Abranham Lincoln Versus a Polish Count: Slavery, War, and the President in the Eyes of Adam Gurowski

Unlike many other Poles who took part in the Civil War on the Union side, Count Adam Gurowski was not a soldier or a commander, and his actions had no influence on the shape of the Civil War. He was primarily a publicist whose sharp views on the actions of Abraham Lincoln's government were so violent and uncompromising that the US president even treated him as a potential assassin. Rafal Guminski explains.

Adam Gurowski.

Count Adam Gurowski: History and Political Activity in Europe

Adam Gurowski was born on September 10, 1805, into a family of noble origins and a count's title. He was the oldest of seven siblings. His sister, Cecilia, was married to Baron Frederiks, general adjutant of Tsar Nicholas I, and his brother, Ignacy, married the Spanish Infanta Isabella de Borbón, daughter of the Duke of Cadiz, and became a Spanish grandee. As the oldest son, he received a good education. After completing his education at the provincial school, he began his studies in Berlin, Leipzig, Göttingen, and Heidelberg. He studied law, philosophy, history, and classical philology.

After his studies, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland and joined a political party from the western part of the country, which sought to maintain the status quo and preserve the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland. The count quickly left the organization, and in January 1829 he was supposed to take part in preparations for the so-called coronation plot, the aim of which was the death of the Russian Tsar Nicholas I. After the outbreak of the November Uprising, Gurowski became involved in organizing the insurgent administration and civil authorities, which, however, ended in failure. The count became a staunch critic of the insurgent dictatorship, and after its fall, he became a member of the Patriotic Society, on behalf of which he demanded the dethronement of Tsar Nicholas I as the King of Poland.

Despite being blind in one eye, he joined the insurgents as an ordinary soldier and took part in battles, for which he was promoted to officer and received the Silver Cross of Virtuti Militari. After leaving the army, he became an envoy of the Patriotic Society to Paris, where in French magazines such as Trubine, François, National, Reformateur, La Révolution de 1831 and Le Globe, he undertook to criticize the authorities of the November Uprising. After the fall of the Uprising, Gurowski struggled with the instability of his political views and a tendency to sharp disputes, through which he quickly alienated people from his closest surroundings.

The year 1834 was special for the Pole because of the radical change in his views and ideas. His statements began to include comments of a pan-Slavic nature with Poland as the unifier of the Slavic world. He also viewed the Polish emigration differently, whose activities for the liberation of the country he had previously assessed negatively. The change in the count's views is best seen in his interest in the postulates of French utopian socialism. The changes in Gurowski's worldview reached even such basic assumptions as nation and patriotism.

The count's new views conflicted him with his family and Polish patriotic circles, but it was only the request for amnesty addressed to Tsar Nicholas I and the recognition of Russia as the country that was to lead the unification of Slavic nations that made Gurowski a national apostate. His stay in Russia turned out to be difficult. The state apparatus of the Tsarist regime forced him to reassess his views once again, and the complete isolation from his family and countrymen began to weigh heavily on him.

A Polish Count on American Soil

In 1840, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland to sort out his property and family affairs. The attempt to recover his confiscated property ended in failure. Finding himself in a hopeless situation, the count decided to emigrate. In April 1844, he left the border of the Kingdom of Poland forever and went to the West. For some time, he lived in Bavaria, Hesse, and then in Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy. Unable to settle down permanently, the Pole decided to leave the Old Continent and emigrate to the United States of America. On December 2, 1849, Count Gurowski found himself in New York.

The Pole's situation in America was quite stable at first. He had brought a supply of cash with him from Europe, and thanks to letters of recommendation, he had access to intellectual circles from the very beginning. After half a year, the count's financial situation began to deteriorate, which forced him to seek a source of support outside New York. In Boston, he was even offered a chance to lecture on law at Harvard University, but due to poor attendance, his lectures were quickly suspended. During this time, the Pole became keenly interested in the issue of slavery and took an active part in the life of the local intellectual social elite. He managed to get to know the leaders of American literature and poetry: Henry W. Longfellow and James R. Lowell, who, together with Gurowski, had in common a particular aversion to slavery and criticism of that institution.

Eventually, the Pole returned to New York and in 1852 took a job at the New York Daily Tribune. He wrote a column on European affairs, criticizing the rule of Tsar Nicholas I. Despite his continued interest in European affairs, the Pole was fascinated by his new homeland, which he admired in many ways. He traveled extensively in the northern and southern states, and published his observations in “America and Europe”, which was warmly received by critics and praised for its impartiality and insightful observations. The Pole was greatly impressed by his new homeland and in many ways recognized its superiority over European countries. He paid special attention to the unique relationship between power and freedom. In his opinion, in Europe, these two forces competed with each other, while in America, they cooperated for the common good and development. The count was equally impressed by the class structure of American society. In his opinion, the superiority of the American system was the lack of class division dominated by the aristocracy. He noted with admiration that the law was created on the initiative of the people and for the people, and not by a privileged ruling group.

Gurowski's relations with the New York Daily Tribune began to deteriorate significantly, and as a result, the count lost his job. From then on, for four years he supported himself by publishing articles in various magazines. During this time, he continued to write a book on the history of world slavery, which was published in 1860 under the title “Slavery in History”.

Abraham Lincoln under harsh criticism from Adam Gurowski

The Pole, who was increasingly vocal in his criticism of slavery, decided to move to the US capital, Washington, where he hoped for greater understanding of his views. He wanted to seek support from politicians from the radical wing of the Republican Party. Thanks to his work in the New York Daily Tribune and his authorship of the books: “America and Europe” and “Slavery in History”, the Pole was already a well-known person in Washington. He quickly established important acquaintances, including Salmon P. Chase, the future chief justice of the United States, and John A. Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he joined a volunteer unit under the command of Cassius M. Clay, which was to protect and patrol the capital. After the threat had passed, the Pole got a job at the State Department. His duties included reading the European press and preparing reports on articles of interest to the department. However, Gurowski lost his job after his diary, in which he criticized the government, the president, and the Union generals, fell into the wrong hands. Ultimately, he published the contents of the diary in December 1862. Thus began his crusade against Abraham Lincoln.

Adam Gurowski should be considered the most ardent critic of the federal government and the president at the time. Although the Pole spoke positively about Lincoln's inaugural address, the government's lack of decisive action in the event of the attack on Fort Sumter and the riots in Baltimore ultimately confirmed his dislike of Abraham Lincoln. Gurowski stated that the current Union government "lacked the blood" to defeat the Confederacy, and calling up 75,000 volunteers was definitely not enough to defeat the Confederacy. He also believed that the situation overwhelmed Abraham Lincoln, who had no leadership skills and could not compare to George Washington or Andrew Jackson. He considered the president's greatest flaw to be his lack of decisiveness, and he saw it as the cause of the Army of the Potomac's defeats. Gurowski also criticized Lincoln's personnel decisions, especially the delay in dismissing General George McClellan from the position of commander of the Army of the Potomac. However, Gurowski was able to appreciate Lincoln. He praised the president's behavior after the defeat at Chancellorsville. The count accused Lincoln of manipulating election promises and making military decisions through the prism of politics, which was to result in the deaths of many soldiers. However, in the face of the president's re-election, Gurowski showed a shadow of support for him, fearing for the election of the hated McClellan and his pro-slavery lobby.

There is no doubt that Gurowski's criticism of the president was often exaggerated, but in some aspects the Pole's opinion coincides with the contemporary opinion of historians. The count's attitude towards the president was dictated by his views and difficult, uncompromising personality. The Pole's most positive opinion of Lincoln was expressed after the president's death. In Gurowski's eyes, the murdered president became a martyr close to sainthood, who will go down in world history as a great and noble man.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

·       Carter R., Gurowski, „The Atlantic Monthly” 1866, t. 18, nr 109.

·       Derengowski P., Polacy w wojnie secesyjnej 1861-1865, Napoleon V, Oświęcim 2015.

·       Fisher L.H., Lincoln’s Gadfly, Adam Gurowski, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman 1964.

·       Garewicz J., Gracz. Rzecz o Adamie Gurowskim [1805-1866], „Res Publica”, 2 (1988), nr 5,

·       Głębocki H., „Diabeł Asmodeusz” w niebieskich binoklach i kraj przyszłości: hr. Adam Gurowski i Rosja, Arcana, Kraków 2012.

·       Łukasiewicz W., Gurowski Adam, Polski słownik biograficzny, V.  9, Wrocław 1960-1961.

·       Stasik F., Adam Gurowski 1805-1866, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN ,Warszawa 1977.

Was Southern Secession and the U.S. Civil War Fought to Preserve Slavery?

An introduction by the author Jeb Smith: I have often engaged in discussions with both lay people and academics on the various causes of Southern secession. I have also read many books from both sides' perspectives of the war. I consistently hear the same arguments used to support the claim that the South left the Union to preserve slavery. I will respond here to the most common arguments and, hopefully, explain why the evidence does not support this conclusion.

This is the final part in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here, and part 4 on the Confederate Constitution here.

John S. Mosby.

Slave Owners Rebellion?

It is said that the most robust support for secession came from the areas that had the most slaveowners. Based on this information, some would argue that the cause of withdrawal was slavery. High federal support in areas with limited slaveowners, such as West Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee, are prime examples to support this claim. But first, we must ask the following questions: What about the non-slave owners in Eastern Virginia who supported the South? What about non-slaveholding Western Tennesseans and Deep South voters who supported secession? Should we claim they prove secession was in support of abolishing slavery? What about the slave states that stayed in the Union? 

 In Confederate Arkansas, 20% of their households were slave owners, while Kentucky, which remained primarily loyal to the Union, had 23% of their households that were slave owners. In North Carolina, near-unanimous support for secession was given after Lincoln's call for volunteers when only 27% of the households in the state were slave owners. Arkansas voted 65 to 5 for secession after Lincoln's call for volunteers, yet only 20% of households were slave owners. Although there were few Southern Jewish Confederates slave owners, a large portion of the group supported secession. Further, thirteen percent of the Virginia delegates from high slave-owning counties voted against secession.

A closer look shows that politics, not slavery, drove the secession movement. For example, in Western Virginia, many areas with a low percentage of slave owners supported secession, while many areas that were politically supporters of the Whigs did not. James McPherson , [who used the argument we are discussing] acknowledges, "A good many low slaveholding Democratic counties voted for immediate secession, while numerous high-slaveholding Whig counties cooperation." In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts looks at this argument and finds that while slave ownership influenced secession votes, political party associations were far more critical.

"A high slave-owning country in eastern Virginia was far more likely to poll a strong secession vote than a low slave-owning county in western Virginia. But a whig county in eastern Virginia was more likely to show more union strength than a Breckinridge country, just as a Breckinridge county in western Virginia was more likely to show pockets of secession support than a whig county." 

-Daniel W. Crofts Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis University of North Carolina Press reprint 1993

Further, the area that would become West Virginia had long opposed unfair tax rates within Virginia.[1] West Virginia, like today, was more an extension of Pennsylvania and did not share the southern culture of Virginia. Immigrants from Pennsylvania mostly inhabited West Virginia. In Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee, Michael Korda wrote, "Mountainous northwestern Virginia...was largely populated by settlers from Pennsylvanian who were instinctively pro-union." The Appalachian areas of Western Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee had very different ethnic, political, and cultural histories. 

