo’s dead were harvested and sold for industrial purposes in the 19th century.

Richard Clements explains.

The morning after the Battle of Waterloo on June 19, 1815. By John Heaviside Clark.

The Carnage of Waterloo: A Battlefield of Corpses

The Battle of Waterloo was a clash of titans, with Napoleon's Armée du Nord pitted against the combined forces of the Seventh Coalition, led by the Duke of Wellington and Prussian Field Marshal von Blücher. The battle raged for eight grueling hours, culminating in a decisive victory for the Coalition. In the immediate aftermath, the battlefield was a harrowing sight. Contemporary accounts describe piles of corpses, wounded soldiers left untreated, and the pervasive stench of death.

Major W.E. Frye, who visited the battlefield just days after the fighting ceased, recounted "a sight too horrible to behold" with "heaps of wounded men with mangled limbs" and a multitude of carcasses. These vivid descriptions paint a picture of immense loss and devastation, yet they also underscore a mystery: where are all the bodies now?

The 19th Century Bone Rush: A Macabre Industry

In the decades following the battle, Europe experienced a peculiar and macabre industry boom, the trade of human bones. It was common practice to use bones as a source of phosphate fertilizer, a crucial component for the agricultural revolution of the 19th century. Historical records indicate that bones were collected from battlefields across Europe, ground into bone meal, and transported primarily to Britain, where they were in high demand.

The industrial use of bones extended beyond agriculture. The sugar industry, in particular, utilized bones in a process known as bone black or bone char filtration. This involved burning bones to create a porous, carbon-rich substance that could decolorize sugar during the refining process. The demand for bone char was significant, as it produced a higher quality of refined sugar, which was essential for the growing consumer markets in Europe and America.

Professor Tony Pollard of the University of Glasgow, a leading expert in battlefield archaeology, has extensively studied this phenomenon. Pollard's research, published in the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, suggests that Waterloo, with its high concentration of casualties, was a prime target for this gruesome trade. He points to newspaper articles from the 1820s, such as one from The London Observer, which reported that "more than a million bushels of ‘human and inhuman bones’" were imported from European battlefields into the port of Hull.

These bones likely served dual purposes: providing phosphate fertilizer for agriculture and supplying the bone char needed for sugar refining. This dual use underscores the macabre efficiency of the bone trade and highlights the economic incentives that drove the harvesting of human remains from battlefields like Waterloo.

A Missing Piece of History: The Search for Mass Graves

Pollard’s investigation into the Waterloo battlefield has been driven by a combination of historical accounts, memoirs, and early visitor descriptions. These sources frequently mention the presence of mass graves. For instance, several accounts describe mass burials at Hougoumont, a key location in the battle. Yet, despite these reports, no substantial human remains have been discovered in modern excavations.

In an attempt to uncover the truth, Pollard and his team, through the organization Waterloo Uncovered, have embarked on a multi-year geophysical survey. This initiative aims to locate grave sites that correspond with historical descriptions. The hope is that even if the bones were removed, there would still be archaeological evidence of the pits where they were buried.

Expert Opinions and Alternative Explanations

While Pollard's theory is compelling, it remains a topic of debate among historians and archaeologists. Some experts suggest alternative explanations for the missing bodies. For example, it is possible that many of the dead were buried in shallow graves, which over time, could have been disturbed by agricultural activity or natural decomposition processes. Others argue that some bodies may have been incinerated in the aftermath of the battle, a practice not uncommon in the Napoleonic Wars.

Dr. Dominique Bosquet, an archaeologist with the Walloon Heritage Agency, emphasizes the need for direct evidence. "While the theory of bone collection is plausible given the historical context, we need more concrete archaeological evidence to confirm it definitively," he says. This sentiment is echoed by other scholars who call for continued excavation and analysis.

Conclusion: A Tale Yet Unfinished

The mystery of Waterloo’s missing dead is a poignant reminder of the human cost of war and the complexities of historical research. While the theory that soldiers' bones were collected and sold as fertilizer is supported by compelling circumstantial evidence, definitive proof remains elusive. As Pollard and his team continue their work, the world watches with bated breath, hoping for answers to this macabre historical puzzle.

The investigation into the fate of Waterloo's fallen soldiers underscores the importance of interdisciplinary research, combining historical accounts with modern archaeological techniques. It is a journey into the past that may one day reveal the final resting places of those who gave their lives on that fateful day in June 1815.

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

Pollard, Tony. "The Archaeology of Waterloo: Mapping the Missing Mass Graves." Journal of Conflict Archaeology, vol. 6, no. 1, 2022.

Frye, Major W.E. Aftermath of Waterloo: An Eyewitness Account. Historical Press, 1817.

"More than a Million Bushels of Bones Imported into Hull." The London Observer, 1822.

Bosquet, Dominique. "Excavations at Waterloo: An Ongoing Search for Truth." Archaeology Today, vol. 12, no. 4, 2023.

University of Glasgow Press Release, 2015. "New Discoveries at the Waterloo Battlefield."

The History and Evolution of Airships

Airships, also known as dirigibles, have fascinated humanity for centuries, representing a unique intersection of science, engineering, and exploration. The journey of airships, from their humble beginnings as lighter-than-air balloons to the sophisticated designs of today, is a tale of innovation, ambition, and tragedy.

Terry Bailey explains.

The 1937 Hindenburg Disaster.

The birth of lighter-than-air flight

The concept of lighter-than-air flight can be traced back to ancient times, however, with the musings in the Renaissance period by visionaries such as Leonardo da Vinci, we see the drawings and plans of these concepts.

However, the practical realization of this idea began in the 18th century. In 1783, when the Montgolfier brothers, (Joseph and Stephen Montgolfier), and Jacques-Étienne, launched the first successful manned hot air balloon with Francois Pilatrê de Rozier and Francois Laurent, Marquis of Arlanders onboard.

They stood on a circular platform attached to the bottom of the balloon. They hand-fed the fire through openings on either side of the balloon's skirt. The balloon reached an altitude of at least 500 feet and travelled about 5½ miles, (just over 8 kilometers), before landing safely 25 minutes later.

The balloon was made of paper and silk and filled with hot air, providing a historic flight that marked the dawn of lighter-than-air aviation.

Just ten days after the first hot air balloon ride, the first gas balloon was launched by physicists Jacques Alexander Charles and Nicholas Louis Robert. This flight started in Paris, France. The flight lasted 2½ hours and covered a distance of 25 miles, ((approximately 40 KMs). The gas used in the balloon was hydrogen, the lightest element known. The ability to produce gas from hydrogen was developed by an Englishman, Henry Cavendish in 1776, by using a combination of sulphuric acid and iron filings. This achievement opened the door to further experimentation with lighter-than-air flight, laying the groundwork for the development of airships.

The evolution of airships, from balloons to dirigibles

While balloons demonstrated the feasibility of lighter-than-air flight, they were limited by their inability to be steered. This limitation led to the development of the first airships, which could be navigated through the air using engines and rudders. The evolution of airships can be divided into three main categories: non-rigid, semi-rigid, and rigid airships.

Non-rigid airships, early dirigibles

Non-rigid airships, often referred to as blimps, were the first type of dirigible to be developed. These airships relied on a gas envelope to maintain their shape and used internal air-filled bags, or ballonets, to control buoyancy and pressure. The absence of a rigid internal structure made these airships lighter and more maneuverable, but they were also more susceptible to damage.

One of the earliest successful non-rigid airships was designed by French engineer Henri Giffard. In 1852, Giffard built a 144-foot-long airship powered by a 3-horsepower steam engine. His airship could reach speeds of up to 5 Mph, (8 Kph), and demonstrated the potential for controlled flight. Giffard's design laid the foundation for future developments in airship technology.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, non-rigid airships saw significant advancements. The German engineer Ferdinand von Zeppelin, who is often considered the father of the modern airship, experimented with various designs before focusing on rigid airships. However, non-rigid airships continued to be developed and used for various purposes, including military reconnaissance and passenger transport.

Semi-rigid airships, the transitional phase

Semi-rigid airships represented a transitional phase between non-rigid and rigid designs. These airships combined a gas envelope with a partial internal framework, usually made of metal, which provided additional structural support. This design allowed for larger airships with greater lifting capacity and improved durability.

One of the most notable semi-rigid airships was the Italian-built "Norge," which was used by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen in his 1926 expedition to the North Pole. The Norge's successful flight over the Arctic demonstrated the capabilities of semi-rigid airships and marked a significant achievement in polar exploration.

Rigid airships, the zenith of airship design

Rigid airships, often referred to as Zeppelins after their most famous proponent, represented the pinnacle of airship design in the early 20th century. Unlike non-rigid and semi-rigid airships, rigid airships had a sturdy internal framework made of metal, typically aluminium or duralumin, which supported the gas-filled cells inside. This design allowed for the construction of larger and more robust airships capable of carrying significant payloads over long distances.

The first successful rigid airship was the LZ 1, designed by Ferdinand von Zeppelin and launched in 1900. The LZ 1 was 420 feet long and powered by two Daimler engines. Although its initial flights were not entirely successful, Zeppelin continued to refine its designs, leading to the development of the LZ 3 and LZ 4, which demonstrated the practicality and potential of rigid airships.

Airships in warfare, the First World War

The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 marked a turning point in flight including the use of airships. The German military quickly recognized the potential of airships for reconnaissance, bombing, and propaganda purposes. The rigid Zeppelins, with their ability to fly at high altitudes and cover long distances, became a formidable tool in Germany's arsenal.

