Charles Darwin’s contribution to science stands virtually without peer.  He was a colossus in the field of evolutionary biology.  He was also a gentleman, a husband, and an invalid.   

Lyn Squire, author of Fatally Inferior (Level Best Books 2024 – Amazon US | Amazon UK), the second book in the Dunston Burnett Trilogy, fills in the gaps.

Charles Darwin with his eldest son William Darwin, circa 1842.

THE WELL-KNOWN

Everyone knows that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution stands as one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of scientific inquiry.  Darwin was a prolific writer completing more than a dozen major books in his seventy-three-year lifetime, but none as famous, revolutionary, impactful and enduring as On the Origin of Species published on November 24, 1859.

Darwin had long known how breeders improved their stock of race horses by the careful mating of their fastest animals.  This process of human selection could be seen in livestock, birds, fruits, vegetables, all designed to develop the most desired traits in each species.  Darwin wanted to know if Mother Nature had a similar mechanism.  The writings of economist Thomas Malthus provided a clue.  He argued that the innate tendency of humans to breed led to populations expanding beyond their means, necessitating a fight for survival.  Darwin had found the springboard for his monumental intellectual leap to the idea of natural selection.  Survival of the fittest!  One general law governing the evolution of all organic beings – multiply; vary; let the strongest live; let the weakest die

When it finally appeared in 1859, his theory of evolution was underpinned by a vast array of evidence.  Darwin had spent five years aboard HMS Beagle collecting specimens throughout the Galapagos archipelago, and then another twenty-three years compiling observations from around the world and conducting his own experiments before he felt his life’s work was ready for public scrutiny.   As Darwin said in his autobiography, “science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or conclusions may be drawn from them.”

 

THE NOT SO WELL-KNOWN

Many of those aware of Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of evolution may know little else about the man.  Other aspects of his life, however, shed light on his research and are of interest in their own right.  The three selected here are: the unsparing criticism of his writings; his marriage; and his chronic illness.

Criticism

Publication of On the Origin of Species caused an uproar throughout England.  Battle lines were quickly drawn between the new breed of fact-based researchers who readily embraced Darwin’s ground-breaking thesis, and the old guard of religious traditionalists with their unshakeable belief in the Bible’s account of God’s creation of man.  This was science pitted against religion in a life and death battle for the minds and souls of mankind.  Darwin was bombarded with scathing reviews in academic journals, blistering editorials in the leading newspapers and crude cartoons in the cheaper broadsheets. 

The Great Debate held in Oxford barely six months after the book’s appearance, illustrates the ugly nature of the clash between firm-in-their-belief theologians and Darwin’s band of truth-seeking scientists.  Both factions behaved in a most unbecoming manner with tasteless taunts and simian slurs from one side answered by childish name-calling and anti-church abuse from the other.  The city of dreaming spires was rocked to the core, buzzing with increasingly far-fetched accounts of the opening salvos in what, from then on, was all-out war.

Darwin, though, was a gentleman and a scholar from his time at Christ’s College, Cambridge to his later years at Down House, his home in Kent, and often chose dignified silence over open warfare in press or person.  In this he was fortunate in having Thomas Huxley, a brash but brilliant comparative anatomist, lead the charge in Darwin’s defense.  Huxley even described himself as Darwin’s “bulldog”.  After an offensive question addressed to him by Bishop Wilberforce at the Oxford debate, he famously replied with words to the effect that he, Huxley, would rather be an ape than a bishop. 

Even mild-mannered Darwin sometimes expressed his displeasure and disappointment with his academic antagonists.  St. George Mivart, a young biologist, was one such.  He thoroughly savaged Darwin’s Descent of Man in the prestigious Quarterly Review.  Worse still, he ruthlessly criticised an innocuous article on divorce by Darwin’s son.  Darwin was furious.  As it happened, Mivart was seeking membership of the famous Athenaeum Club and Darwin and his supporters, all prominent members, scuttled his election.  A petty response, it might seem, but this was an attack on his family.

 

Marriage

Darwin had a long and happy marriage.  He and his wife, Emma, were, however, first cousins.  They had a common grandfather in the person of Josiah Wedgewood.  In the nineteenth century, the offspring of marriages between such close relatives were thought to suffer loss of vigour and even infertility, their frailties then passed on to future generations, the yet-to-be-born progeny already burdened by their inheritance. 