West Virginia supported the Confederacy more than commonly believed. Many of the Virginia votes against secession did come from the western part of the state, but that does not make them supporters of the Union. These counties were surrounded by federal territory and not so anxious to jump into a war. The most robust support for the Union came from the northern panhandle or around the railroads who had a financial interest in remaining in the Union. The rest of the state was decidedly pro-South. Further, many Ohio and Pennsylvania troops went to West Virginia recruiting stations [this was common] and formed union regiments, so the actual number of units supporting the North is inflated. 

Western Virginia's support for the Union is overstated for many reasons. Early in the conflict, much of western Virginia was controlled by the Union, and a pro-union "restored government of Virginia" was instituted. Elections were only held in areas of Union control, as pro south civilians and soldiers fled the state and thus, were not allowed to vote on whether or not to join the Union. Lincoln decided to recognize this pro north government that met in Wheeling. This Government was not officially recognized by the state of Virginia but was rather an unconstitutionally created, militarily controlled area. Therefore, basing conclusions on this occupied territory is not a fair judge of western Virginia's loyalties. 

The Union support in Tennessee seems to be exaggerated and possibly based on a limited number of Union newspapers during the war. As in Virginia, Daniel W. Crofts shows that counties that were "traditionally Democrat," the low-level slave-owning middle and western Tennessee counties, voted for secession. It was only in the Eastern area of the state where spare slave-owning counties held a strong pro-Union stance. 

Maryland's southern and eastern areas were similar in culture and politics to the rest of the South. In contrast, the pro northern areas of Maryland were heavily influenced by socialist immigrants from Europe and thus supported the North. Overall, support for the Union in Maryland also seems overstated.[2] The truth is that Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, and Western North Carolina remained Republican areas after the war. In contrast, the planter areas remained Democratic after the war.[3]

Lastly, if the Government did oppress a particular group, specifically slave owners, violating their rights, wouldn't we then expect strong resistance from that sector? For example, if today's politicians decided that pizza is unhealthy for us and outlawed it, then most pizza shop owners would likely be among those who would resist those efforts. Others may agree with the pizza owners but not be so willing to leave the country over it. So it should not be a surprise that slave owners were among the most dedicated secessionists. 

The Confederate Constitution did not allow States to abolish Slavery

The first argument one often hears is that the Confederate Constitution made it impossible to abolish slavery. It is true that the central Confederate government could not abolish slavery; however, neither could the federal government under the U.S. Constitution in 1861, as Lincoln accepted in his First Inaugural Address. Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa points out that freeing slaves was a state issue in the C.S.A. just as it was in antebellum America. Some have misread Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 of the C.S.A. Constitution, claiming it outlaws the freeing of slaves; however, this section applies only to Congress and not to the sovereign states.

As DeRosa argues that the clause even demonstrates that its authors believed non-slave states would join the Confederacy. This is also shown in Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1. Many in the Confederacy, including vice president Stephens, thought  the non-slaveholding upper Midwest would join the Confederacy because its free trade laws would encourage states connected to the Mississippi River to join. In his infamous Cornerstone Address on March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens said, "We made ample provision in our Constitution for the admission of other States...Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way." 

Professor DeRosa shows that the South wanted border states and the free Midwest states to join the Confederacy. During the constitutional convention, the delegates rejected Howell Cobb of Georgia's proposal that all states be required to be slave-owning. Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated, "Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself." The state of Georgia declared, "New States formed out of territory now belonging to the United States, or which may be hereafter acquired, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people thereof may determine at the time of admission." So while slavery was optional, states' rights were applied in the C.S.A., regardless of their choice. In The Confederate Constitution of 1861, DeRosa summarizes, "Thus, slavery was not a constitutional prerequisite for admission, and once admitted, a state could either reorganize or prohibit the institution." 

Slavery was the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy 

The first argument I am usually given is that Alexander Stephens declared slavery to be the "Cornerstone of the Confederacy." Although his speech has been named the "Cornerstone Speech, "he focuses also on tariffs, internal improvements, and economic issues. So why is most of his speech ignored and only a few sentences pulled out and attacked? The focus is on the portion that mentions slavery because slavery is what we want to be remembered as the primary cause of secession.

His speech was unprepared and given in the deep South state of Georgia. But I also think that there are other reasons to be cautious about the importance and understanding of the speech. 

For one, it is only a transcribed piece. According to the newspaper reporter who transcribed it, it "Is not a perfect report, but only a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens." It is simply an interpretation of a portion of his actual speech. According to Stephens, in writings after the war, the speech was misinterpreted and misunderstood. He claimed he was simply restating what Judge Baldwin of the United States Supreme Court had said. The following, written in 1884 by Richard M Johnson, summed up Stephens’ speech and his use of the term "cornerstone." 

"On the subject of slavery there was no essential change in the new Constitution from the old as Judge Baldwin [of Connecticut] of the U.S. supreme court had announced from the bench several years before, that slavery was the cornerstone of the old Constitution [1781-89], so it is of the new" [1833] .

-Quote in Lochlainn Seabrook , Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery Is Wrong Sea Raven Press 2014

Later, Stephens wrote that what caused secession was a dispute over  centralization. Stephens' speech simply clarified disputed subjects in the U.S. Constitution that are now clearly defined and beyond dispute in the C.S.A. Constitution. These subjects include tariffs, internal improvement, and slavery. He was trying to assure the audience that the states would decide on these issues, not the central government.

As the Kennedy twins argue, if anyone should have been seen as speaking for the whole country, it ought to have been the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis. His three most essential speeches (Farewell to Congress, First Inaugural in Montgomery, Second Inaugural in Richmond) all speak to the causes of secession. He mentioned that the reasons for secession were liberty, state's rights, tariffs, the Constitution, and preserving the Union from Northern Democracy. Jefferson Davis said, "I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Davis does discuss slavery in the first of those speeches, but stresses more the sovereign right of his state, Mississippi, to secede.

Fugitive Slave Laws

Some critics claim that the South only cared for states' rights when slavery was involved. To support this claim, they point out that the South objected to Northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave laws. This objection seems reasonable on the surface but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states' rights and the Union of 1860.

Even if we assume the premise for the sake of argument, it will only prove that the South did not care for the rights of the states in the North, not their state's rights. Since the rights of the people of each state were in place to secure its individual states citizen's rights and not another’s, this would make sense. And if one state decides not to follow the compact or contract [Constitution], disagreement will occur. This is also why the right to secession is vital to self-government. 

However, a proper understanding of states' rights is not lawlessness or states ignoring the Constitution; it is, in fact, the opposite. States' rights are in place to prevent the current politicians in power from violating the Constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case, the northern states were violating the Constitution because, in their minds, slavery was wrong in God’s eyes. As William Seward put it, "There is a higher law than the constitution." 

Within the Constitution, southerners were already granted the right to have their property returned. Northern states were violating this. Therefore states’ rights, as Jefferson said, are the best way of preserving the authority of the Constitution over elected politicians in D.C. who would seek to abolish it. The Constitution, not men, was the authority. The wording of the United States "supremacy clause" is set out below, occurring in Article VI. The wording of the Confederate equivalent, also occurring in Article VI, is identical apart from the substitution of "Confederate" for "United."

This Constitution and the Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or to be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Only the Slave States joined the Confederacy

"Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson threatened to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the Democrats won in 1860, the northern states would have been the seceding states, not the southern." 

- James R. and Walter D. Kennedy, The South Was Right! Pelican Publishing Gretna 2008 

Some believe it is self-evident that slavery caused secession because only slave states joined the Confederacy. So if I am defending the causes of the South and saying slavery was not the sole cause of secession, then why didn't any free states join? 

Keep in mind that when the Confederacy was first formed, there were more slave states still in the Union. Furthermore, if secession was driven by slavery, why didn't all the slave states join the South? Many volunteers fought for the South from the non-slave state of California. New Jersey produced two Confederate generals, Gen. Samuel Gibbs French and Gen. Julius Adolphus de Lagnel.[4] 

Many free states nearly left the Union as well. NY almost left the Union, and a middle confederacy might have formed, which could have included Penn, NY, NJ, MD, and D.E. On March 13, 1861, a report from A R Wright Esq of Georgia said Gov Hicks of Maryland was already corresponding with New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey governors about forming a central confederacy. Delaware, Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio were also later mentioned. The rise of a radical Republican party[5] to national prominence caused all sorts of upheavals. 

The South originally planned for the northwest to join them. When Robert Smith addressed the citizens of Alabama, he believed Indiana and Illinois would join the Confederacy. He desired the entire Union (excluding New England) to eventually be drawn under the new Confederate Constitution, restoring the Union of the founders. However, when Lincoln called for war, many were unwilling to face an uphill battle against the might of the North. Further, nationalism and patriotism drove many to volunteer for the Union. 

Also, consider that the states most influenced by the Jeffersonian tradition did leave the Union. And we must not forget the North maintained slavery during the war in MO, KY, DE, Washington DC, MD, Western Virginia, northern controlled sections of the Indian territory, and Union-controlled LA and Virginia. 

John Mosby said Secession was about Slavery 

The "Grey Ghost" of the Confederacy, John Mosby, said that the South was on the side of slavery during the war. Here, critics say, we have an admission from a former confederate informing us of what we all already knew, the South left to preserve slavery. Yet we are also told that post-war southerners are part of the "lost cause" and should not be listened to. Unless, of course, it is Mosby who was telling certain historians what they wanted to hear. Highlighting one statement made after the war by a southerner turned Republican trying to gain favor does not negate the factual purposes of southern secession.

Another argument used is not historical but rather philosophical. The argument is that the South could not care for freedom since they denied that freedom to others. However, this at most shows inconsistency in how they apply liberty. It also seems to assume the South left to preserve slavery. 

In response, the South said that its citizens had more rights and were allowed more freedom than the North. The majority of states in the North did not allow individuals the freedom to own or buy human property as the "slave optional"[6] states did. All men were created equal; southerners had rights like anyone to own their property, including slaves. This is also why African-Americans, Native Americans, Jews, and others had equal rights to own slaves in the South. States had maintained legal slavery since before the Union was created. The world had accepted slavery for thousands of years. African slaves had no rights in Africa when they were enslaved.

Slavery also offered the owner freedom of another sort that we will discuss later. During an interview with historynet.com over his latest book on Lincoln, distinguished historian Eric Foner said, "To most white Southerners, owning a slave was not a contradiction to the idea of freedom, indeed rather the opposite, owning slaves made a person more free, it and enabled you to achieve the economic independence that all Americans thought was very important to freedom." 

States' Rights were just to protect Slavery

"The doctrine of States’ rights was never a mere pretense for slavery, but reflected a deep passion for self-government rooted in Southern culture as well as an earnest understanding of the Constitution rooted in Southern history."

-James Rutledge Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters; The Constitutional Doctrine of States Rights in the Old South Shotwell Publishing Columbia SC 2018

The claim that states' rights were just an excuse to preserve slavery is a common one. This claim was covered earlier, but additional information is needed since it is repeated so often. State's rights were vital to our Union, self-government, and our whole political system. Therefore, the next chapter also will be dedicated to this topic, and after reading it, this objection should dissipate. 

As with the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution did not allow the central Government to abolish slavery. If the South had left to preserve slavery alone, why did they also add additional powers to the states? If states' rights were to protect slavery, and slavery was protected, why the need for an even more decentralized Constitution? If the intention was to protect slavery, then the United States Constitution would have sufficed, and there would have been no need to create a document ensuring more vital states' rights.