German Zeppelins conducted numerous bombing raids over Britain, targeting cities such as London and Edinburgh. These raids, while not strategically decisive, had a significant psychological impact on the civilian population and demonstrated the vulnerabilities of traditional defenses against aerial attacks.

However, the use of airships in warfare was not without its challenges. Zeppelins were slow and vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, in addition to, heavier-than-air machines, (fighter planes), which were quickly developing on a separate path. The British developed various countermeasures, including incendiary bullets, which could ignite the hydrogen gas used in Zeppelins, leading to catastrophic explosions. As a result, many German airships were lost during the war, and the effectiveness of airships as a military tool was called into question.

Despite these challenges, the war spurred further advancements in airship technology. Engineers experimented with new materials, propulsion systems, and designs to improve the performance and survivability of airships. Needless to say, by the end of the war, the airplane had emerged as the dominant military force in aviation, relegating airships to a secondary role.

Key designers and pioneers

The development of airships was driven by the ingenuity and determination of several key designers from different countries. These pioneers pushed the boundaries of what was possible and laid the groundwork for the modern era of aviation.

Ferdinand von Zeppelin (Germany)

Ferdinand von Zeppelin is perhaps the most famous name in the history of airships. A former German military officer, Zeppelin was inspired by the possibilities of lighter-than-air flight after observing the use of balloons during the American Civil War. He devoted much of his life to developing rigid airships, founding the Zeppelin Company in 1908. Zeppelin's designs, particularly the LZ series, became synonymous with airships and played a crucial role in the First World War.

Alberto Santos-Dumont (Brazil)

Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian-born aviation pioneer, made significant contributions to the development of non-rigid airships. In the early 1900s, Santos-Dumont designed and flew a series of small, maneuverable airships, including the famous "No. 6," which won the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize for successfully flying from the Parc Saint Cloud to the Eiffel Tower and back. His achievements helped popularize aviation in Europe and inspired future generations of aeronautical engineers.

Barnes Wallis (Great Britain)

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, an English engineer and inventor, is best known for his work in the Second World War on his geodesic aircraft frame and specialist ordinance, (Bouncing bomb of the Dam Buster raid fame). However, it was his earlier work on the R100 airship, a British rigid airship developed in the 1920s, by the commercial company Vickers, utilizing a geodesic airframe which later was the inspiration for the Second World War Wellington bomber.

Wallis' innovative design incorporated the first practical geodesic framework providing increased strength and reduced weight. Although the R100 was successful in its transatlantic flights, the whole airship programme was overshadowed by the crash of the R101 designed and built by the Air Ministry, a design of different specifications. The disaster led to the abandonment of Britain's airship program.

Airship Disasters, triumph and tragedy

The history of airships is punctuated by several high-profile disasters that underscored the inherent risks of lighter-than-air flight. These tragedies had a profound impact on public perception and the future of airship development.

The R101 Tragedy (1930)

The R101 departed from Cardington on the evening of the 4th of October, 1930, and crashed in the early hours of October 5th, 1930. As indicated the R101 was one of two large rigid airships developed by the British government as part of a plan to establish a global airship network. However, the R101 was plagued by design flaws and structural issues, due to the different construction concepts, that were used on the R100. During its maiden long-distance voyage to India, the airship encountered bad weather over France and several gasbags ruptured leading to a loss of lift. The R101 crash-landed safely at the edge of a wood outside Allonne, 4Km, (2.5Miles), southeast of Beauvais, however, within seconds of a successful emergency crash landing, it burst into flames and instantly incinerated 48 of the 54 people on board.

The R101 disaster had a profound impact on Britain's airship program, leading to the cancellation of airship development in favor of heavier-than-air aircraft. The tragedy underscored the inherent risks and technical challenges associated with rigid airships, particularly in adverse weather conditions.

In the aftermath of the R101 disaster, public confidence in airships waned, and the British government redirected its focus and resources toward the development of airplanes. This shift marked the end of Britain's ambitious plans for a global airship network and contributed to the decline of airship travel as a viable means of long-distance transportation. The R101 crash remains a poignant reminder of the limitations of early aviation technology and the high cost of pioneering new forms of air travel.

The Hindenburg Disaster (1937)

The most infamous airship disaster occurred on the 6th of May, 1937, when the German airship LZ 129 Hindenburg caught fire and crashed while attempting to land at Naval Air Station Lakehurst in New Jersey. The Hindenburg, the largest airship ever built, was a symbol of German engineering prowess and luxury travel.

However, the use of highly flammable hydrogen gas and thermite paint combined with a series of unfortunate events, led to a catastrophic fire that claimed the lives of 36 people.

The Hindenburg disaster was widely covered by the media, with dramatic photographs and radio broadcasts capturing the event in real-time. The disaster shocked the world and effectively marked the end of the era of passenger-carrying airships.

Points of interest:

Even though the early years of airships were tenuous and fraught with issues, airships are now making a resurgence today. However, with advancements in technology airships of today are far safer than airships of the 1920s and 1930s. The modern use of airships takes advantage of their unique ability to hover in place, their long endurance, and their ability to carry heavy loads with minimal infrastructure requirements.

Some modern airship deployments

Border security

Some countries' border services utilize airships for border surveillance due to their ability to loiter over a specific area for extended periods. They can be equipped with high-resolution cameras, radar, and other sensors to monitor large areas continuously.

Environmental services

Whereas, environmental services find the same qualities useful and deploy airships to monitor environmental changes, such as deforestation, wildlife movements, and ocean conditions. Their ability to fly at low speeds and altitudes makes them ideal for detailed observation over time.

Advertising

The world of advertising utilize blimps at large events, such as sports games or festivals, where they are used to display advertisements. Their large surface area and slow movement make them highly visible and effective for marketing purposes.

Aerial filming platforms

Needless to say, the use of airships for aerial filming to capture footage is very popular, especially in scenarios where a stable platform is needed for extended periods. They are often preferred over helicopters for this purpose due to their quieter operation and ability to stay airborne longer.

Specialist lift platforms

Airships provide the perfect platform for heavy lift operations with specialist airships designed to transport heavy cargo to remote or difficult-to-access areas. They can carry loads that are too large or heavy for small conventional aircraft where landing facilities are difficult to access.

Humanitarian missions

These same qualities also make airships suitable for humanitarian aid, having the ability to deliver humanitarian aid to disaster-stricken regions, particularly where infrastructure is damaged or non-existent. Their ability to land almost anywhere and carry significant payloads makes them valuable in these scenarios.

Tourism

Furthermore, modern airships are very suitable as tourist platforms for aerial sightseeing that offer a unique and scenic way to experience landscapes, particularly over cities, natural wonders, or historical sites. These tours are popular in regions where the landscape is particularly striking, and the slow, low-altitude flight provides a different perspective compared to airplanes or helicopters.

Scientific research and space exploration

The resurgence of airships also provides stable structures for scientific work such as atmospheric studies and weather patterns. Their ability to hover and move slowly through different atmospheric layers allows scientists to gather detailed data.

Moreover, the use of airships is undergoing serious consideration for future space-related missions with ongoing research into the potential usage of airships as platforms for space observatories or as launch platforms for small satellites. Their stability and high-altitude capabilities make them suitable for such experiments.

Military

In today's world, some countries are going back to airships for specialist military applications, such as reconnaissance missions, taking advantage of their endurance and ability to stay aloft for extended periods. They can carry surveillance equipment, communication relays, and even unmanned systems.

The use of airships not only offers the military but also commercial communication service providers communication platforms, providing coverage in areas where traditional infrastructure is lacking or has been destroyed.

Urban transportation

Furthermore, airships can play a crucial role in urban transportation mobility. Numerous transportation organizations and think tanks are exploring the use of airships for urban mobility, particularly in congested cities. These concepts are still in development but represent a potential future application of airship technology.

Green logistics

Finally, airships offer a Green logistical option as an eco-friendly transportation system, simply because airship platforms consume less fuel than conventional aircraft, especially over long distances, making airships very attractive for green logistics solutions in the future.

Modern airships benefit from advancements in materials, avionics, and propulsion systems, making modern designs safer, more efficient, and much more versatile than the early 1920s and 1930s predecessors. While they may not be as prominent as they were during their golden age, airships continue to serve important and diverse roles in various sectors and assuredly will become far more prominent in the future.

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

What can the Ancient Greeks Can Teach Us About the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election?

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election sees Donald Trump face off against Kamala Harris. But what the Ancient Greeks teach us about truth and the election? In this fascinating piece, we get an explanation from author  Daniel W. Lawrence, PhD.

A detail from The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio, 1509. Plato is on the left and Aristotle on the right.

Weaponized Digital Advertising

With the 2024 United States presidential election around the corner, political parties have already ramped up their advertising spending to attempt to persuade voters to cast their ballot in a particular direction this November. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Trump campaign was spending around $1 million per day on Facebook advertisements through their partner, Cambridge Analytica, who weaponized psychographic data to target who they identified as particularly persuadable voters (a group they internally labelled "The Persuadables").

It's a troubling saga documented well by Professor David Carroll in the very watchable and worthwhile documentary, The Great Hack. In fact, it was Cambridge Analytica who designed the "Lock Her Up" attack campaign against Hillary Clinton for the Trump team--there's more than a little irony looking back on these tactics, as it should be clear to most readers which of the two 2016 presidential candidates has been found guilty by a jury and may be more worthy of being attached to the slogan designed by Cambridge Analytica.