Darwin was aware from correspondence with stock breeders throughout England that continued inbreeding of domesticated animals affected the general health and fertility of subsequent generations.  But did the same law of nature apply to humans as was commonly thought?  That was what Darwin desperately wanted to know.  It is little wonder, then, that Darwin devoted so much time and effort to studying the effects of crossbreeding and inbreeding in plants and animals, and even canvassed, albeit unsuccessfully, for the inclusion in the 1871 population census of a question on the number of children born to parents who were first cousins.  Far from being just an intriguing line of scientific inquiry, this was, for Charles Darwin, something frighteningly personal.

Sadly, the Darwins lost three of their children – Mary, Anne and little Charles – in infancy.  Death had indeed been an all-too-frequent visitor to the Darwin household, but this was not uncommon for large families in the nineteenth century, and their remaining seven children reached maturity.  Of those, three had offspring, providing the Darwins with ten grandchildren.  Their fears had proven unfounded.

 

Illness

In youth, Darwin was a vigorous, healthy man.  For the forty years of his adult existence, however, he suffered from bouts of a never-fully-diagnosed, gastro-intestinal illness.  His “accursed stomach” as he called it, caused retching, flatulence, fatigue and vomiting to the point where he was obliged to keep a commode, hidden behind a partition, in his study.  (The visitor to Down House, only an hour and a half’s journey from Central London, can view the scientist’s carefully restored study, including the partition.)

Darwin consulted several different doctors and tried every conceivable treatment, some prescribed by respected professionals, others by practitioners little better than quacks.  He tried the water therapy offered at the Water Cure Establishment at Malvern which involved him being heated by a spirit lamp and then rubbed down with cold wet towels while his feet were immersed in a cold foot bath.  Then he moved on to Dr E.W. Lane’s Moor Park hydropathic establishment which was much closer to Down House.  And after that to the Wells House hydropathic establishment in Ilkley, West Yorkshire.  At best, these treatments provided temporary relief, but whether that was a direct result of the therapies or simply the passage of time and natural recuperation is difficult to say.  Either way, his suffering continued.

His chronic illness weighed on Darwin, as attested by its frequent mention in his autobiography.  It is a measure of the man, however, that towards the end of his personal account of his life, he was able to remark, perhaps wryly, that: “Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and amusement.”

 

Other reading

The above not-so-well-known selections barely skim the surface.  If you wish to learn more about Darwin, an excellent source is the two-volume biography by Janet Browne, Voyaging and The Power of Place, published by Princeton University Press in 1995 and 2002 respectively.  You will find a more personal, fascinating and shorter account of his life in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, first published by Collins (London) in 1958. 

 

 

Lyn Squire is the author of Fatally Inferior (Level Best Books, December 2024 - Amazon US | Amazon UK), a story of revenge set against the uproar that greeted publication of On the Origin of Species. Mr. Squire’s first novel in the Dunston Burnett Trilogy, Immortalised to Death (2023), was a First Place Category Winner in the 2023 Chanticleer International Book Awards.  His next book, The Séance of Murder, scheduled for publication in 2025 will complete the trilogy.

The Medieval period, also known as the Middle Ages, began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE. This marked a significant shift in European history as centralized Roman authority collapsed, leading to a fragmentation of power among various kingdoms and tribes.

A number of events would eventually lead from the Medieval period to the Renaissance. Here, Terry Bailey considers one of those major events – the 1066 CE Battle of Stamford Bridge in England.

The Battle of Stamford Bridge, an 1870 painting by Peter Nicolai Arbo.

The period is generally characterized by feudal systems, the dominance of the Catholic Church, and the gradual development of modern European nations. The term "medieval" itself derives from the Latin medium aevum, meaning "middle age," reflecting its position between the classical antiquity of Greece and Rome and the Renaissance.

The medieval period is traditionally considered to have ended around 1500 CE, though exact dates vary depending on the region and historical interpretation. Major events contributing to its conclusion include the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, and the beginning of the Age of Exploration.