When the Confederate government overreached into state matters on non-slavery issues during the civil war, states resisted it. This resulted in states like Georgia threatening to secede. After slavery had ended in the United States, the South still maintained the most robust states' rights philosophy in the country. 

The first state's rights advocates in the U.S., many of whom spoke out against slavery, were Southern men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, St. George Tucker, George Mason, Patrick Henry, John Taylor of Caroline, and John Randolph. Patrick Henry called slavery "a lamentable evil,"but then said, "I deny that the general government ought to set them free." George Mason said, "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant." John Taylor of Caroline said, "The fact is that negro slavery is an evil which the United States must look in the face." 

 States' rights were also crucial to northern states before the civil war. There were Democrats in the North who were both for states' rights and against slavery. These two came together in the northern states' nullification of the fugitive slave laws. During the Civil War, Republicans wished to institute national banking, and many northern Democrats objected. Lazarus Powell stated, "The result of this course of legislation is to utterly destroy all the rights of the States. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here." No matter the issue, states had pushed back against federal overreach; slavery was simply one more area where the federal was intruding on the states' rights in 1860.

Preserving slavery was far from the primary goal of secessionists. During the war, Southern General Patrick Cleburne wanted to free all the slaves. Near the end of the war, Jefferson Davis sent diplomats to France and Britain, offering to end slavery if they would recognize the Confederacy.  Some Northern generals, like General George Thomas, were wealthy slave owners who fought for the North despite saying during the war, "I am wholly sick of states' rights." State's rights did not equal slavery. This misunderstanding comes from a post-war nationalistic approach to antebellum America. The next chapter will detail states' rights before the Civil War to help us understand why they were considered vital to self-government and the Union. 

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]           See George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864

[2]           For more info, see Jeb Stuart; The Last Cavalier by Burke Davis.

[3]           See "Man Over Money" the Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism by Bruce Palmer.

[4]           De Lagnel was appointed Brigadier General in the Confederate forces but for unknown reasons declined the rank, eventually rising to Lieutenant Colonel.

[5]           A party that has not changed in its modern form.

[6]           As the Kennedy’s described them.

Anne of Cleves – The Survivor Wife of King Henry VIII

Because she played her cards right, Anne of Cleves, as the fourth wife of King Henry VIII of England, managed to escape the wrath he inflicted on two of his previous wives and lived a privileged life on good terms with the king after their separation.

C. M. Schmidlkofer explains.

Anne of Cleves. Painitng by Barthel Bruyn the Younger.

It seems unfair that Anne of Cleves, the fourth wife of King Henry VIII, is known throughout history as the “ugly” wife (out of the six total he had) when in reality, it was her wit and intellect that makes her remarkable.

Born in Dusseldorf in 1515, Anne of Cleves was the daughter of Maria of Julich-Berg and Johan III, Duke of Cleves. Her marriage to Henry in Jan. 6, 1540, right from the start was fraught with disappointment and misunderstanding.

First, at the tender age of 24, she was invited to become Henry’s fourth bride based on a painting the king commissioned of her countenance which he later said looked nothing like her. But that came a bit later.

The marriage was a political arrangement fostered by Henry’s “fixer,” Chief Minister Thomas Cromwell who sought to temper the power plays of Spain and France while boosting Protestant influence with the union.

First meeting

The first meeting between the king and his bride was a massive fail, as Anne rejected Henry’s surprise meeting wearing a disguise and the relationship went downhill from there.

The complaints began in earnest then as the king complained she did not look like the commissioned portrait.

He called her a “Flanders Mare,” said she smelled, and reportedly refused to have marital sex with her.

Anne was a fish out of water in Tudor Court. Her upbringing did not include dancing and music, the heart of Tudor life, but was focused on learning duties of a noblewoman she was expected to become along with household skills.

In an attempt to integrate herself into life with Henry, perhaps nervous over what lay ahead, she had the foresight to socialize with her English travelers to learn customs and social skills as well as learning the king’s favorite card games during her voyage to meet him.

There is little known about Anne’s feelings about the marriage but she was keenly aware that two of Henry’s first three wives were either banished or beheaded and that the purpose of any union was to produce a male heir for the king.

And although Henry had his coveted son through his third wife, Jane Seymour, who died shortly after giving birth, he was forging ahead with the fourth marriage to secure another.

End of marriage

Seven months after his marriage to Anne, who served as queen consort, Henry notified his bride their marriage was to be annulled three days hence. His reasoning was the marriage was never consummated and for good measure threw in questions about Anne’s relationship years ago with her brief engagement to Francis the Duke of Bar in 1527.

Wisely, Anne knew that arguing or pleading to continue the marriage would not be successful and instead fully cooperated with the king’s wishes. Certainly, she had nothing to lose and as it turned out she gained beautifully.

Henry, possibly relieved over Anne’s cooperation, awarded her with a generous settlement, granted her the title of “the King’s Sister” as long as she remained in England and bestowed upon her large tracts of properties, such as Hever Castle – the former childhood home of Henry’s second wife, Anne Boleyn, whom he had beheaded in 1536.

Unlike Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who resisted the king’s demand for annulment on religious grounds, ending up banished from court until her death in 1536, Anne was allowed to keep her jewels, her metal plate and her dresses, and received a generous annual stipend along with revenue from other properties.

She willingly turned over her wedding ring to Henry, asking that it be destroyed “as a thing which she knew of no force or value.”

Henry seemed to value Anne’s counsel after their separation and continued a cordial relationship with her until he died in 1547.

Later years

At that point Anne lost her title of the “King’s Sister” and she moved away from court, leading a quiet life until Mary I, Henry’s daughter with his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and Anne’s stepdaughter, took the throne in 1553. Anne briefly came under suspicion when a plot to depose the queen and place Elizabeth I on the throne was investigated because Anne also had a close relationship with Elizabeth I, the daughter of the king and Anne Boleyn.

She escaped a charge of treason and remained cordial with Mary I until her death in 1557 at the age of 41 after a brief illness in Chelsea Old Manor, her home and former home of Catherine Parr, Henry’s sixth and last wife.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/sixwives/meet/ac_handbook_children.html

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-death-of-anne-of-cleves/

https://www.historytools.org/stories/anne-of-cleves-the-unwanted-queen-who-survived-and-thrived

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/henry-viii-and-anne-of-cleves/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anne-of-Cleves-queen-of-England

Operation Frankton: The Most Daring Raid of World War 2

Operation Frankton was a covert military operation carried out by the Royal Marines during the Second World War and was one of the most audacious and daring raids in military history. The raid was executed in December 1942 and targeted the German-occupied French port of Bordeaux, a crucial hub for the Axis powers, which facilitated the movement of supplies critical to the German war effort. The operation, led by a small group of commandos, was remarkable not only for its boldness but also for its significant impact on the war effort. Delving into the main reasons behind the mission, the key figures involved, and the importance of the operation, it is also possible to lightly explore the separately planned parallel mission by the Special Operations Executive (SOE) against the same targets.

Terry Bailey explains.

Tannenfels, a German blockade runner which was sunk.

The Strategic Importance of Bordeaux

Bordeaux, located in southwest France along the Garonne River, was a vital port for the Axis powers during the Second World War. Following the fall of France in 1940, the German military took control of the port and used it to facilitate the movement of supplies utilizing blockade runners. The port was especially important for the transit of rubber, which was essential for manufacturing tires and other military equipment. The loss of Bordeaux would disrupt the supply lines and put a significant strain on the German war machine, making it a prime target for Allied forces.

The British Admiralty recognized the strategic value of targeting Bordeaux early in the war. However, conventional bombing raids were deemed too risky to the civilian population and ineffective due to the heavy defenses surrounding the port. The need for a more unconventional approach led to the conception of Operation Frankton, a mission designed to strike at the heart of the German supply chain with minimal resources.

The Planning of Operation Frankton

The idea for Operation Frankton was conceived by Major Herbert "Blondie" Hasler, a Royal Marines officer with a background in unconventional warfare and small boats. Hasler, who had previously served as a fleet landing officer in Scapa Flow, was then sent to Narvik in support of the French Foreign Legion in the Norwegian campaign, for which duties he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), mentioned in dispatches, and awarded the French Croix de Guerre.

He was known for his innovative thinking and determination and believed that a small, highly trained team could infiltrate the heavily guarded port using kayaks, plant explosive charges on the ships, and escape undetected. The operation would rely on stealth, surprise, and the ability to navigate the treacherous waters of the Gironde estuary.

Hasler's plan was initially met with skepticism by some members of the Admiralty, who viewed it as too risky and unlikely to succeed. However, Hasler's persistence, coupled with the lack of viable alternatives, eventually won over his superiors. The operation was given the green light, and Hasler was put in charge of selecting and training the men who would carry out the raid.

The men Hasler recruited became part of the Royal Marine Boom Patrol Detachment which was part of combined operations. The group who carried out the raid consisted of 13 Royal Marines, including Hasler himself, 6 two-man teams plus one reserve. The men were chosen for their physical fitness, mental toughness, and ability to operate under extreme conditions. They underwent rigorous training in kayaking, explosives, and navigation, practicing initially in the waters in southern England, and eventually in the cold and treacherous waters off the coast of Scotland.

The operation was set to take place in December 1942, during the winter, when the long nights would provide the cover of darkness needed for the raid. The men would use specially designed folding kayaks, nicknamed "cockles," to navigate the Gironde estuary and reach the port of Bordeaux. Once there, they would attach limpet mines to the hulls of the German blockade-running ships and then attempt to escape through France to Spain, with the help of the French Resistance.

The Execution of the Raid

The operation began on the night of the 7th of December, 1942, when Royal Navy submarine HMS Tuna sailed from Holy Loch in Scotland with the six kayaks and raiders on board, where the men were dropped off the coast of France, near the mouth of the Gironde estuary. The plan was for the men to paddle their kayaks up the estuary, cover a distance of around 70 miles, and reach the port of Bordeaux within four nights.

The hull of Cachalot was damaged while being passed out of the submarine hatch, leaving just five kayaks to start the raid. The reserve member of the team, Colley, was not needed, so he remained aboard the submarine with the Cachalot crew Ellery and Fisher.

The first night of the mission was fraught with difficulties. The strong currents and freezing temperatures took a toll on the men, fighting against strong cross tides and cross winds, Coalfish became separated. The remaining kayaks then encountered 5 ft (1.5 m) high waves and Conger capsized and had to be scuttled, once it became apparent that it would not be possible to bail it out, Sheard and Moffatt held on to two of the remaining kayaks, which carried them as close to the shore as possible, then had to swim for it, the remaining kayaks then came across the separated Coalfish.

As the conditions deteriorated Mackinnon and Conway in Cuttlefish became separated from the other kayaks in the group. After reaching the shore, MacKinnon and Conway evaded capture for four days but were betrayed and arrested by the Gendarmerie and handed over to the Germans at La Reole hospital 30 miles southeast of Bordeaux, while attempting to make their way to the Spanish border.

The 3 remaining kayaks, Catfish, Crayfish and Coalfish, covered 20 miles in five hours landed near St Vivien du Medoc, and laid up through the day, however, while resting during the day and unknown to the others, Wallace and Ewart in Coalfish had been captured at daybreak near the Pointe de Grave lighthouse where they had come ashore, now they were only 2.