Lest you think I'm being partisan, it was widely reported that Democrats were already outspending Republicans by more than twofold in May 2024, with a total of $72.1 million spent on advertising by both parties in just the short period between March 6, 2024 and May 26, 2024. While parties were spending $1 million a day in 2016, those numbers have increased significantly in the interim, and the sophisticated digital advertising tactics they're employing directly target individuals in specific geographic areas and use troves of user data to hone in on precise demographics.

While many of us like to think we are free-thinking, rational individuals who come to our own conclusions and make our own decisions, it doesn't take much reflection on global history to realize that we can be easily persuaded. Hitler leveraged mass communication technologies and fiery speeches to convince millions of Germans to commit horrific atrocities in the 20th century in a world war that threatened democracy across the planet.

Fortunately for us, we receive from the wisdom of the ancient Greeks the arts of rhetoric and philosophy, which can help inoculate ourselves against the bombardment of messaging we face in our daily lives. With Americans now spending more than 3 1/2 hours on their smartphones every day, with more than three billion new Facebook posts being created daily and more than 100 million users leveraging ChatGPT and similar AI technologies to quickly generate content for social media, we live in a super-charged, super-confusing information environment where it is harder than ever to tell fact from fiction. I believe the lessons on truth and persuasion from the ancient Greeks that we receive from Plato and Aristotle are more important now than ever, as they can help us develop the critical skills needed to sift through the onslaught of information we receive not just from political parties but also from private companies, organizations, and governments.

What is Truth, and Who Can We Trust?

When we’re faced with evaluating the truth of a claim, we can boil down the whole, complex equation to a simple, four-part question: what is the credibility of a source or speaker, what are they trying to make me do or believe, what techniques are they using to make me feel or think that way, and why are they doing it? But no single part of this question is easy to answer. As one team of disinformation researchers wrote in their 2017 study, “Determining who’s behind information and whether it’s worthy of our trust is more complex than a true/false dichotomy.” More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle wrote about ethos and the credibility of speakers, as far back as 350 BCE. Now, we are just as likely to be fooled by a website, social media post, or vlog as we are to be persuaded by a person physically speaking. But we tend to fall into a default position of trust. If an article, post, speaker, or web page looks vaguely well designed and similar to other things we’ve read before, we tend to say, “Sure, that looks legitimate! Why not?” without questioning the purpose, intent, or origin of the information.

Credibility is difficult to assess; when we see a well-groomed man in a sharp suit and shiny tie on a cable network—or even in a YouTube video—we are immediately tricked into thinking the person is credible. It’s something like the Ted Bundy effect. The infamous serial killer dressed well, spoke intelligently, and carried himself like a well-meaning citizen. In this way, he was able to lure unsuspecting people to horrific deaths at his hands. All the time, we are being tricked in the same fashion. Just because someone is wearing fancy clothes and is sitting in front of a green screen doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about. In truth, it doesn’t mean anything other than that they purchased a suit, tie, and green screen, and maybe they know how to use some video-editing software. In the same way, we too easily accept the information we read in online spaces to be valid simply because it’s there. We think, perhaps even at a subconscious level, “Well, this web page looks legitimate enough. It must be true.” But there’s nothing qualifying about the existence of a web page in today’s day and age. Anyone can create a website with a few dollars and an hour of time. Everywhere around us, we must be more sceptical of the credibility of the information that we see, read, and hear.

Too often we see political candidates make speeches on subjects with which they have no formal background. We’ve never elected a person with a PhD in Environmental Science to the presidency of the United States, yet every candidate for the position speaks confidently and unashamedly about environmental policy as though they are an expert in that field. When we ask these questions—what is the credibility of a source? What is it trying to make me do or think? How is it doing that? and Why are they doing it?—we start to engage in a process of rhetorical analysis. That is, we’re taking a critical step to stop messages from spellbinding us and working us over, and we start to assess communication in a more objective way.

Take a video advertisement for example. We see a Subaru commercial showing a car crash, but then the driver and their child safely walk away, saying they are thankful they bought a Subaru. This is trying to work us over through the method of what Aristotle called pathos—an appeal to emotion. The viewer feels something: the fear of losing their child, the trauma of an automobile accident, perhaps a lack of safety in their own vehicle. There might be dramatic, cinematic, swelling music that accompanies the advertisement and plays on our nervous system to increase our heart rates and create a sense of uncomfortable tension, which plays even further into this pathos. Then, the solution: just buy a Subaru. I have nothing against the Subaru automobile company—I drove an old, green, ’98 Subaru Outback for as long as it could possibly last, which was a long time—but I do have something to say about these tactics and how you can be better prepared to spot them, analyze them, and not let them influence your life. This is the power of rhetoric: to ask questions about credibility, intent, and purpose.

The logic of the advertisement is to make you feel fear, and to present you with a solution to that fear: “Buy a Subaru, and all your problems will go away. Protect your children by buying a Subaru.

Buy, buy, buy. If you don’t buy a Subaru, you must not love your children!” Of course that’s their purpose. They’re a car manufacturer. They’re in the business of selling cars by any means necessary. But is it true? Will buying a Subaru protect your family better than their competitor’s vehicle? We don’t know, and it’s too complex of a multi-factorial problem to figure out, even if we had the best data available. The world’s best quantum computer probably couldn’t help you with that one.

What Do We Know? (Spoiler: Not a Lot)

So, who is credible? Should we just trust no one? Credibility is a practical thing to think about. Who are you going to hire to fix your air conditioner, or perform your spinal surgery? You might have to look at several sources. You could read a surgeon’s biography on the hospital’s web page, look up their education, and see where they completed their residency. You could find out where they got their medical degree and how many years’ experience they have performing the surgery. You can ask that question directly to them: how many times have you performed this operation? You can find public data about the hospital to see what the post-operation infection rate is, and how it compares to other hospitals. These are all ways of evaluating the credibility of the institution and its messaging. But you must ask those questions: what is the credibility of a source, what is it trying to make me do or think, how is it doing that, and why are they doing it? Hopefully you come to find out that the hospital has a great surgeon who has years of experience and a great track record that will lead to a positive medical outcome for you. (That was my experience when the brilliant Dr. Craig Coccia performed an L5-S1 microdiscectomy on me when I was still in my twenties.) Skepticism and rhetorical analysis doesn’t always mean we have to end up in a place of negativity or conspiracy theorizing. It’s really the opposite. It just means we’re in search of the truth. We want to find the best solution for our problem.

Yet, we have no perfect institution for discovering truth. Even in the scientific community, for example, data might be faked in a clinical trial to push an Alzheimer’s drug to market in the pursuit of profit, or companies like Uber might hire scientists to publish peer-reviewed research that shows their services in a particular light. Human error and greed are everywhere. And, of course, we can hardly trust politicians and public figures who claim to have the benefit of average citizens on their mind while they use their inside knowledge to trade stocks, gerrymander, lie to the public, and block legislation that would help the average citizen with rapidly rising housing prices, stagnant wages, rising consumer debt, outrageously expensive college education, and a host of other real problems that affect hundreds of millions of Americans. This was precisely what Plato warned about in his dialogue, Phaedrus, when Socrates attacks the Sophists: powerful persuaders who had no sense of philosophy, no sense of ethics.

Politicians, more generally, seem to just kick the can down the road to the next administration, or even the next generation. We have seen administration after administration promise to fix the housing crisis, the global climate catastrophe, job shortages, infrastructure, and to boost the economy. Yet, the planet’s still burning, and people are still homeless and hungry, and it’s hard to say anyone’s listening to public opinion. Aren’t democracies supposed to serve the will of the people? By the people, for the people? If ever there was a group of folks who needed to orient themselves toward truth and read some philosophy, it’s the political class.

While our trust in these large institutions like government, news organizations, universities, and science-at-large is diminishing, the average citizen is also being bombarded by increasingly advanced, technologically sophisticated disinformation and misinformation through complex algorithms, digital media, and social media. Despite our general understanding that big-tech companies don’t have our best interests at heart, North Americans are still using their smartphones, on average, for more than three and a half hours a day and are exposed to thousands of advertisements every day. Marketers and writers have learned to disguise information as opinion pieces—sometimes called advertorials or referred to more generally as “native advertising”—such that it is becoming harder and harder to determine what is organic, natural content in social media and what is an advertisement. And here’s that study again: remember, The Stanford History Education Group (SHEG) found that 96 percent of high school students saw no reason to be suspicious of a web page about global warming “facts” clearly labelled as having been published by a fossil fuel company. We tend to assume that anything we read is credible, and we should be doing the opposite. We should be questioning the credibility of everything we read, see, and hear. Just because a web page looks clean and well-designed doesn’t mean that it is a vessel of truth and facts. It’s easy to build a professional looking website. You can make a whole website in about ten minutes with drag-and-drop web-building tools, which are widely available for anyone to use. If Plato were around today, we'd have to ask him to sit down before he read this study by SHEG.

All of this might seem like an insurmountable and world-ending situation. But it may soften your concerns a bit to know that these are problems humans have been dealing with since the dawn of time. That doesn’t make our present concerns any less species-threatening, but it does go to show something about the nature of human experience and civilization. It’s hard to go anywhere in the world without someone trying to sell you something or lie to your face for their personal gain in the service of their ideology. The short answer to the question of who to trust is: trust no one but yourself. But if you’re going to learn to trust yourself, you must learn to become a better thinker and analyzer of information and credibility, a lesson that we receive from the ancient Greeks, who also struggled with these issues of truth and lies, just as we do today. Because if we are so easily persuaded and deceived, how can we even trust ourselves not to be fooled and not to spread misinformation accidentally? Socrates had insight for this, too: we must humbly admit that we know very little about the world and the universe. Spend two minutes with an inquisitive five year old and you'll see how little you really know:

"Dad, what is water made of?"