The second night, 8/9 December, the two remaining kayaks Catfish and Crayfish paddled a further 22 miles in six hours. On the third night, 9/10 December, they paddled 15 miles and on the fourth night, 10/11 December, because of the strong ebb tide they only managed to cover 9 miles.

Hasler's original plan was for the raid to be carried out on the 10th of December, but now Hasler had to change his plan, due to the strength of the ebb tide they still had a short distance to paddle, so the remaining commandos laid up for another day, setting off to and reach Bordeaux on the night of 11/12 December.

On the night of the 11th of December, 1942, after four grueling nights of paddling, avoiding German patrols, the surviving commandos reached the port of Bordeaux. The men split into two teams, with Hasler and Marine Bill Sparks in the kayak Catfish taking one side of the port and Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in the kayak Crayfish taking the other side of the port. Using limpet mines, the teams successfully attached explosives to the hulls of six German ships. The explosives were set to detonate in the early hours of the morning, ensuring the commandos had time to extract themselves from the immediate area.

The raiders then made their escape, splitting up into pairs and heading in different directions to avoid capture. Hasler and Sparks managed to make contact with the French Resistance and began their journey south towards Spain. Laver and Ellery, however, were not as fortunate. They were captured by the Germans a few days later and executed, as part of Hitler's infamous commando order. Hasler and Sparks, after a harrowing journey through occupied France, eventually reached Spain and were repatriated to the United Kingdom via Gibraltar in April 1943.

The Aftermath and Impact of Operation Frankton

Operation Frankton was a tactical success, with 2 ships sunk, 2 ships several damaged and a further 2 ships slightly damaged. The damage to the ships and the resulting disruption to German supply lines had a significant impact on the war effort. The raid also had a profound psychological effect, demonstrating that even heavily guarded ports were vulnerable to small, highly trained commando units.

However, the mission came at a high cost. Of the 10 men who set out on the raid, only 2 survived, Hasler and Bill Sparks, 6 were captured and executed by the Germans, while 2 were lost at sea. Despite these losses, the bravery and determination of the Royal Marines became a symbol of courage and ingenuity.

Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, later praised the operation, stating that it shortened the war by six months. While this claim is difficult to verify, there is no doubt that Operation Frankton had a significant impact on the course of the war, both strategically and symbolically. The Germans defined the raid as the most daring raid of the Second World War.

The Parallel Mission by the Special Operations Executive (SOE)

While Operation Frankton is the most well-known raid on Bordeaux, it is important to note that the SOE had also planned a 2 part parallel mission against the same targets. The SOE, a British organization responsible for conducting espionage, and sabotage in occupied Europe, recognized the importance of disrupting German supply lines in Bordeaux.

A team led by Claude de Baissac of the Special Operations Executive were preparing to take explosives onto the ships when he heard the explosions of Hasler's limpet mines. The loss of the opportunity for Hasler and de Baissac to work together to strike a harder blow against the Germans was a hard lesson.

The other aspect of the SOE's plan was codenamed "Operation Josephine B," which involved a sabotage mission aimed at destroying the electricity supply to the port of Bordeaux. The mission was to be carried out by a team of SOE and French resistance, who would infiltrate the power station and plant explosives to disable the facility. The objective was to cut off electricity to the port, rendering the German ships and facilities inoperable.

Operation Josephine B was planned to take place around the same time as Operation Frankton, this aspect of the SOE mission was delayed due to difficulties in securing the necessary explosives and logistical support. By the time the mission was ready to go ahead, Operation Frankton had already been executed.

Despite the delay, Operation Josephine B was eventually carried out in June 1943, and the power station was successfully sabotaged. The mission achieved its objective, but the impact was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the ships in the port had already been severely damaged by Operation Frankton. The SOE's mission, while important, is often overshadowed by the daring and dramatic nature of the Royal Marines' raid.

The SOE was aware of the Royal Marines' mission, but the Royal Marines were unaware of the SOE mission due to SOE's secrecy policy. However, after Operation Frankton a clearing and controlling house was set up that would coordinate all special operations in the future ensuring that missions did not clash, this process is still in place today.

In conclusion, Operation Frankton stands as a testament to the courage, ingenuity, and determination of the Royal Marines during the Second World War. The raid on Bordeaux, carried out by a small team of commandos using unconventional methods, dealt a significant blow to the German war effort and demonstrated the vulnerability of even the most heavily defended targets.

The operation also highlighted the importance of coordinated efforts in warfare, as the separately planned SOE mission against the same targets showed. While both missions were successful in their own right, the lack of coordination between these missions is a reminder of the challenges faced by Allied forces in executing complex operations during the Second World War and the loss of a greater blow to the Germans.

The legacy of Operation Frankton lives on, not only in military history but also in the broader narrative of the Second World War. The bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Marines continue to inspire generations of military personnel and serve as a powerful example of what can be achieved through courage, ingenuity, and determination in the face of overwhelming odds.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

The Bordeaux raiding team consisted of:

A Division

Blondie Hasler and Marine Bill Sparks in kayak Catfish.

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in kayak Crayfish.

Corporal George Sheard and Marine David Moffatt in kayak Conger.

B Division

Lieutenant John Mackinnon and Marine James Conway in kayak Cuttlefish.

Sergeant Samuel Wallace and Marine Robert Ewart in kayak Coalfish.

Marine W. A. Ellery and Marine E. Fisher in kayak Cachalot.

A thirteenth man was taken as a reserve, Marine Norman Colley.

Blockade runner

A blockade runner is a light fast merchant vessel used to evade a naval blockade of a port or strait. In addition to, speed it uses stealth, blockade runners transport cargo, such as food or arms to a blockaded city.

The Special Boat Service

The Special Boat Service (SBS) is a special forces unit of the United Kingdom under the control of Royal Navy admiralty and part of the Royal Marine Commando.

The SBS traces its origins back to the Second World War when the Army Special Boat Section was formed in 1940 as a sub-unit of the Special Air Service, (SAS). However, after the Second World War, the Royal Navy through the Royal Marines commando formed the SBS special forces, initially as the Special Boat Company in 1951 then re-designated as the Special Boat Squadron in 1974—until on the 28th of July, 1987 the unit was formally renamed as the Special Boat Service, bringing it inline from a naming point of view with the army special forces unit the Special Air Service, (SAS), warranting the SBS its own budget.

The reformation of the SBS after the Second World War as part of the Royal Marine Commandos is in part due to Operation Frankton by the Royal Marine Boom Patrol Detachment (RMBPD).

Words of Lord Mountbatten, the commander of Combined Operations

Mountbatten's words are carved into a stone at the Royal Marine Commando base in Poole, Dorset, (the current headquarters of the SBS).

"Of the many brave and dashing raids carried out by the men of Combined Operations Command none was more courageous or imaginative than Operation Frankton".

Point of interest:

The reader may be interested to know that the author of this article personally met and knew both Blondie Hasler and Bill Sparks in the early 1980s.

Herbert George "Blondie" Hasler, DSO, OBE

Herbert George "Blondie" Hasler, DSO, OBE (27 February 1914 – 5 May 1987) served as an officer in the Royal Marines and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

He was recommended for the Victoria Cross, for Operation Frankton, however, he was not eligible as his actions were not "in the face of the enemy" as required for that decoration.

William, (Bill), Edward Sparks DSM

William, (Bill), Edward Sparks DSM (5 September 1922 – 1 December 2002) was a British Royal Marine Commando in the Second World War.

He volunteered for hazardous service as a way of avenging his brother Benny who had died on the cruiser HMS Naiad.

One of his three sons Terry Sparks, became a Captain in the Royal Marine Commandos

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills

Corporal Albert Laver and Marine William Mills in the kayak Crayfish were also recommended for the DSM which at the time could not be awarded posthumously, so instead were mentioned in dispatches.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement: The Agreement that Haunts the Modern Middle East

During the First World War, the Triple Entente was faced with the very real prospect of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Eager to secure their interests in the Middle East, the British and the French drew up the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region in the case of victory against the Central Powers. Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never enacted, it set the framework for the Middle East’s current borders and the name Sykes-Picot has since become synonymous to many with an era of colonial misrule.

Holly Farrell explains.

Sir Mark Sykes.

Francois Georges-Picot.

During the First World War, the Triple Entente was faced with the very real prospect of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Eager to secure their interests in the Middle East, the British and the French drew up the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide the region in the case of victory against the Central Powers. Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never enacted, it set the framework for the Middle East’s current borders and the name Sykes-Picot has since become synonymous to many with an era of colonial misrule.

Holly Farrell explains.

‘The Sick Man of Europe’: Why did the Allies anticipate the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire?

By the turn of the 20th century the Ottoman Empire, which controlled areas across North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, was struggling both economically and militaristically. The Ottomans became unable to maintain such an extensive bureaucracy and a vast decentralized political structure. Although reforms attempted to modernize the Empire, these measures were of short-lived success and contributed to a growing debt crisis in the late 19th century. The Ottoman Empire also lost many territories in the decades preceding the First World War. France gained control of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881, Italy took Libya in 1911, and Britain took control of Oman in 1861, the Arabian Gulf Chiefdoms in 1820, Kuwait in 1899, Egypt in 1882 and Sudan in 1899. In October 1914 the Ottoman Empire joined the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, hoping to confront Britain and France, and benefit from German aid.

Drawing up the Sykes-Picot Agreement

Negotiations between the Entente Powers of Britain, France, and Russia for the division of Ottoman territories began in November 1915. They were initially between Mark Sykes, a scholar and guard in the British military during the Boer War, and Francois Georges-Picot, a lawyer-turned-delegate for the French government. However, the eventual agreement was also up to the assent of Russia. All three powers aimed to secure territory, trade routes, and oil wealth, but also had their own ambitions for particular areas. Russia hoped to gain ports in the Dardanelles, including Constantinople, to access trade routes to the Black Sea. Britain wanted to control Palestine due to its proximity with the Suez Canal, and secure access to India through the Persian Gulf. France, meanwhile, was the largest investor in the Ottoman Empire and sought to maintain their influence in the region to protect their investments.

The Entente Powers had already given Constantinople and its surroundings areas to Russia as part of the Constantinople Agreement in March 1915. This crucially granted Russia access to the Mediterranean Sea. Meanwhile, the Sykes-Picot Agreement sought to coordinate Britain and France’s interests in the region. On May 16 1916 a deal was secretly signed between Sykes and Picot and approved by Russian foreign minister, Sergey Sazonov.

Under the terms of the agreement, France was allocated control of Syria, Lebanon, Cilicia, and Mosul, whilst Britain was allocated Baghdad and Basra and northern Palestine (this included the ports of Haifa and Acre, and modern-day Jordan). However, as shown on the map below, these territories were divided into spheres of control and those of ‘influence’. It was decided that Palestine would be put under international administration due to its holy sites. Independent states would be created in the remaining Arab territories.

Britain’s contradictory promises: Sykes-Picot, the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, and the Balfour Declaration

Whilst Britain, France and Russia appeared to have settled their vision for the post-war Middle East, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was threatened by two additional contradictory agreements which Britain had made with the Arab nationalist and Zionist movements.

In July 1915, several months prior to the beginning of Sykes’ and Picot’s negotiations, Hussein bin Ali (Arab nationalist leader and Sharif of Mecca) wrote to Henry McMahon (the British High Commissioner in Egypt) to request British support for an independent Arab state. McMahon was initially reluctant to collaborate with Hussein, believing his territorial ambitions to be ‘extravagant’, however he was eventually persuaded to offer his support. When McMahon replied to Hussein, British and French troops were suffering defeats by Turkish forces in the Gallipoli campaign. McMahon believed that an Arab uprising would distract and weaken Ottoman forces in the region, enabling the Entente troops to make a tactical withdrawal. Consequently, Britain saw an advantage in working with Hussein. Over the course of ten letters between July 1915 and March 1916 (referred to as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence) Hussein and McMahon negotiated a plan of British support for an independent Arab state if the Arab nationalists launched a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. However, the British excluded three areas from the independent state as they claimed they were not ‘Arab enough’. This affected the provinces of Basra and Baghdad, the Turkish districts of Alexandretta and Merson, and the districts of Syria that lay west of Damascus, Homs, Aleppo and Merson. The nationalist uprising began in June 1916 and, although the Entente provided limited manpower, they provided officers, gold, and munitions to support the war against the Ottomans. However, the Hussein-McMahon correspondence lacked the formality of a treaty and its contradiction with Britain’s plans under Sykes-Picot ultimately made it an empty promise.

However, Britain’s conflicting plans for the Middle East did not end here. On November 2 1917 the British government issued an arrangement for Palestine in the Balfour Declaration. In a letter to prominent Zionist Lord Rothschild, the British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour outlined Britain’s promise to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This support was later publicized. However, the question of why the British government issued this declaration has still gone unanswered. Whilst some historians have argued that many members of the British government had Zionist sympathies, others have suggested that antisemitism increased support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Alternatively, it has been argued that Britain was trying to gain the support of Jews across the world, particularly in the US, who the British hoped would take a more active role in the war. However, this declaration was a bitter betrayal for the Arabs.

Despite initially being kept secret, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was eventually publicized by the Bolsheviks in late November 1917 following the Russian Revolution. Leon Trotsky published the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Izvestia newspaper on November 24 1917 to expose the plans which Vladimir Lenin called ‘the agreement of the colonial thieves’. This caused a political scandal for Britain and France and created a strong mistrust between the Entente and Arab nationalists. The British assured their allies in the Middle East that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was merely discussion amongst the Entente powers and that they would stand by the Arab people.

The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, Entente forces (mainly the British) occupied the former Ottoman territories. Whilst the original division of land planned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not materialize during peace negotiations, the borders of the newly created states were similar to those agreed upon in 1916. This was determined in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

Before signing the Treaty of Sèvres, the former Entente powers met at the Conference of San Remo in April 1920 to determine the division of the Ottoman Empire’s territories. Under article 22 of the newly created League of Nations, certain former colonies were classed as ‘mandates’ (ranging from A to C depending on perceived levels of development) if they were deemed unable to govern themselves independently. The former Ottoman territories became Class A mandates, meaning that they had ‘reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such a time as they are able to stand alone’ (as stated in Article 22). As a result, the newly created states in the Middle East became British and French mandates rather than colonies.

Under the Treaty of Sèvres:

·       The Ottoman Empire was dismantled

·       Turkey had to relinquish claims to territories in North Africa and the Middle East

·       Greece gained Smyrna (now called İzmir), Adrianople (now called Edirne), most of the hinterland to Constantinople and the Aegean islands commanding the Dardanelles

·       Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine became British mandates

·       Lebanon and Syria became French mandates

·       Morocco and Tunisia became French protectorates

·       Hejaz became an independent kingdom (it would later unite with Najd and other districts in 1932 to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)

·       Armenian independence was recognized

·       The League of Nations controlled the Turkish straits

·       British, French, Italian and Greek troops occupied Turkey

·       The Turkish army could have a maximum of 50,700 men, it was forbidden to have an air force, and the navy could have a maximum of thirteen boats

·       The Allies were to control Turkish finances

The Treaty of Sèvres was resented in Turkey and popular discontent fueled an uprising against Sultan Mehmed VI. The new nationalist government under Kemal Atatürk drove the Greek and British troops out of Turkey and repudiated the Treaty of Sèvres. Consequently, the Allies agreed to renegotiate the settlement and signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Under the Treaty of Lausanne:

·       All the territories given to Greece were returned to Turkey

·       All foreign troops were ordered to leave Turkey

·       Turkey regained control of the Straits, but they had to remain demilitarized

·       Turkey was recognized as the successor to the Ottoman Empire

·       The Allies no longer imposed controls over Turkey’s finances or military

·       The Allies dropped demands for autonomy for Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia

The Legacies of Sykes-Picot and the post-WW1 settlement in the Middle East

Although the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never implemented, it set the framework for the modern-day frontiers of the Middle East. This has created a lasting resentment in the region, especially amongst Pan-Arabists who oppose the division of majority Arab-populated territories into separate states and associate Sykes-Picot with European colonial misrule. Sykes-Picot has since been targeted by various groups in the region, including by the so-called Islamic State who declared their intention to remove Sykes-Picot as they bulldozed the border between Iraq and Syria in 2014.

One of the most controversial aspects of the division of former Ottoman territories was the eventual fate of Palestine. As a British mandate, Britain called for the migration of Jews to Palestine, paving the way for region to be declared a Jewish state (known as Israel) once they ended their mandate in 1948. This led to the displacement of the Arab population and the ongoing conflict between Israeli and Palestinian groups.

The post-First World War settlement in the Middle East also lay the groundwork for sectarian conflict elsewhere in the region due to the limited regard for the ethnic, tribal, religious, or linguistic groups of the new states’ inhabitants. Although the British and French eventually withdrew from the region in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been hardly any change to national borders. Crucially, this has left the Kurdish population without a homeland as the Treaty of Lausanne failed to accommodate for Kurdish self-determination.

As sectarian conflict continues in the Middle East, the question remains as to whether the national borders created by the Treaty of Sèvres can survive into the future, or if all traces of Sykes-Picot need to be removed to ensure peace in the region.

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

References:

Al Jazeera. ‘A Century on: Why Arabs Resent Sykes-Picot’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/sykes-picot-100-years-middle-east-map/index.html.

Al Tahhan, Zena . ‘More than a Century on: The Balfour Declaration Explained’. Al Jazeera, 2 November 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/11/2/more-than-a-century-on-the-balfour-declaration-explained.

Britannica. ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement.

Britannica. ‘Treaty of Lausanne’, 17 July 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Lausanne-1923.

Britannica. ‘Why Was the Ottoman Empire Called “the Sick Man of Europe”? ’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://www.britannica.com/question/Why-was-the-Ottoman-Empire-called-the-sick-man-of-Europe.

Kearey, Kat. International Relations and Global Conflict C1890-1941. Oxford AQA History Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Muir , Jim. ‘Sykes-Picot: The Map That Spawned a Century of Resentment’. BBC News, 16 May 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36300224.

Oxford Reference. ‘Sykes–Picot Agreement’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100546581.

Oxford Reference. ‘Treaty of Sèvres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100457377.

Rabinovich, Itamar, Robbie Sabel, and Oded Eran. ‘A Century since the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Current Challenges’. Institute for National Security Studies, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep08741.

The Avalon Project. ‘The Sykes-Picot Agreement : 1916’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp.

The Economist. ‘Unintended Consequences’, 12 May 2016. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2016/05/12/unintended-consequences.

‘The Treaty of Sevres’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://historylearning.com/modern-world-history/treaty-of-sevres/.

United Nations Digital Library. ‘Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations’. Accessed 28 August 2024. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/829695.

Young, George. ‘Deceit in the Desert: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire’. Hohonu 17 (2019): 37–40. https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/DeceitintheDesertThePartitionoftheOttomanEmpire.pdf.

The Strangest Courtrooms: Animal Trials in Medieval Europe

In the long centuries when superstition held sway and the lines between humans and animals were more fluid than a flagon of ale, a most peculiar legal practice emerged across medieval Europe - the prosecution of animals. From pigs and pigeons to rats, bulls, and even the lowliest of flies, no creature was exempt from facing judicial scrutiny for alleged crimes against man or God. This bizarre legal tradition spanned over five centuries, indicting and often executing animals found guilty of trespassing, property destruction, or perpetrating violence against humans.

Richard Clements explains.

Trial of a sow and pigs at Lavegny.

The Rationale Behind the Madness

The notion of arraigning a barn swallow or bovine may seem utterly ludicrous today, but to medieval minds steeped in religious doctrine and folklore, it was a perfectly reasonable concept. The theological underpinning was that animals, having been granted a place in Biblical scripture and the Christian faith through stories like Noah's Ark, possessed souls and a degree of moral agency. As such, they could be held accountable for their misdeeds just like humans were.

Furthermore, canon law, which governed religious jurisdictions at the time, made little distinction between human and animal personhood. This blurring of boundaries, combined with widespread beliefs in sorcery, evil spirits taking animal form, and anthropomorphic folklore from Aesop's fables to Reynard the Fox, set the stage for animal prosecutions to take root across medieval society.

Farcical Yet Grim Proceedings

Despite their inherent absurdity, these trials followed strict court protocols with a sadistic kind of rigour. Animals were afforded legal counsel, permitted to testify in their own defence (through interpreters, of course!), and endured the same torturous punishments as convicted human criminals if found guilty.

One particularly infamous example of these trials is depicted in the 1995 film, "The Hour of the Pig," which dramatizes the trial of a pig accused of murder in 15th-century France. While the film offers a dramatic interpretation, it highlights the bizarre reality of these proceedings.

Less extreme but no less farcical was the 1519 case of a group of canine delinquents indicted in the Swiss municipality of Basing for persistently disrupting church services with their barking and unpriestly habit of nipping at parishioners' legs. Found guilty of "blasphemous barking" and "unchristian conduct," they were excommunicated from the parish, a punishment likely of little consequence to the canine culprits.

Insect Eradications and Rat Trials

Of course, easier targets for the courts were the ubiquitous pests that plagued medieval life - insects and rodents. In 1478, a plague of locusts descended upon Berry, France, like a biblical hailstorm. After ecclesiastical appeals to get them to leave went unheeded, the insects were taken to court and found guilty of an array of charges, from trespassing to violence against the citizens. An edict of banishment was ordered and carried out through ritual burnings and exorcisms, a farcical attempt to control the uncontrollable.

In 1508, the curious case of Autun, France, saw the appointment of the curiously named "Attorneys for the Defence of the Rats." These brave (or perhaps foolhardy) souls argued valiantly on behalf of their rodent clients accused of ravaging the region's grain supplies. Ultimately, the rats lost the case, and professional rat catchers were hired to round them up and execute the court's sentence of death.

Last Rites at the Gallows

No case better exemplifies the intersection of legal propriety and deranged superstition than the trial of a Rouen pig in 1386. Dressed in a jacket and trousers (one can only imagine the indignity!), the condemned sow was tried, found guilty of killing and eating a human infant, confessed through an interpreter (though the details of this confession remain shrouded in mystery), and was promptly hanged in the public square while receiving its last rites from a priestly executioner. The scene, though documented in a woodcut from the era, defies logic and leaves one shuddering at the extremes of medieval justice.