"Uh... molecules."

"What are molecules made of?"

"Well, water molecules are made of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, basically: H2O."

"But what are atoms made of?"

"Eh, quarks, maybe? Subatomic particles. No one really knows, yet. They built a big machine called the Large Hadron Collider where they smash the atoms together to see what's inside of them. Strings, maybe."

"Strings?!"

"Yeah, strings, maybe. We're all made up of strings."

Daniel W. Lawrence, PhD is Associate Professor of Writing at the University of Wisconsin - Superior, and author of the new book, Disinformed: The History of Humanity's Search for Truth (Urano World, 2024): Amazon US | Amazon UK

In this gripping narrative, Dr. Dan Lawrence explores humanity’s troubled relationship with truth, from the propaganda tactics of King Sargon of Akkadia to the sophistication of present day hyper-targeted political advertising on social media. Spanning thousands of years of human history, Dr. Lawrence urges us to fight against disinformation and wrest back control of our minds using the critical toolbox of rhetoric: the ancient, lost art of persuasion laid down long ago by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. From the first known author, the High Priestess Enheduanna, to the modern-day developments of social media and algorithmic and procedural communication and targeted advertising, Dr. Lawrence shows how rhetoric is not just a tool to persuade and manipulate, but a toolkit for us all to use to evaluate the onslaught of persuasive messaging that we confront in our everyday lives. The time to take back the truth is now.

Did Sire Robert Peel Create 19th Century Social and Political Stability in Britain?

Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) was one of the most dominant politicians of the nineteenth century in Britain. He is well-known for founding the Metropolitan Police Service in 1829 and repealing the unpopular Corn Laws in 1846. These measures were certainly instrumental in providing a degree of stability since they began the process of making streets safer and making bread cheaper for the people, respectively. Yet, Peel is also controversial. Whilst he has been widely accredited with bringing social and political stability to Victorian England for ordinary people, Peel had initially opposed some of the most progressive measures of his day. Furthermore, recent reappraisals of Peel have suggested that his efforts have been exaggerated. It is worth considering the extent to which Peel truly helped create mid-Victorian social and political stability.

Beth Ross explains.

Sir Robert Peel. Portrait by Thomas Lawrence.

Metropolitan Police, Corn Laws, and Social Stability

During his time as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, Peel brought in a series of reforms that intended to improve the condition of England. First and foremost was the 1829 Metropolitan Police Act. Prior to the Act’s passing, there was no organised police force in England. The only forces were the Manchester Police and Bow Street runners, who were considered corrupt or unable to prevent crime.[1] In London, the situation was worse; parishes reserved the right to manage their watches independently, and there were generally no police on patrol during the night.[2] An indication of the system’s incompetence before Peel lies in the fact that crime rates in London were increasing. At its peak, one in every 383 people was a criminal.[3] Riots, too, were becoming common. Imminent reform was evidently needed, prompting Peel to respond with a scheme that began in London. A new police force was set up, headed by two magistrates. To increase the morality and efficiency of this force, Peel ensured that the two senior magistrates were “of the highest capacity and character.”[4] It did not take long for their success to become apparent. During the mounting political unrest of the 1830s and 1840s, only London had any hope of maintaining a modicum of peace.[5]This was largely thanks to the establishment of the new police force, whereas other local authorities struggled. Furthermore, the police created by Peel also set a precedent for becoming the model other developing forces would follow over the next quarter of the century.[6] The new force was also instrumental in maintaining order. In 1848, with the Chartists marching on London, the upshot was astonishingly orderly and had a relatively low level of violence.[7] It was said that one of the main reasons for this outcome was the existence of Peel’s police.

Peel’s police force undeniably had a positive impact on maintaining social security and stability. What would essentially have been a chaotic situation was diffused by a police force constructed mainly by Peel. Urgent reform had obviously been needed in this area, and it can justifiably be argued that Peel certainly delivered it. The police force, alongside Peel’s criminal laws, have often been hailed for their contributions in creating social stability. So, too, was his repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Although this was a disastrous move for his party, it improved the hardships of ordinary workers. When the Corn Laws were in effect, employees had to pay extra for bread, a challenging burden in the current economic conditions.[8] The repeal of the Laws benefitted the bottom 90% of income earners, making the movement a very “pro-poor policy.”[9] Unsurprisingly, Peel was widely celebrated and fondly remembered by the people after his death, primarily for repealing the Corn Laws. High bread prices had been one of the most debilitating aspects of nineteenth-century England.[10] Peel had, in effect, taken one of the most significant burdens on low-income families and erased it completely, thus improving their standard of living to a degree.

Limitations of his Reforms

On the other hand, it is also possible that undue credit has been given to Peel for the changes his reforms instigated. With his criminal laws, Peel attempted to encourage juries to convict criminals by removing the death penalty for several offences, believing that juries were far less likely to make convictions for fear of condemning someone to death.[11] However, the reduction in death sentences only started after Peel left his office as Home Secretary in 1830, and noticeable law changes did not occur until the Whigs took power.[12] Executions, the very thing that Peel had sought to reduce, only decreased on a larger scale under Russell, the Whig who succeeded Peel as Prime Minister.[13] In another instance, Peel’s 1844 Banking Act created two separate departments within the Bank of England to maintain regulation. In reality, this had the opposite effect. Because the Bank now could issue loans on the market like many other banks, a surfeit of cheap money emerged. This, in turn, worsened over-speculation on the performance of railways, leading to a financial meltdown in 1847 (albeit a brief one).[14] Ultimately, the 1844 Banking Act was temporarily suspended, attesting to its failure. Peel has even been blamed for “the economic ruin of thousands.”[15]Admittedly, the Act would eventually lay the foundations for Britain’s financial policy up until the First World War,[16]but it cannot be denied that it was a failure in the short term. Therefore, it appears that the credit given to Peel for specific innovations has been over-emphasised.

A Progressive Politician?

As mentioned above, Peel was a controversial character. Earlier in his career, he had ardently opposed what was considered some of the “most great progressive movements of the age.”[17] These were votes for working men, Catholic Emancipation, and the 1832 Great Reform Bill. Regarding the Bill, Peel felt that it was extremist in nature and would threaten the current constitution.[18] Somewhat arrogantly, he thought it was wrong for the government to concede to public opinion. Although the Bill only had a limited impact, it did increase the electorate and lay the groundwork for further change.[19] Peel essentially opposed the beginnings of progressive change, which would potentially benefit society. Concerning Catholic Emancipation, he refused to support it at first because Catholics did not swear allegiance to the Crown.[20] While he eventually threw his support behind both causes, it is worth noting that he only supported Emancipation for fear of an Irish uprising in 1829.[21] Had this threat not existed, Peel probably would have remained firm in his original views, thus leaving Catholics vulnerable and without any political rights. Moreover, he also refused to support a bill proposing that working days be reduced to ten hours only. Yet when a twelve-hour bill was proposed in 1843, Peel threatened Parliament with his resignation if it did not go through.[22] He even accepted an amendment to the Mines Bill, which suggested that the age of exclusion from work be lowered from thirteen to ten.[23] Taking these instances into account portrays Peel in a new light. Rather than being the engineer of social stability, Peel instead emerges as a less progressive politician than is usually supposed. Technically, his refusal to support a bill that would reduce the hardships of a working day for ordinary people, alongside his initial opposition towards Catholic Emancipation, meant that Peel was working against creating mid-Victorian social stability.

Political Instability

Whilst it can be said that Peel at least contributed to social stability in part through his creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, it can be argued that he contributed to stability less on a political scale. During his term as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister, relations between Peel and his party were fraught. In fact, the Conservatives had broken up when he resigned in 1846 and were to see limited power for the next thirty years.[24] Most Historians, by all accounts, blame Peel for this outcome, citing his arrogant and aloof nature as the primary cause. Even Norman Gash, a biographer of Peel known for his praise of the man, admitted that Peel demonstrated these qualities.[25] His relationship with his backbenchers was even worse. They usually received his scorn. Then, on the matter of the Corn Laws, Peel refused to discuss anything with them.[26]

His behaviour towards his backbenchers effectively destroyed the party’s loyalty to him after years of tension. 231 voted against Peel on the Corn Laws, whilst only 112 sided with him.[27] Many of the Tories felt deceived by Peel after he had fought the 1841 election by promising to defend agricultural protection.[28] Peel was hardly wrong for repealing the Corn Laws – on a social scale, they had quite a positive impact. However, from a political perspective, it had the opposite effect since his decision cost the Conservative Party its unity and resulted in its split. The repeal was a success for the nation, but Peel can and should still be held accountable for its lasting damage to his party. Had Peel communicated with his party more and showed more respect for his backbenchers, the general tensions and subsequent split of the party in 1846 may have been avoided.

Overall, Peel was indeed the engineer of social stability to an extent. The unrest that England had previously been dealing with gradually transformed into stability.[29] For the next 25 years after 1846, social discontent was far less prevalent than it had initially been.[30] However, Peel’s contribution should not be overstated. Whilst he undoubtedly played a role in ensuring stability in Victorian social life, he also blocked some of the most popular reforms of his time. He rejected the Chartists’ call for democracy in the early 1830s and late 1840s. Of the significant reforms he did enact, not all had as much impact as has previously been accepted. Besides, regarding political stability, it is difficult to argue that he brought much security to that area, if any. Peel was partially to blame for the Conservative Party’s split in 1846. A compromise may have been reached between Peel and the party had he not acted so coldly towards his backbenchers. As his repeal of the Corn Laws showcases, Peel was a Conservative devoted to acting in the nation’s interests above his own party’s. Whilst this helped to bring about a degree of social stability, it is clear that his efforts have previously been exaggerated and were also at the expense of the political stability of the Conservative party.

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

Bibliography

Adelman, P., Peel and the Conservative Party, 1830-1850 (London: Longman, 1989).

Beales, D., ‘Review: Peel, Russell, and Reform’, The Historical Journal, (1974), 17(4), pp.873-882. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2638561 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Briggs, A., The Age of Improvement, 1783-1867, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2014). Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/2022035?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1 [Accessed 21 July 2024].

Cragoe, M., ‘Sir Robert Peel and the “Moral Authority” of the House of Commons, 1832-41’, The English Historical Review, (2013), 128(530), pp.55-77. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23362289 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Crosby, T. L., Sir Robert Peel’s Administration, 1841-1846 (Devon: David & Charles Ltd., 1976).

Evans, E. J., Sir Robert Peel: Statesmanship, power and party, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2006).

Evans, E. J., The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783-1870, 4th ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2019).

Gash, N., Mr Secretary Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel to 1830 (London: Longmans Green Ltd., 1961).

Gash, N., Sir Robert Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel after 1830 (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 2011).

Gaunt, R. A., Sir Robert Peel: The Life and Legacy (London: I.B. Tauris and Company Ltd., 2010). Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/anglia/detail.action?docID=676745 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hawkins, A., ‘“Parliamentary Government” and Victorian Political Parties, c.1830-c.1880’, The English Historical Review, (1989), 104(412), pp.638-669. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/570379 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hilton, B., A Mad, Bad, Dangerous People?: England, 1783-1846 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Hurd, D., Robert Peel: A Biography (London: Phoenix, 2008).

Irwin, D. A., and Chepeliev, M. G., ‘The Economic Consequences of Sir Robert Peel: A Quantitative Assessment of the Repeal of the Corn Laws’, The Economic Journal, (2021), 131, pp.3322-3337. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab029.

Morrow, J., ‘The Paradox of Peel as a Carlylean Hero’, The Historical Journal, (1997), 40(1), pp.97-110. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3020954 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Ramsay, A. A. W., Sir Robert Peel, ed. by Basil Williams (London: Constable and Company Ltd., 1928).

Read, D., Peel and the Victorians (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1987).

[1] Ramsay, 87

[2] Ramsay, 87; Hurd, 103

[3] Ramsay, 87

[4] Ibid, 88

[5] Read, 103

[6] Gash 1961, 506

[7] Hurd, 106-7

[8] Evans 2006, 71

[9] Irwin and Chepeliev, 3324

[10] Evans 2006, 1

[11] Ibid., 16-17

[12] Beales, 880

[13] Evans 2006, 17

[14] Hilton, 549-550

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gaunt, 56

[17] Evans 2006, 2

[18] Adelman, 8; Hawkins, 652

[19] Cragoe, 56

[20] Evans 2006, 2; Hurd, 41

[21] Evans 2006, 2

[22] Adelman, 41

[23] Ibid., 39

[24] Evans 2006, 3

[25] Evans 2019, 332; Crosby, 148; Gash 2011, 708

[26] Morrow, 105

[27] Briggs, 294

[28] Evans 2019, 329

[29] Gash 2011, 714

[30] Evans 2019, 334

The Vicksburg Campaign: Part 2 - Grant Devises a Solution

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

See part 1 on the strategic problem of Vicksburg here.

The Battle of Big Black River Bridge, as shown in Harper’s Weekly in June 1863.

General Ulysses Grant had surreptitiously moved his army and navy south of Vicksburg and created diversions to keep the Confederate commander Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton from knowing his whereabouts. But now, he had to cross the Mississippi River to be on the same side of the river as Vicksburg. Porter effectively managed to relocate steamships and transport vessels from the northern region of Vicksburg to where Grant's troops were stationed, ready for transportation across the river. Grant's infantry had advanced southward, and with an abundance of supplies and river transports, the Union Army was finally able to cross the Mississippi River. The Federal landing at Bruinsburg, Mississippi, on April 30, 1863, and the ensuing victory at the Battle of Port Gibson the next day were the start of Grant’s movement toward Vicksburg.

However, the crossing did not unfold as smoothly as anticipated.

Grant's initial strategy to land at Grand Gulf was thwarted by a Confederate division that had fortified the area, and even a bombardment by Union ironclads failed to dislodge them. Consequently, Grant instructed Porter and McClernand to facilitate a crossing at Grand Gulf, Mississippi. On the morning of April 29, McClernand embarked his troops on transports at Hard Times, awaiting Porter's gunboats to weaken the Confederate stronghold. Following a five-hour battle, the Confederate forces emerged victorious as Porter's vessels retreated, sustaining casualties in the process. The Battle of Grand Gulf ended in a Confederate victory when Porter's vessels withdrew after losing 19 killed and 56 wounded.

McClernand unloaded his soldiers and marched them south to De Shroon's (or Disharoon) plantation, located about 5 miles north of Bruinsburg on the west bank of the Mississippi River. That night, Porter's gunboats and the transports ran the Grand Gulf batteries and joined McClernand's men at De Shroon's.  Grant arrived on April 29 and devised a new plan to disembark his soldiers at Rodney, Mississippi, located around 12 miles downstream. However, a fortuitous encounter with an escaped slave led Grant to Bruinsburg, a port with excellent steamboat facilities and a convenient road leading up the bluffs east of the river. Upon arrival, the soldiers found the port nearly deserted, with only a local farmer as a witness to their invasion.

Battle of Port Gibson

The Battle of Port Gibson began with the landing of 17,000 Union soldiers at Bruinsburg,  Grant's army, after successfully crossing the river, proceeded towards their initial target, Port Gibson, located approximately ten miles east of Bruinsburg. This strategic location held control over the local road network, making it a crucial objective for the advancing Union forces. The skirmishes between the Union army and Confederate outposts lasted for three hours on May 1, before escalating into a full-fledged battle at dawn.

The challenging terrain initially favored the Confederate defense, characterized by flat-topped ridges and steep ravines. The ridge-tops were devoid of trees, while the ravines were densely covered with vegetation, making off-road movements arduous. Centers Creek, situated between the Bruinsburg and Rodney roads, posed a significant obstacle due to its near-impassable nature. McClernand, overseeing the attack with Porter's assistance, navigated the challenging terrain to lead the Union forces toward their objective.

Under McClernand's command, the Union forces encountered solid Confederate defense, with Brig Gen Martin Green leading the main brigade. However, the tide turned when Logan managed to flank the Confederate right, compelling the defenders to retreat. The unexpected arrival of Union forces in the evening led to a rare night battle, with Green requesting support from the Rebel right flank. Just as reinforcements arrived from Vicksburg, Osterhaus launched an attack on the Confederate right flank, further destabilizing their defense. The Confederates continued to fall back and establish new defensive positions at different times during the day. Eventually, they conceded and left the field in the early evening. The collapse of the Confederate line following Logan's assault prompted a retreat, ultimately resulting in the fall of Port Gibson and Grant's subsequent advancement inland. Grant was now in control of Port Gibson and Grand Gulf.

Grant’s defeat of the garrison at Port Gibson forced the abandonment of the defenses at Grand Gulf. Pemberton was caught with his army scattered and could only oppose Grant with inferior forces at Port Gibson. The battle allowed control of the entire area where the Union army needed to cross the river and start its movement.

Grant was faced with a critical decision at this stage, as he had multiple options available to him. One possibility was to launch an attack on Vicksburg from both the south and the east. Another option was to collaborate with General Banks, seize Port Hudson, and then proceed to march on Vicksburg as a combined force. However, Grant was well aware of Banks' incompetence and had no intention of allowing him to disrupt their operations. If Grant had chosen to join forces with Banks, he would have been subordinate to him, which he strongly opposed.

Consequently, Grant had to carefully consider his next move. Although his orders, or at least Halleck’s plan, were to rendezvous with General Banks and capture Port Hudson before jointly assaulting Vicksburg, Grant decided to deviate from these instructions. Instead, he sent a message to Halleck, informing him that Banks was currently engaged in his own operations, and that waiting for him to finish would require waiting another month. Instead, Grant made the deliberate choice to advance independently, fully aware that it would take approximately 8 days for his message to be received and a response to be given. By avoiding the collaboration with Banks, Grant was able to pursue his own plans without any hindrance. As a result, he found himself in a favorable position to accept the surrender of Pemberton, while Banks remained stationed at Port Hudson.

The Move Inland

Once the areas on the river crossings were in Union control, Confederate forces situated between the Big Bayou Pierre and the Big Black River found themselves in a compromised position. Recognizing this vulnerability, the Confederate troops swiftly moved towards Hankinson's Ferry across the Big Black River. At this juncture, Grant's original plan was to feign a move north along the same path as a diversion to threaten a direct advance toward Vicksburg. However, reconnaissance revealed that Pemberton had established formidable defensive positions to the south of the city.