These bizarre proceedings dragged on until the 18th century, finally fading out amid the Age of Enlightenment and humanity's tentative re-embrace of reason over hysteria and dogma. While manifestly ludicrous by modern standards, the tradition of prosecuting animals serves as an eerie window into a time when logic and hysteria shared an uneasy bedfellowship.

Conclusion

Absurd, merciless, yet strangely meticulous, the practice of indicting animals placed society's extremes on full display - the coexistence of elaborate legal systems, religious fervour, superstitious fear, and utter disregard for reason. With humans now firmly at the apex of the hierarchy of consciousness, such trials are rightly resigned to history's most astonishing legal curiosities. Though the very notion defies modern secular sensibilities, for centuries it was a grim reality when animals had their judgement day in court. Their stories, however, serve as a reminder of the strange and fascinating ways humanity has grappled with the natural world and our place within it.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

Evans, E.P. "The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals." London: Heinemann, 1906.

Hyland, Paul. "Animal Trials of the Middle Ages: An Overview." The Medieval Review, 2017.

BBC News. "When Animals Were Put on Trial." Available at: www.bbc.com/news

The Guardian. "The curious history of animal trials." Available at: www.theguardian.com

Barber, Malcolm. "Superstition and the Law in Medieval Europe." European History Quarterly, 1993.

What was the 213-212 BC Siege of Syracuse?

The Siege of Syracuse (213–212 BCE) was a pivotal event during the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE), marking one of the most famous confrontations between the Roman Republic and the Kingdom of Syracuse in Sicily. This siege is notable not only for the Roman military efforts but also for the significant role that the famed Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes played in the city's defense. The strategic importance of Syracuse and the unique defensive technologies invented by Archimedes made this a defining moment in history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Hiero of Syracuse calls Archimedes to fortify the city. By Sebastiano Ricci.

The Context of the Siege

By 213 BCE, the Second Punic War was raging, and Rome was embroiled in a life-or-death struggle with the Carthaginian general Hannibal, who had invaded Italy. Syracuse, a wealthy and strategically important city-state, had been a Roman ally but shifted its allegiance to Carthage after the death of its ruler, King Hiero II. His grandson, Hieronymus, had initially taken the throne and allied Syracuse with Carthage. However, after a brief reign, Hieronymus was assassinated, leading to a power struggle and the eventual rise of a pro-Carthaginian faction within the city.

Rome, determined to bring Syracuse back into its fold, sent a large force under the command of Marcus Claudius Marcellus in 213 BCE. Marcellus' goal was to lay siege to the city, retake it for Rome, and neutralize its potential as a Carthaginian stronghold in the Mediterranean.

Archimedes, widely considered one of the greatest scientific minds of antiquity, played a crucial role in the defense of Syracuse. Although his reputation today rests largely on his contributions to mathematics and physics, during the siege, he demonstrated his genius in military engineering. According to historical accounts, most notably from the Roman historian Livy and the Greek historian Polybius, Archimedes designed a series of war machines that helped defend the city against the Roman attacks.

The Roman forces initially underestimated the difficulty of capturing Syracuse. They planned to use a combination of a naval blockade and a land assault to breach the city's formidable defenses. However, Archimedes' inventions dramatically hindered these efforts.

Archimedes' War Machines

1.   The Claw of Archimedes ("The Iron Hand"), one of the most famous of Archimedes' inventions was a massive crane-like device known as the "Claw of Archimedes" or the "Iron Hand." It was designed to defend the city against naval attacks. The Claw consisted of a long arm attached to a series of ropes and pulleys, which extended over the city walls. When Roman ships approached the city, the Claw could be lowered into the water to grasp the hull of the ship. Once securely attached, the mechanism would lift the ship out of the water and violently shake or drop it, often capsizing the vessel. This machine struck fear into the Roman sailors, as ships were unexpectedly lifted and destroyed by an invisible force.

2.   Catapults and Ballistae, Archimedes also designed advanced versions of traditional siege weapons like catapults and ballistae. These machines were used to launch massive stones and projectiles at Roman ships and troops from a great distance. What made these weapons especially effective was their accuracy and the ability to fire at varying ranges, depending on the size of the projectile. Archimedes reportedly calculated the optimal angles and trajectories for launching these missiles, maximizing their impact.

3.   The Burning Mirrors (Archimedes' Heat Ray) perhaps the most legendary of Archimedes' supposed inventions was a device designed to set Roman ships ablaze using concentrated sunlight. Ancient sources, particularly later accounts from writers like Galen and Anthemius of Tralles, describe Archimedes using large, polished bronze or copper mirrors to focus sunlight onto the sails of Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. Although this story has long been debated among historians and scientists—some suggesting it was more myth than reality—it has endured as part of the lore surrounding Archimedes' genius. Modern experiments have attempted to recreate the "heat ray" with varying degrees of success. While it is unlikely that Archimedes' mirrors were responsible for destroying entire ships, they may have played a psychological role in the defense by intimidating Roman forces, even if simply projecting concentrated sunlight onto the Roman ships.

4.   Defensive Walls and Siege Countermeasures, Beyond his more dramatic inventions, Archimedes also contributed to the reinforcement of Syracuse's defensive walls and the city's overall preparedness for siege warfare. He designed mechanisms for rapidly reinforcing weak points in the walls and designed traps that could be triggered when Roman forces attempted to scale or breach them. These countermeasures significantly delayed Roman progress and prevented the besieging army from quickly overwhelming the city's defenses.

The Roman Response and the Fall of Syracuse

Despite the effectiveness of Archimedes' war machines, the siege dragged on for two years. Marcellus and his legions were frustrated by their inability to break through the city's defenses. Over time, the Roman commander recognized that a direct assault would continue to be costly, so he shifted his tactics. He tightened the naval blockade and waited for a moment of opportunity.

In 212 BCE, that opportunity came. The Roman forces exploited a lapse in vigilance among the defenders. During a festival honoring the goddess Artemis, part of the Roman army managed to scale the city walls under cover of night and opened the gates from within. Roman soldiers poured into the city, and Syracuse fell to the invaders.

Tragically, Archimedes' life ended during the sacking of Syracuse. According to historical accounts, Marcellus had given explicit orders that the scientist was to be captured alive, likely due to his immense knowledge and the potential value he held for Rome. However, during the chaos of the city's capture, a Roman soldier encountered Archimedes, who was reportedly engrossed in a mathematical problem. When the soldier ordered Archimedes to follow him, the mathematician allegedly responded, "Do not disturb my circles," referring to the geometric figures he was drawing in the sand. The soldier, either misunderstanding or ignoring the orders, killed Archimedes on the spot.

Marcellus was reportedly dismayed upon learning of Archimedes' death, and he ensured that the scientist received full funeral honors.

Aftermath and Legacy

The fall of Syracuse was a significant victory for Rome during the Second Punic War. It removed a major ally of Carthage in the Mediterranean and secured Sicily as a Roman province. Marcellus' triumph over the city earned him the nickname "The Sword of Rome." However, the legacy of the siege is forever intertwined with the genius of Archimedes. His war machines, whether fully real or partially mythologized have captured the imagination of generations.

Archimedes' contributions to science, engineering, and mathematics continue to be studied to this day. His work in mechanics, particularly the understanding of levers and pulleys, laid the foundation for centuries of technological development. The siege of Syracuse demonstrates not only the practical applications of his genius but also the tragic loss of knowledge that sometimes accompanies war.

In the centuries following the siege, Archimedes became a symbol of the intersection between science and warfare, showing how intellect could alter the course of battle. The inventions attributed to him are part of the broader history of ancient military engineering, influencing Roman and later Byzantine defensive technologies.

In conclusion, the Siege of Syracuse stands as a testament to both the military prowess of Rome and the extraordinary intellect of Archimedes. While the Roman victory secured Syracuse and furthered their dominance in the Second Punic War, it was Archimedes' remarkable contributions to the city's defense that left an indelible mark on history.

His innovative war machines not only delayed the inevitable fall of Syracuse but also showcased the power of scientific ingenuity in warfare. The ultimate capture of Syracuse by Rome marked a turning point in the Second Punic War, weakening Carthaginian influence and securing Sicily as a critical province for the Roman Republic.

However, the siege also highlights the tragedy of war, symbolized by the death of Archimedes, one of antiquity's greatest minds. His mathematical and engineering brilliance, demonstrated during the siege, became a source of fascination for later generations, blending fact and legend.

Archimedes' inventions—whether fully realized or part of myth—illustrate the potential for scientific thought to shape the course of history.

His understanding of mechanics, optics, and physics laid the groundwork for future developments in science and engineering, while his role in the defense of Syracuse remains a symbol of how intellect can influence the outcomes of even the most formidable military struggles. Ultimately, the Siege of Syracuse serves as a reminder of the enduring legacy of Archimedes and the often bittersweet intersection of science, war, and human endeavor.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes

Sicily was originally taken from Carthaginian control during the First Punic War (264–241 BCE) and became the first province of the Roman Republic. The Kingdom of Syracuse was an allied independent region in the southeast of the island and a close ally of Rome during the long reign of King Hiero II

Point of interest:

One of the most interesting anecdotes concerning Archimedes and the King of Syracuse is the story of him running down the street naked shouting Eureka, (Greek: εὕρηκα, I have found).

Archimedes noticed while taking a bath that the level of the water in the tub rose as he got in, thus realizing that this effect could be used to determine the golden crown's volume, which was a problem the king had set him to discover if the metal worker who had made the crown was cheating the king out of gold by mixing fewer precious metals.

The water is incompressible, therefore when the crown was submerged it would displace an amount of water equal to its volume, thereby, dividing the mass of the crown by the volume of water displaced, and its density could be obtained.

Needless to say, if less precious and less dense metals had been added, the density would be lower than that of gold. This is what Archimedes discovered thus proving that silver had been mixed in with the gold and the metal worker was indeed cheating the king out of gold.

The Confederate Constitution and the U.S. Civil War

During the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate States had their constitution. Here, Jeb Smith considers the constitution. He includes consideration of Confederate state sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and anti-discrimination.

This is part 4 in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, and part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, in 1862.

"When the dogmas of a sectional party...threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established."                   

-        Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address, Richmond, Virginia, 1862 

"It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholder's reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party."

-        Robert Divine, T.H Bren, George Fredrickson, and R Williams, America Past and Present, HarperCollins, 1995

The original states that left the Union did so as separate and sovereign republics but soon entered into a confederacy.[1] Their capital was located in Montgomery, Alabama. Delegates from the seceding states joined together and formed the Confederate Constitution on March 11, 1861. The South sought to restore the Constitution as the founders originally intended it to be. 

Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, "The constitution framed by our founders is that of these confederate states." When the state legislators of Texas joined the Confederacy, they informed the crowd gathered in Austin on April 1, 1861, that "The people will see that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is copied almost entirely from the Constitution of the United States. The few changes made are admitted by all to be improvements. Let every man compare the new with the old and see for himself that we still cling to the old Constitution made by our fathers." As historian Marshall DeRosa summarized in Redeeming American Democracy, "The confederate revolution of 1861 was a reactionary revolution aimed at the restoration of an American democracy as embodied in the Constitution of 1789."

While the Confederate constitution was in many ways nearly identical to that of the old Union, the North had taught the South how a majority could eradicate constitutional liberty. Consequently, the Southern statesmen sought to prevent tyranny in their Confederacy. The Confederate Constitution differs from the United States constitution in various areas as the South sought to preserve self-government via diverse self-governing states. To accomplish this end, they strictly limited central powers. As a result, the differences between the documents can tell us about the causes that led to the Southern withdrawal. 