Consequently, on May 7th, Grant made a strategic decision that would later be regarded as one of the most brilliant maneuvers of the war. He opted to disrupt the city's supply line by capturing the railroad connecting Jackson to Vicksburg. This route involved a shift towards the east, with the ultimate objective of turning west to launch an assault on Vicksburg. By cutting off the town's supply lines, its strategic advantages were transformed into vulnerabilities.

Rather than taking a direct approach towards Vicksburg from the southern front, Grant led his army in a northeasterly direction, utilizing the protection of the Big Black River on his left flank. The plan was to target the Southern Railroad of Mississippi between Vicksburg and Jackson. Severing this vital transportation link would cut Pemberton's supply chains and communication networks, effectively isolating Vicksburg. As the Union forces advanced inland, each corps was strategically positioned, with McClernand's on the left, Sherman's in the center, and McPherson's on the right. However, the further Grant's army moved inland, the more susceptible they became to potential attacks.

The Supply Line

The crucial question of the whole campaign is how Grant would supply his army. Grant established a base at Grand Gulf on the Mississippi River to support the army's advancement inland. This supply base played a crucial role in sustaining the Union Army's movements in Mississippi. However, it is important to note that Grant did not completely sever his supply line when he reached Vicksburg and reconnected with the fleet on the Yazoo River. It is a misconception, often perpetuated by modern narratives, that Grant was without a supply line. Grant actually established and effectively maintained a main supply route throughout his movement toward Vicksburg.

General Sherman expressed apprehensions regarding Grant's logistical planning, deeming it insufficient and vulnerable to attacks. Grant, in opting for an indirect approach to Vicksburg by targeting the railroad east of the city. necessitated a longer and riskier supply route. This choice prompted Sherman to caution Grant about the potential challenges of maintaining such a large army with limited resources. Grant's response reflected his reliance on utilizing available provisions and sourcing the rest from the surrounding area. Sherman on May 9 warned Grant: "There are over 500 wagons across the river ... Stop all troops till your army is partially supplied with wagons, and then act as quickly as possible, for this road will be jammed as sure as life if you attempt to supply 50,000 men by one single road." Grant replied,  "I do not calculate the possibility of supplying the army with full rations from Grand Gulf ... What I do expect, however, is to get up what rations of hard bread, coffee, and salt we can, and make the country furnish the balance."

The myth of Grant's cutting loose from his supply base began when Charles Dana, a former reporter who accompanied Grant's army as an observer for the Secretary of War, wrote back to Washington on May 4, 1863: "As soon as Sherman comes up and the rations on the way arrive, he [Grant] will disregard his base and depend upon the country for meat and even for bread." In 1867 Adam Badeau, a former Grant staff officer, published the first volume of his three-volume Military History of General U. S. Grant. Badeau wrote that "[Grant] at once decided to abandon his base altogether, to plunge into the enemy's country with three days rations, trusting to the region itself for forage and supplies." A year later, in The Personal History of U. S. Grant, Albert Richardson compared Grant's Vicksburg Campaign with "Scott's brilliant campaign from Puebla to Mexico," and wrote that Grant "determined to abandon his base."

However, Grant himself refuted these claims during an interview in 1879 with a New York Herald reporter, clarifying that he did not sever ties with his supply base during the Vicksburg Campaign. Grant said that, as his troops crossed the Mississippi on April 29 and 30, he "had rations in abundance on board the transports, but no transportation for them into the interior." He said he did not abandon his base but "directed the officers to gather all the wagons and teams they could from the plantations as we moved on." He explained that while his troops had ample rations upon crossing the Mississippi, there was a lack of transportation for these supplies. Grant emphasized the importance of maintaining a supply line for essential items that could not be procured from the local environment, such as ammunition, coffee, bread, salt, and sugar.

But, when writing his Personal Memoirs in 1885, more than 22 years after the conclusion of the Vicksburg Campaign, his account of the supply line issue added to the confusion. Grant supported the myth that he had decided to abandon his supply base at Grand Gulf on May 3 by stating, "I determined to move independently of Banks, cut loose from my base, destroy the rebel force in Vicksburg and invest or capture the city." This statement was almost identical to one he had previously written for an article in Century magazine in July of 1884, which was published in 1885 and later included in the four-volume Battles and Leaders of the Civil War in 1887. Grant's use of the phrase "cut loose from my base" at Grand Gulf on May 3, often cited by authors and historians, contradicts his own words eight pages later. Grant recalled that on May 12, at Dillon's farm, he decided to redirect his columns towards Jackson. He wrote, "But by moving against Jackson, I uncovered my own communication. So I finally decided to have none — to cut loose altogether from my base and move my whole force eastward. I then had no fears for my communications, and if I turned quickly enough could turn upon Pemberton before he could attack me in the rear." Therefore, it becomes clear that Grant intended to secure his communications, rather than solely focusing on food supplies.

The Battle of Raymond

Grant devised a new strategy on May 7th, opting for an indirect approach rather than a direct assault on Pemberton's forces south of Vicksburg. Instead of crossing the Big Black River and heading north, Grant planned to reach the railroad east of Vicksburg and approach from that direction. This plan, however, came with its own set of risks and challenges, as it required a longer line of supply. Despite the potential difficulties, Grant's army continued to move northeastward towards the railroad on May 11th, while General McClernand expressed concerns about the enemy isolating the Union army by cutting off their supply line.

Grant intended to first cut off the railroad before launching an attack on Vicksburg. As his forces drew closer to the railroad, Grant discovered that Pemberton had already begun constructing fortifications to protect it. It became evident that Vicksburg had strong defenses in the southern part of the city and a well-established supply line from Jackson via the railroad. Grant believed that the enemy was positioned to the north, defending the railroad.

Pemberton suspected that Grant's primary target was the railroad. In response, he strategically positioned his troops along the entire line from Warrenton to Bovina, constructing fortifications at key points. As Grant's intentions became more apparent, Pemberton extended his line of defense to Edwards Station and fortified that area as well. However, this left the rail centers at Bolton and Clinton vulnerable. To address this, Pemberton ordered reinforcements arriving from the south and east to march to Raymond, where they would form the left wing of his army, guarding the north-south roads that connected the rail line from Jackson to Vicksburg. Pemberton planned to strike Grant in the flank if he attacked Edwards Station or the Big Black Bridge. If Grant turned toward Jackson, Pemberton would strike him in the flank and rear as he passed.

Many renderings of the Battle of Raymond suggest that Johnston was in command in Jackson at this time. In fact, on May 10, he is not present in the vicinity, having just been appointed commander. He was en route; Johnston wasn’t even appointed until May 9 and didn’t arrive until May 13; at that point, McPherson was already positioned between the two Confederate armies.

Pemberton knew that reinforcements were gathering in Jackson. So, on May 10 he ordered them all to a small town called Raymond about 20 miles southwest of Jackson.

General John Gregg led a brigade to Raymond with the intention of ambushing a Union advance party, despite his limited military experience as a Texas politician. However, faulty intelligence led him to believe he would only face a small contingent of Union troops. After an exhausting 200-mile march from Port Hudson, Gregg's 3,000-man brigade arrived in Jackson on May 9th, only to be ordered to march 19 miles to Raymond after a day of rest. Arriving late in the afternoon on May 11th, his men were so fatigued that they dropped to rest where they stood.

Meanwhile, Grant had authorized McPherson to begin his march toward Jackson on the same day. Gregg, under explicit orders to not engage a larger force, was supposed to withdraw slowly toward Jackson while alerting Pemberton for a coordinated strike. However, McPherson's strategic deployment of troops lured Gregg into a pitched battle by concealing his forces and showing only Logan's 2nd Brigade up the road. This tactical maneuver led to Gregg's brigade being drawn into a confrontation, McPherson then had the 1st and 3rd Brigades march through the woods unseen. Once Logan’s entire division was in place, he ordered the men forward.

At approximately 10:30 am, McPherson issued the command to move forward. The 23rd Indiana, known for their skills as skirmishers, defied orders and crossed the creek ahead of the federal line, unknowingly setting off the Confederate ambush. Overwhelmed by the two Confederate regiments, the Hoosiers fled with the Confederates in pursuit. The Confederates, in turn, chased the Indiana troops across the creek only to be met by a hidden federal infantry brigade. A complex and chaotic engagement developed as three Confederate regiments emerged from the woods after chasing away a cavalry picket only to find that the force they had been ordered to encircle was two federal brigades. Although some accounts suggest McPherson sent in his men in waves, perhaps due to weather conditions, others say he was hiding his deployment from Gregg to deceive him.

Gregg found himself in a challenging situation as he attempted to disengage from the fight. By 4 pm, he finally managed to regroup his forces and ordered a retreat. However, amid the chaos, Gregg failed to communicate the unfolding events to Pemberton, leaving a gap in the Confederate command structure and strategic coordination.

As Gregg retreated through Raymond, reinforcements began to arrive to cover his withdrawal, including cavalry regiments, infantry units, and a brigade from Georgia. With approximately 5,000 men on the field, McPherson's forces were consolidating towards the fortifications being constructed in Jackson. The opposing forces clashed at Fourteen Mile Creek, where Gregg attempted to halt the Union army's advance. Despite initial success in causing heavy casualties, the Confederate troops were eventually outmatched by the Union's superior numbers and firepower, leading to a strategic retreat back to Jackson.

General Joseph Johnston and Jackson MS

Grant's strategic plan revolved around disrupting the railway supply route that connected Vicksburg to Jackson. The primary objective was to prevent potential attacks from General Johnston, who was stationed in Jackson, that could have resulted in Grant's forces being trapped between Johnston and Pemberton. To execute this plan, Grant made adjustments by instructing McClernand and Sherman to hold Pemberton in position while McPherson swiftly advanced from the rear to capture the state capital. This tactical maneuver aimed to sever Pemberton's supply line and weaken the defenses of Vicksburg, ultimately allowing McPherson to rejoin Grant's forces.

On May 14, 1863, Grant redirected his army towards the east to force General Johnston's forces away from Jackson. Johnston, with the majority of his army, retreated along the Canton Road. This retreat prevented Johnston from joining forces with Pemberton, who was now isolated in Vicksburg. With Johnston out of the picture, Grant shifted his focus back to Vicksburg. Once the Union forces gained control of the capital, communication between Pemberton and General Johnston was severed, further isolating Pemberton's troops.

In response to Johnston's orders, Pemberton, commanding approximately 23,000 men divided into three divisions, was instructed to leave Edwards Station and launch an attack on the Union troops at Clinton. However, Pemberton and his generals believed that Johnston's plan would likely lead to disaster. Instead, they decided to divert their attention and attack the Union supply trains en route from Grand Gulf to Raymond. On May 16, Pemberton received another message from Johnston reiterating his previous orders. Unfortunately, Pemberton had already set off after the supply trains and found himself on the Raymond-Edwards Road, with his rear positioned at a crossroads just south of the crest of Champion Hill. As a result, when Pemberton obediently ordered a countermarch, his rear, including the supply wagons, inadvertently became the vanguard of his attack.

Battle of Champion Hill

The Battle of Champion Hill, which took place on May 16, 1863, marked a significant turning point in the Vicksburg Campaign. It was a critical moment for Pemberton, as he had one last opportunity to fend off Grant's forces. However, his confusion during this crucial juncture ultimately sealed his fate. With his troops outnumbered 32,000 to 22,000, Pemberton formed a defensive line along a ridge that overlooked Jackson Creek. This defensive position covered the Middle Road and Raymond Road to the south.

In the early morning of May 13, the three divisions of Generals Bowen, Loring, and Stevenson marched out from the Black River fortifications and began their strike toward what Pemberton hoped was the rear supply line of the Federal Army. More importantly, Grant knew Pemberton was coming. One of the messengers between Johnston and Pemberton was actually a Union operative who turned over his messages to General McPherson, who in turn reported the information to Grant. On the morning of May 16, 1863, the rebels met, not Grant’s supply line as expected, but most of his Federal Army at a place known as Champion’s Hill.

The situation became precarious for Pemberton when General Stephen D. Lee, stationed atop Champion Hill, alerted him to a Union column advancing on the Jackson Road. This Union movement threatened to cut off the Southern forces from Edwards Station and the vital route to Vicksburg. In response, Pemberton shifted his troops northward to protect the hill and the Jackson Road.

Grant, on the other hand, ordered attacks by Logan and Hovey, while John A. McClernand's corps launched an assault on Pemberton's left flank, and James B. McPherson's corps attacked from the right. Despite the excellent defense provided by Stephen Lee, the Union forces managed to seize the crest of the hill around 1 PM. McPherson's corps continued to advance, capturing a crucial crossroads and effectively closing off the escape route via the Jackson Road.

Although a counterattack by Bowen's division briefly pushed the Federals back beyond the Champion Hill crest, they were unable to maintain their position due to insufficient numbers. Recognizing the dire situation, Grant launched a counterattack, committing all of his forces. Pemberton's men were unable to withstand this assault, prompting him to order his troops to utilize the only remaining escape route, the Raymond Road crossing of Bakers Creek.

McPherson on the right (north) flank fought the lion’s share of the battle. His casualties constituted the bulk of the Union losses, about 2,500. The Confederates suffered about 3,800 casualties, perhaps half were captured. Grant criticized the lack of fighting spirit of McClernand, his rival for Union Army leadership. McClernand had delayed his attack and then was stopped by a smaller force. McClernand's casualties were low on the Union left flank (south). Sherman and the others wanted to see him gone, but Grant counseled a different course of action.

The decision made by General Pemberton regarding the abandonment of Vicksburg, as ordered by General Johnston, remains a pivotal question in the context of the entire war. This question not only fueled a post-war dispute between Pemberton and Johnston but also subjected Pemberton to enduring criticism. On one hand, General Johnston displayed little confidence in defending Vicksburg and instead advocated for the merging of Pemberton's forces with his own. By uniting their armies, Johnston believed they could confront Grant's troops in an open battle and subsequently allocate their forces to other vulnerable areas of the Confederacy. Conversely, Confederate President Jefferson Davis consistently emphasized the importance of safeguarding Vicksburg at all costs, leaving Pemberton torn between conflicting directives. It is crucial to acknowledge the challenging position Pemberton found himself in, torn between the expectations of his military and civilian superiors.

However, fair criticism can be directed towards Pemberton for his slow response, failure to anticipate Grant's movements and lack of coordination with Johnston. Attempting to appease both his military and civilian superiors proved to be an impossible mission. The complexities of the situation, coupled with the pressure to please conflicting authorities, hindered Pemberton's ability to make swift and strategic decisions. While it is understandable that he could not simply disregard the orders of his president, the consequences of his indecisiveness and lack of proactive measures were significant. Pemberton's retreat from Vicksburg ultimately resulted in continuing censure and placed him at the center of scrutiny for years to come.

Battle of Big Black River Bridge

Pemberton realized that his army was at a numerical disadvantage, prompting him to make the strategic decision to retreat towards the Big Black River Bridge. To buy time for the Confederate army to regroup, he assigned General William W. Loring's division to hold Raymond Road while the rest of the troops moved north. The division under Bowen and the brigade of John C Vaughn were tasked with defending the works at the bridge, with the advantage of natural barriers such as swampy terrain and a bayou in front of them.

On the Union side, Major General John McClernand led the pursuit of the Confederates and engaged Bowen's rear guard. A swift Union charge managed to break the Confederate position, leading to a rout during the retreat and river crossing. Many Confederate soldiers were captured in the process, while the remaining troops sought refuge within the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mississippi, marking the beginning of the siege of Vicksburg the following day.

Grant had initially planned for General Sherman to surprise Bowen and Vaughn at the Big Black River crossing at Bridgeport, seven miles away, where he could reach the west bank of the Big Black River and take Bowen and Vaughn by surprise. Meanwhile, his subordinate Gen. Michael K. Lawler had a different idea.

Martin Green’s Brigade held the Confederate left without any artillery support, while Lawler’s brigade was positioned nearby in the tree line. A scout informed Lawler of a sunken area close to the Rebel line, allowing his men to charge across open ground with minimal risk from artillery fire. Recognizing a strategic opportunity – no one was covering the river – his brigade charged a sunken area that was bisected by a marsh.

The following morning, Lawler’s Brigade took the initiative to charge the Confederate lines without explicit orders, disappearing from view after advancing 50 yards. During the charge, both sides engaged in intense artillery exchanges, resulting in General Osterhaus of Grant’s command being wounded by a Confederate shell. Meanwhile, Gen. Eugene Carr’s Division began to assemble opposite the Confederate lines.

By 9 o’clock, Lawler identified an opportune location to strike the Rebel defenses and ordered his men to charge. The Federal troops, who had seemingly vanished from sight, reemerged and swiftly advanced the remaining 50 yards to assault the gap between Martin Green’s Arkansas Brigade and Vaughn’s Tennessee Brigade. Despite facing fire from infantry and artillery as they crossed the bayou, the Federal soldiers managed to breach the Confederate breastworks and engage in close combat. Witnessing the success of Lawler’s charge, the rest of the Union line followed suit and joined the assault. Overwhelmed by the increasing number of Union infantry, the Confederates retreated, leaving behind their cannons and approximately 1,700 men who surrendered.

The significance of this small battle cannot be understated. The Confederates suffered heavy losses, with 1,751 men killed or captured, the majority of which were taken as prisoners. On the other hand, the Union casualties were relatively low, totaling around 235. This defeat at the Big Black River Bridge marked the beginning of the siege of Vicksburg.

Brig. Gen. Lloyd Tilghman was killed in this action. To help save the army, Pemberton tasked Lloyd Tilghman's brigade to provide a rear-guard action that cost Tilghman his life. However, this action allowed Pemberton to retreat from the area.

The general was killed by artillery fire. His teenage son was on the field and hugged his father as he died.

Following their defeat at Champion Hill, General John C. Pemberton's forces retreated to the bridge at Big Black River, just before reaching Vicksburg. During the battle at Champion Hill, General William Loring disobeyed orders to advance, resulting in his separation from the main Confederate troops. Loring attempted to rejoin his comrades at the bridge, but the difficult terrain forced him to abandon most of his supplies and artillery. Local civilians warned Loring that a large Union force stood between him and the rendezvous point at Big Black. Instead of engaging Grant's forces, Loring decided to redirect his path and join the Confederate forces at Canton. Unbeknownst to Pemberton, who was unaware of Loring's change in direction, he ordered John Bowen's Division and John Vaughn's Brigade to defend the works at Big Black River Bridge, to buy time. Had Pemberton been aware of Loring's retreat, he may have reconsidered engaging in battle at that location, as it was intended to serve as a rear guard action for Loring. Loring's strained relationship with Pemberton was well-known, as he had difficulty working with his superiors. Despite this, Loring consistently displayed courage and honor in battle, proving himself time and time again. Instead of retreating to Vicksburg, Loring eventually reached Johnston's army. The feud between Loring and Pemberton over these actions persisted long after the war had ended.