Confederate State Sovereignty

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. 

-        Confederate Constitution Preamble 

The creators of the southern Constitution made it clear that the states were sovereign. In the Confederacy, no one would be able to claim that authority rested with the central government as Republicans had in the old Union. The United States Constitution reads, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." the Confederate version reads, "We the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character ..." 

As sovereign confederated states, they could exercise nullification or secession to protect their citizens from federal coercion. We will discuss nullification and secession in more detail in a later chapter, but they were the two antebellum modes of dealing with the federal government when it stepped past its delegated powers. In The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote, "It was not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession, because it...was an attribute of sovereignty, and the states had reserved all which they had not delegated." The southern states that ratified the Confederate Constitution kept the right to secession in their state constitutions. For example, the Alabama state constitution reads:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

According to a well-known secession document we call The Declaration of Independence, it is an inalienable right to have a government that represents you and not a distant majority or a powerful national party. Southerners believed this was no less true in 1861.

In response to claims made by Lincoln, the Confederate Constitution also declared that the people of the states had sovereignty and not the entirety of people. Each state was separate from the others and sovereign within its jurisdiction. Decentralization, or "states' rights," allowed multiple diverse sets of governments to coexist; it preserved self-governance and benefited "we the people." Decentralization, or localism, is based on populations creating laws organically for their benefit. To get a sense of what decentralization provides, imagine your preferred political party (not just your party, but your brand of the party) winning every election at every level. Not only that, you would not have to spend time and money fighting the other party to prevent men from gaining power that you don't want them to have. You could create unified blocs of society and live with like-minded people. 

On the other hand, centralization occurs when forces far from these self-governing localities impose their ways on numerous smaller localities because of their power and influence. In such a situation, the former free individuals, over time, lose their self-governance and ability to choose from a diverse set of customs. Instead, they become tools to benefit those in power in distant lands under the increasingly conformist policy. The only people decentralization harms are the powerful bureaucrats and politicians. They seek to plunder our wealth to redistribute it to friends and interest groups and purchase a voting bloc to maintain power. 

The Southern move towards decentralization is well known and widely accepted. For example, in Redeeming American Democracy, Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa wrote, "The confederate framers placed the government firmly under the heads of the states." In The Confederate States of America, Southern historian E Merton Colter stated, "States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy." In his book Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E Lee, Michael Korda said the South's "first concern was states' rights." In Ken Burn's Civil War documentary, the narrator states, "The Confederacy was founded upon decentralization." Southern writer Lochlainn Seabrook, in his book The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, explained that the Confederacy put "emphasis on small government and states’ rights." Professor Marshall DeRosa quotes Judge Robertson of Confederate Virginia Supreme Court Case Burroughs v Peyton in 1864 as stating, "{The Confederate} Congress can have no such power over state officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states, the foundation of the Confederacy rests." 

The South removed the term "general welfare" from the preamble since Republicans used the term to claim the federal government had powers for their federally funded internal improvements. In the Confederate Constitution, the states had the right to recall powers delegated, not granted to Congress. The CSA's 10th amendment gave the state authority over the federal government. Due to the fact the states were sovereign, the Confederacy never even organized a supreme court.[2] When discussion in the South arose over a supreme court, William Yancy of Alabama said, "When we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this court, we have sapped the main pillars of this confederacy." In The State Courts and the Confederate Constitution Journal of Southern History, J G DeRoulhac Hamilton wrote, "The fear of centralizing tendencies, past experiences under the federal supreme court, and a desire to protect states' rights led to the failure to establish a confederate supreme court." 

Further, the states, not Congress, had the power to amend the Constitution, and a state convention could occur to modify the Constitution without federal involvement. Just three states were needed to call a convention, so a minority section, as the South had been under the old Union, could prevent bullying by concentration of power within the Confederacy. 

The state officials elected senators to represent their states and appointed them to protect against federal officials, they were truly representing their states. They were not just another number to be counted in national party voting wars.[3] Confederate officials working in a state were subject to impeachment by that state. Even the country's capital would not be permanent but move from state to state to avoid centralizing power. 

There were no political parties within the Confederacy. Instead of power being handed over to bureaucrats, big industry, and private interest groups, the people would maintain control. The South, in general, disliked campaigns associated with elections, and the CSA Presidents could not be reelected for this reason. In 1861, Alexander Stephens told Virginians, "One of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices—connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the Constitution, which we have adopted."[4]

Fiscal Responsibility and Anti-Discrimination

"One leading idea runs through the whole—the preservation of that time-honored Constitutional liberty which they inherited from their fathers....the rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully recognized—more fully than under the old Constitution...But all the changes—every one of them—are upon what is called the conservative side take the Constitution and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old Constitution is conservative." 

-        Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

The Confederate constitution was more libertarian economically than the U.S. version. In her article, Cash for Combat, published in the Americas Civil War magazine, Christine Kreiser wrote, "The Confederacy was founded on the proposition that the central government should stay out of its citizen's pockets." 

The federal government was extremely limited in its spending. The Constitution required fair trade, a uniform tax code, and omnibus bills to be restricted. Because subsidies and corporate bailouts were excluded, lobbyists and bureaucrats would struggle to advance their agendas. To avoid special favors for supporters and to disrupt the lifeblood of corruption and political parties, Congress would handle each bill separately to guarantee that politicians could not sneak in favors for their supporters. This would help encourage actual statesmen to represent their local communities (states) at the federal level instead of purchasing campaigning politicians working for political parties and capitalists. 

The post office had to be self-sufficient within two years of ratification. The CSA President had a line-item veto on spending, and no cost overruns were allowed on any contracts. These changes would help to hold elected officials accountable and keep them honest. Politicians would be forced to give an actual cost to a proposed bill, and if it were to exceed the price, they would be held accountable. A failed project due to cost overruns would not only devastate those who pushed for it, but would turn the voters against any future proposed endeavors. And a greater consensus was needed to pass expenditure bills in the first place.

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving an advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

-        Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21, 1861

Likewise, politicians could not steal from one section of the country and give to another; they could not set one section of people against another to plunder the despised section, and Congress could not foster any one branch of any industry over another. Speaking to the Virginia

Convention, Vice President Stephens said, "No money shall be appropriated from the common treasury for internal improvement, leaving all such matters for the local and state authorities. The tariff question is also settled." These changes would help stifle any internal hatred and anger caused by setting one section or party of the country against another. 

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.

[2]           Such was provided for in article III of the Confederate Constitution, but was never set up.

[3]           Of course this was also true of the United States at this time, the situation changing with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

[4]           For more examples of the CSA Constitution moving to decentralization, see Redeeming American Democracy Lessons From the Confederate Constitution by Professor Marshall DeRosa; The Confederate Constitution of 1861 An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism by Marshall DeRosa;; The Constitution of the Confederate States of America Explained, A Clause-by-Clause Study of the South's Magna Carta by Lochlainn Seabrook; and The Confederate States of America, 1861—1865 by E.Merton Coulter.

Bone Wars: The 19th Century’s Ruthless Competition for Dinosaur Fossils

Two paleontologists, one goal: to discover more species of dinosaurs than their opponent at all costs. The rivalry between Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope went down in history as the Bone Wars or the Great Dinosaur Rush. These names did not come from anywhere. As the conflict between paleontologists grew, a real hostility arose, which often pushed the rivals into unbecoming tricks for scientists. The ruthless fight for fossils was met with criticism from the American scientific community and fascination from the public opinion of the time. Through their persistence and determination, both scientists led to the discovery of a huge number of new species of dinosaurs, and the spectacle of their conflict made dinosaurs more popular than ever before.

Rafal Guminski explains

Othniel Charles Marsh & Edward Drinker Cope.

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope: From friends to enemies

The participants in this unusual conflict came from very different backgrounds and had many differences. Othniel Charles Marsh was born on October 29, 1831, near Lockport, New York. He was the third child of Mary Gaines Peabody and Caleb Marsh, who were struggling with poverty. As a child, he began to show an interest in fossils and extinct species, influenced by the discovery of fossils during the expansion of the Erie Canal. Growing up, Othniel was unsure what career path he wanted to take, and his choices were limited by his family's financial problems.

The uncertain fate of the young man was changed by his uncle George Peabody, a financier and philanthropist, who financed his education at Phillips Academy. After graduation, Marsh enrolled at Yale, where he became deeply interested in vertebrate paleontology and published the first scientific papers on the minerals and fossils he discovered in Nova Scotia. Marsh turned down an offer of a professorship at Yale University and traveled around Europe, where he attended lectures and met eminent specialists in his field of science.

In 1863, while at the University of Berlin, Marsh met another American, Edward Drinker Cope, who was also on a scientific tour of Europe. Cope was born on July 28, 1840. He was the son of wealthy Quakers Alfred and Hannah Cope. He had a family reputation as a child prodigy with a talent for learning. This did not please his father, who would have preferred his son to follow the family tradition of farming. Edward intended to go his own way, which led him to the Academy of Natural Sciences, where he worked part-time cataloging specimens. In January 1859, Cope, barely 19, published his first scientific paper on the research he was developing. Alfred finally realized that there was no way he could have kept his son on the farm and decided to pay for his tuition at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as tutoring in German and French. Armed with a solid educational background, Cope became a member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, which opened the way to publish the results of his research.

Cope set off on a journey through European universities and museums at a similar time to Marsh. The scientists quickly took a liking to each other. They were united by their passion and the fact that they had avoided participation in the U.S. Civil War. Their backgrounds and scientific achievements were different – ​​Cope had no formal education and therefore no academic title. He would have been a paltry figure compared to his older colleague, except that the 25-year-old Cope already had 37 scientific papers to his name, while Marsh had only two. Cope was a violent and unpredictable man. Marsh was calmer and more thoughtful. However, both were equally quarrelsome and stubborn. The Americans spent several days together in Berlin, and after leaving the city, they exchanged letters, sent each other photos, and even found fossils.

The Bone Wars: Elasmosaurus and discoveries in Black Hills

At first, there was no indication that this friendship would turn into a deadly rivalry. After returning from Europe, Marsh convinced his wealthy uncle to fund the Peabody Museum of Natural History, of which he became director. Meanwhile, Cope became a professor of zoology at Haverford College. That all changed when the two scientists met at a dig in New Jersey, where some of the first dinosaur fossils in the United States were discovered. After the official dig was over, Marsh, using the fortune his deceased uncle left him, bribed workers at the marl pits to send him all the fossils they found. Soon the friends began to attack each other in publications, but it was Marsh who dealt the critical blow. He announced that Cope’s reconstruction of the skeleton of Elasmosaurus (a genus of plesiosaurus, a marine dinosaur) had one significant flaw. The head had been placed where the tail should have been and… he was right. Thus began a fierce and not always fair competition over which paleontologist would discover more new prehistoric species and put the other to shame.

Humiliated, Cope responded by conducting excavations in Kansas and Wyoming, which Marsh considered his territory. Any pretense of camaraderie and professionalism disappeared by 1873. The western United States was of great interest to paleontologists at that time, with reports of numerous finds coming from there. Marsh and Cope also discovered many fossils, but not all could be counted as "new." Many of the fossils were previously discovered specimens that had to be properly identified and classified. In this field, Marsh was the clear leader, who placed many completely unique species of mammals in a new order of mammals, which he called Cinocerea. Outclassed in the field of excavations, Cope decided to take the fight to the arena of nomenclature and proposed his own classification of mammals, which of course rejected his rival's proposal.