Retreat into Vicksburg

Following the resounding Union victories at the Battle of Champion Hill and the Battle of Big Black River Bridge, Pemberton found himself cornered within the City of Vicksburg. With Sherman's corps threatening to flank him from the north, Pemberton had no choice but to either engage in battle or entrench himself within the city. The siege of Vicksburg commenced on May 18 and lasted about 6 weeks.

As the Confederates retreated, they resorted to burning the railroad bridge over the Big Black River and a steamboat serving as a bridge. By detonating incendiary devices on the bridges, they thwarted Grant's pursuit attempts. Although Vicksburg had not yet fallen to Grant's forces, the city was effectively cut off from the outside world. Pemberton and his troops were trapped within the confines of Vicksburg, buying them time but offering no escape route.

With dwindling troops and no external connections, Pemberton's situation grew increasingly dire. Grant's superior numbers and strategic control over supply lines posed a significant challenge to the Confederate forces. Despite hopes of Johnston launching an attack from the east, the advice to surrender the town and save the troops prevailed. Grant's decision to initiate a prolonged siege, following unsuccessful frontal assaults, marked the beginning of a grueling period of bombardment for Vicksburg.

Grant initially attempted to overpower the Confederate army by leveraging his larger numbers. Despite Grant's efforts to assault the trenches on May 19 and May 22, these two frontal assaults aimed at capturing the city proved unsuccessful. The defensive line surrounding Vicksburg spanned approximately six and a half miles, taking advantage of the varying terrain that included hills and knobs with steep slopes. These natural features posed a challenge for attackers, who would have to ascend them while under enemy fire. The formidable perimeter of the defensive line consisted of numerous gun pits, forts, trenches, redoubts, and lunettes, which perfectly took advantage of the natural features.

The failure to take the Confederate works by assault led Grant to initiate a prolonged siege on May 25. As part of the siege, a significant bombardment was conducted. Union forces constructed their own network of earthworks and trenches that ran parallel to it. These trenches, referred to as ditches, marked the beginning of trench warfare. The situation within the besieged city worsened as the air became polluted by the stench of dead horses and soldiers, while the wounded often lay in the space between the opposing lines. Eventually, Grant agreed to a truce in order to clear the resulting mess. Recognizing that even with 50,000 soldiers, he would be unable to fully encircle Vicksburg due to unguarded roads leading south, Grant sought assistance from Major General Henry W. Halleck. Union troops in the West were subsequently shifted, and the front line was reinforced not only with heavy artillery from massive cannons but also with naval guns that targeted the city from the river.

Grant had expressed his dissatisfaction with McClernand's lack of determination at Champion Hill, as he had failed to eliminate or capture Pemberton's entire force. McClernand's casualties were minimal on the Union's southern flank, suggesting a lack of engagement, Sherman and others believed it was time for him to be removed from his position. Grant firmly believed that if the XIII Corps had launched a vigorous attack, Pemberton's army could have been annihilated and the Siege of Vicksburg could have been avoided. However, Grant advised a different approach from his subordinates. Then, a newspaper article published an order in which McClernand praised his troops despite their unsuccessful assaults on Vicksburg. Grant saw this as an opportunity and seized it. While the order itself was acceptable, it undermined the efforts of others and contradicted both a departmental order and one issued by Grant, which stated that official papers should not be published. Consequently, Grant relieved McClernand of his duties on June 19th.

The Siege of Vicksburg

Daily bombardments began and were devastating. Union gunboats lobbed over 22,000 shells into the town and army artillery fire was even heavier. As the barrages continued, suitable housing in Vicksburg was reduced to a minimum. A ridge, located between the main town and the rebel defense line, provided lodging for the duration. The citizens of the city were unable to walk the streets or live in their houses. All above-ground homes and shelters were unsafe or destroyed.

Over time, Grant moved 77,000 Union soldiers into positions completely encircling Vicksburg, cutting off their supply line. Although surrounded and without access to food, weapons, and ammunition, Vicksburg’s Confederate soldiers and civilians continued their defense.

Confederate troops ate horses, dogs, and vegetables from the gardens of Vicksburg residents.  Towards the end, some were eating rats and tree bark.  As the siege wore on, fewer and fewer horses, mules, and dogs were seen wandering about Vicksburg. Shoe leather became a last resort of sustenance for many adults.

By the end of June, half of all of the Confederate soldiers were suffering from malnutrition including scurvy, caused by lack of Vitamin C. Others suffered from unsanitary conditions and developed dysentery, diarrhea, dehydration, and malaria. The lack of food, combined with the epidemics of malaria and dysentery, took a heavy toll on the Confederate forces. By the end of June, half were unable to report for duty and were sick or hospitalized. The poor diet was telling on the Confederate soldiers.

The townspeople were forced to build and live in caves.  Many of their homes were destroyed by artillery bombardment, and those that remained were targets. Residents and soldiers dug over 500 caves into the hillside to escape the bombardment, hiding in their basements.  During the 47-day siege, May 23-July 4, the Union Over 500 caves, known locally as "bombproofs", were dug into the yellow clay hills of Vicksburg. Both soldiers and citizens were boxed in with plentiful munitions but little food.

During the 47-day siege, May 23-July 4, the Union experienced 638 casualties with 94 deaths, vs. the Confederate loss of 3202 casualties with 875 deaths. Additionally, there were 380 deaths at the Battle of Champion Hill on May 16. More than 10,000 of Pemberton’s soldiers were rendered unfit for duty as a consequence of various illnesses, combat wounds, and malnutrition by the end of June. There was essentially no functional army by early July.

The Confederate Army’s struggle with malaria was a significant contributing factor to the outcome of the Vicksburg campaign and hence the war. One of the reasons the Union siege of Vicksburg was successful was because the Confederates were debilitated by an outbreak of malaria, without access to quinine. It has been estimated that 3900-8850 of Pemberton’s 30,000 men were suffering from active cases of malaria, and minimally over 200 died directly from this disease. An illness of this severity experienced in this magnitude would have rendered the Confederate military combat ineffective.

On June 28, Pemberton received a petition from his troops which stated in part, “If you cannot feed us you had better surrender.” On July 1, he queried his division commanders whether they should surrender or attempt an evacuation. All 4 of his corps commanders wrote to him of the need to surrender. The Confederates, after a long siege, beset with malnutrition and disease, were not in a condition to fight. The consensus was that disease and starvation had physically impaired so large a number of the defending army that an attempt to cut through the Union line would be disastrous; the men were too “enfeebled” to attempt an evacuation. On July 4, 1863, after a 47-day siege, Pemberton surrendered to Grant.

General Ulysses S Grant: An Analysis

The fall of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863, just a day after Pickett’s Charge, certainly seems in combination to represent a catastrophic turn of events for the Confederacy that summer after victories that winter and spring seemed to hold so much promise.

General Grant has been demeaned as the worst POTUS in history, a drunkard, a dimwit, and most incorrectly, a butcher. While his reputation has improved lately thanks in large part to Ron Chernow’s biography and Donald Miller’s book about Vicksburg, he is routinely ranked behind Lee, Jackson, and Forrest as a Civil War general by many. Yet the truth is, General Grant did more to win the Civil War than anyone not named Abraham Lincoln.  The story of how Grant solved the conundrum that was Vicksburg should convince even the most cynical LCer of his imagination, willpower, and perspicacity. Grant tried myriad strategies before finding the one that worked. The Vicksburg campaign was an unmistakable sign of the man’s steely determination and shrewd mind. Grant failed over and over, but he never gave up.

Practically everything about the campaign was innovative. Practically everything about it. James M. McPherson has called it “the most brilliant and innovative campaign of the Civil War” and T. Harry Williams called it “one of the classic campaigns of the Civil War and, indeed, of military history.” The U.S. Army Field Manual 100-5 (May 1986) describes the Vicksburg campaign as “the most brilliant campaign ever fought on American soil,” one which “exemplifies the qualities of a well-conceived, violently executed offensive plan.” Edwin C. Bearss has said. “Failure in this venture would entail little less than total destruction. If it succeeded, however, the gains would be complete and decisive.”

It was definitely a risky plan. But we can see retrospectively that it makes perfect sense. Grant made the connection that the way to attack Vicksburg was by the train route west from Jackson, which was also the target of his Autumn foray on the Mississippi Central RR route. Then he combined that with the fact that he couldn’t maneuver on the east bank north of the town due to swamps and bayous, and after Arkansas Post, he’s on the west side. So, then it’s “just” a matter of technical procedure: you have to cross someplace and you have to head to Jackson first.  When to do it? Well, he knows he’s got ground to cover and will need supplies. He has to calculate river level, rain and muddy roads, and foraging. But before mosquito season. Winter isn’t a good time. Late spring is.

Grant had endured repeated political and military setbacks, watched his soldiers and sailors sicken and die by the thousands in the malarial lower Mississippi Valley, faced two armies at the same time, and solved incredible technical and logistical obstacles. He was now the top Union general, and his self-confidence as well as what others thought would carry him to fame. It’s inconceivable to me that his reputation as a general was denigrated for 120 years.

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.