Marsh had no intention of accepting Cope's classification and once again took the fight to the excavations. He saw the opportunity for discovery in the Dakota Territory in the Black Hills, where gold had been discovered, which for a paleontologist meant a great chance of accidental finds. However, the tense relations between the government and the Native Americans living in the area proved to be a serious problem. Marsh, however, was determined to get involved in the conflict. He reached an agreement with Red Cloud, the chief of Oglala Lakota, to whom he promised that in return for permission to excavate, he would share with him the profit from the sale of fossils and support the Native American cause in Washington. Marsh obtained many valuable finds. He also fulfilled his part of the agreement and after the excavations were completed in 1875, he represented the Oglala Lakota and Red Cloud's cause to the Interior Department and President Ulysses S. Grant.

Como Bluff: Final showdown of the Bone Wars

Marsh's financial independence gave him a significant advantage over his rival. He could dig wherever and whenever he wanted. He also spared no penny for people who were the first to inform him about new discoveries. This is exactly what happened in 1877 in Wyoming, where during a hike on the Como Bluff ridge, Arthur Lakes, a teacher, noticed giant bones embedded in the rock. The discoverer reported the find to Marsh, who additionally paid him to keep it a secret. The excavations at Como Bluff turned out to be very successful for Marsh. In the December issue of the American Journal of Science, the scientist described, classified and named dinosaurs known to everyone today, such as: Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and Apatosaurus.

Such huge finds could not be kept a secret and eventually Cope also got his chance to discover. A real war broke out between teams of rival paleontologists. Bribery, espionage and theft were commonplace. There were also fights and throwing rocks at each other. Cope and Marsh were so eager to defeat their opponent that they would cover up explored areas to prevent their opponent from exploring them. Less significant or damaged fossils were destroyed just to prevent them from falling into the hands of their rival.

The excavations, carried out on a massive scale and without restraint, led to financial ruin for the rivals. The scientific world, tired of their spite and mockery damaging the reputation of American paleontology, turned its back on them. However, neither money nor the scientific community stopped Marsh and Cope from continuing their rivalry, which only ended with Cope's death in 1897. Even in the face of death, Cope decided to finally prove that he was better than Marsh, so he had his brain preserved and weighed in the hope that it would be larger than his rival's. Surprisingly, Marsh did not accept the challenge. He died two years later.

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope left behind a huge scientific legacy. Although their hostile rivalry was senseless, it was also effective. Paleontologists discovered a total of 136 new species of dinosaurs including: Triceratops, Diplodocus, Camarasaurus and Coelophysis, 80 of which belong to Marsh. From the point of view of numbers, Marsh won the competition, but the contribution to the development and popularization of paleontology of both scientists is difficult to overestimate.

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

References

·       Caparas G., The Bone Wars: How a Bitter Rivalry Gave the Spotlight to Paleontology, “Modern Sciences”, https://modernsciences.org/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-gave-the-spotlight-to-paleontology/.

·       Colbert E. H., The Great Dinosaur Hunters and Their Discoveries, Dover Publications, Mineola 1984.

·       Jaffe M., The Gilded Dinosaur: The Fossil War Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh and the Rise of American Science: Three Rivers Press, New York 2000.

·       Penick J., Professor Cope vs. Professor Marsh, “American Heritage” 22 (5), 2010.

·       Shor E., The Fossil Feud Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh: Exposition Press, Detroit 1974.

·       Switek B., The Bone Wars: how a bitter rivalry drove progress in palaeontology, “Science Focus’, https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-drove-progress-in-palaeontology.

·       Wallace D.R., The Bonehunters' Revenge: Dinosaurs, Greed, and the Greatest Scientific Feud of the Gilded Age, Houghton Mifflin Books, Boston 1999.

·       Wilford, J. N., The Fossil Wars, “New York Times”, 1999, November 7.

The 1941 Battle of Cape Matapan Between Britain and Italy

The Battle of Cape Matapan, fought between March 27 and  March 29, 1941, was a pivotal naval engagement during the Second World War. Taking place off the southern coast of Greece, it marked a significant victory for the British Royal Navy against the Italian Regia Marina.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Italian Battleship Vittorio Veneto firing her guns in March 1941.

As the Second World War intensified, the Mediterranean became a critical theatre of operations for both the Axis and Allied powers. Control of the sea lanes in this region was vital for the supply lines of the British Empire and the Axis powers, particularly for Italy, which sought to dominate the eastern Mediterranean and secure its holdings in North Africa.

By early 1941, the Italian Navy had suffered several setbacks, including the British raid on Taranto in November 1940, where the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm crippled the Italian battleships Littorio, Conte di Cavour, and Caio Duilio. Despite this, the Regia Marina remained a formidable force, with superior numbers of surface ships compared to the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet.

The immediate catalyst for the Battle of Cape Matapan was the Italian desire to assert control over the eastern Mediterranean and support their forces in North Africa. Admiral Angelo Iachino, commander of the Regia Marina, was tasked with leading a significant operation to intercept British convoys bound for Greece and Crete. Unknown to the Italians, however, the British had a critical advantage: the ability to decode Italian naval communications, thanks to the work of the Bletchley Park codebreakers.

The breaking of codes by British cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park was one of the war's greatest intelligence coups. By early 1941, the British had made significant progress in deciphering German and Italian military communications. This capability allowed them to anticipate Axis movements and prepare accordingly.

In the case of Cape Matapan, Bletchley Park had intercepted and decrypted Italian naval signals, revealing the details of Admiral Iachino's planned operation. This intelligence was swiftly passed on to Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, the commander of the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet.

With this foreknowledge, Cunningham was able to plan a decisive counteraction. Cunningham, a seasoned and aggressive naval commander, quickly assembled a task force to intercept the Italians. His fleet included the battleships HMS Warspite, HMS Valiant, and HMS Barham, the aircraft carrier HMS Formidable, 7 light cruisers, and 17 destroyers. The stage was set for a confrontation that would decisively alter the naval balance in the Mediterranean.

On the 27th of March, 1941, Admiral Iachino set sail with a force that included the battleship Vittorio Veneto, 6 heavy and 2 light cruisers, in addition to, 13 destroyers. His objective was to intercept a supposed British convoy; however, the real target was an opportunity presented by the British Fleet, which had left its base in Alexandria, Egypt.

As the two fleets approached, the British launched air strikes from HMS Formidable. These attacks, though initially unsuccessful inflicted significant damage, forcing the Italians to alter their course and delay their advance. A subsequent air strike on the 28th of March scored a crucial hit on Vittorio Veneto, damaging her propellers and reducing her speed. This allowed Cunningham to close the distance.

The critical phase of the battle occurred on the night of March 28th - 29th. The Royal Navy had honed its night-fighting skills, a domain in which the Italian Navy was significantly less experienced. Using radar technology, which the Italians lacked, Cunningham's forces were able to locate and engage the Italian ships with deadly precision.

The Italian cruisers Zara, Fiume, and Pola, along with several destroyers, found themselves caught in a deadly rain of fire from the British battleships. In a matter of minutes, the British guns tore the Italian ships apart. The Pola, which had been immobilized by an earlier air strike, became an easy target and was finished off at close range. The Zara and Fiume were similarly destroyed, along with two destroyers, Alfieri and Carducci.

Admiral Iachino, realizing the hopelessness of the situation, ordered his remaining ships to retreat. The battle was a devastating defeat for the Regia Marina, with 3 heavy cruisers, and 2 destroyers sunk, in addition to, 1 Battleship and 1 destroyer damaged with over 2,300 Italian sailors killed and 1015 captured. The British, by contrast, suffered minimal losses, 3 killed, 1 aircraft lost and slight damage to 4 light cruisers.

Key Figures

Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham

On the British side, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham was the mastermind behind the victory. His aggressive tactics and willingness to engage the enemy directly, combined with the advantage of intelligence from Bletchley Park, proved decisive. Cunningham's leadership during the battle further solidified his reputation as one of the Royal Navy's most effective commanders.

Admiral Angelo Iachino

Admiral Angelo Iachino, the Italian commander, found himself outmatched despite his competent leadership and the strength of his fleet. The lack of radar and the element of surprise lost due to the deciphering of codes left him in an untenable position. His decision to withdraw the surviving ships likely prevented an even greater disaster, but the loss of so many vessels and men was a severe blow to the Regia Marina.

The Battle of Cape Matapan was a turning point in the naval war in the Mediterranean. The defeat severely weakened the Italian Navy's ability to challenge British control of the Mediterranean sea lanes. The loss of three heavy cruisers and two destroyers, combined with the psychological impact of the defeat, meant that the Regia Marina would be hesitant to engage the Royal Navy in large-scale fleet actions for the remainder of the war.

For the British, the victory at Cape Matapan bolstered morale and reaffirmed the effectiveness of their naval tactics, particularly night-fighting and the use of radar. It also demonstrated the value of intelligence in modern warfare, with the success of the codebreakers playing a crucial role in the outcome.

In the broader context of the war, the battle helped to secure the eastern Mediterranean for the Allies, ensuring the continued flow of supplies to Malta and North Africa. It also contributed to the eventual defeat of Axis forces in the region, as control of the sea allowed the Allies to launch and support offensives in North Africa, later the landing in Sicily and mainland Italy which led to the eventual expulsion of Axis forces from continental occupation.

Legacy of the Battle

The Battle of Cape Matapan is remembered as one of the numerous important Royal Navy victories of the Second World War. It showcased the importance of technological superiority, intelligence, and leadership in naval warfare. For the Italians, it was a bitter lesson in the dangers of underestimating the enemy and the necessity of modernizing naval capabilities.

In the years following the battle, the lessons learned at Cape Matapan would influence naval tactics and strategy. The importance of radar, training ships' companies in the techniques of night-fighting, and the integration of air power into naval operations became increasingly evident, shaping the future of naval warfare.

The defeat also had political ramifications in Italy, contributing to growing dissatisfaction with the war effort and the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The loss at Cape Matapan, combined with other military failures, eroded the confidence of the Italian people and military in their leadership, setting the stage for Italy's eventual capitulation in 1943.

In conclusion, the Battle of Cape Matapan was more than just a clash of fleets; it was a confrontation between two different approaches to naval warfare. The British, with their emphasis on intelligence, technology, and aggressive tactics, emerged victorious against the Italian fleet. The battle's outcome had far-reaching consequences, shaping the course of the war in the Mediterranean and reinforcing the importance of naval power in modern warfare, in particular the use of aircraft.

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

Points of interest:

Italian Admiral Iachino wrote that:-

"The battle had the consequence of limiting for some time our operational activities, not for the serious moral effect of the losses, as the British believed, but because the operation revealed our inferiority in effective aero-naval cooperation and the backwardness of our night battle technology".

Admiral Cunningham

Admiral Cunningham retired as Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, KT, GCB, OM, DSO & Two Bars.

Admiral, (at the time of the battle), Cunningham was so grateful for the code breaker's work in respect to his naval victory that a few weeks after the battle he dropped into Bletchley Park to congratulate the team of ladies responsible for providing him with the insightful intelligence that enabled him to execute such a one-sided victory.