These milestones heralded the dawn of the Renaissance, a period of renewed interest in classical learning, art, and science that marked the transition to the early modern era. However, the long path of medieval history saw many battles for dominance, one such battle took place at the village of Stamford Bridge, East Riding of Yorkshire, England.

The Battle of Stamford Bridge was fought on the 25th of September, 1066 and marked one of the pivotal moments in English history. Taking place in the heart of Yorkshire, the clash saw the forces of King Harold Godwinson confront the invading army of Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, who was supported by Harold's estranged brother, Tostig Godwinson.

This fierce and dramatic encounter would bring an end to Hardrada's ambitious bid for the English throne, showcasing Harold Godwinson's strategic prowess and the resilience of his troops. However, the victory came at a significant cost, weakening Harold's army just weeks before another, more fateful confrontation awaited him at Hastings. Stamford Bridge is often regarded as the last stand of the Viking Age, marking the twilight of Norse dominance and the beginning of a transformative chapter in medieval England's history.

 

The lead-up to the clash that altered English history

The battle was born out of a complex web of succession disputes following the death of Edward the Confessor on the 5th of January, 1066. Edward had left no direct heir, leading to competing claims to the English throne. Harold Godwinson, the powerful Earl of Wessex, was crowned king, but his claim was challenged by two formidable rivals: Harald Hardrada, the King of Norway, and William, Duke of Normandy.

Harald Hardrada's claim rested on an agreement between earlier monarchs, while William asserted that Edward had promised him the throne years earlier. These disputes culminated in a multi-front crisis for Harold Godwinson, who had to defend his kingdom against invaders from both the north and the south.

In early September, Hardrada allied with Tostig Godwinson, Harold's exiled brother launched an invasion. The Norwegian fleet first sailed into the River Tees, conducted raids along the coast, then sailed up the Humber River and disembarked at Riccall on the 20th of September, 1066. Whence he defeated the northern English forces under the command of the Earls Morcar of Northumbria and Edwin of Mercia at the Battle of Fulford on the 20th of September, 1066. This victory led to the surrender and occupation of York by Hardrada's army on the 24th of September, 1066 consolidating his foothold in northern England.

 

Cultural and political considerations

The conflict was not merely a dynastic struggle; it reflected broader cultural tensions. The Anglo-Saxon aristocracy faced challenges from both the Scandinavian traditions of the Norse and the emerging feudal system of Normandy. Hardrada's invasion brought the Viking warrior ethos into direct conflict with the more centralized and militarily organized Anglo-Saxon kingdom.

Meanwhile, Harold's position was precarious. He needed to demonstrate strength to maintain loyalty among his earls while addressing the immediate Viking threat before turning to face William of Normandy. The urgency of the moment required bold decisions and rapid mobilization.

 

Commanders and strategies

Harold Godwinson:- A seasoned leader with deep ties to the English nobility, Harold understood the need for swift action. He marshalled his forces from southern England, covering nearly 190 miles in just four days—a remarkable logistical feat.

Harald Hardrada:- A legendary Norse warrior with years of experience, Hardrada's strategy relied on shock and intimidation. After the Battle of Fulford, he believed the English forces in the north were sufficiently weakened.

Tostig Godwinson:- The younger brother of Harold, Tostig sought revenge against his sibling and hoped to reclaim his earldom through an alliance with Hardrada.

 

The unfolding of the battle

On the 25th of September, 1066, Harold's forces arrived unexpectedly at Stamford Bridge, catching Hardrada and his men off guard. The Vikings, who were not in full battle readiness were split across both sides of the River Derwent. Harold's surprise attack capitalized on their disorganization.

The initial phase saw the English attacking the smaller Viking contingent on the western side of the river. According to legend, a lone Norse axeman held the bridge against Harold's forces for hours, allowing Hardrada to regroup.

Eventually, the English killed the axeman and crossed the river, by driving a spear upwards through the wooden bridge from an Anglo-Saxon warrior wading the river.

On the eastern side, Hardrada formed his warriors into a shield wall, a traditional Norse tactic designed to withstand heavy infantry attacks. Harold responded with disciplined archery and infantry maneuvers, creating gaps in the Viking line. The battle devolved into brutal hand-to-hand combat, with both sides suffering heavy losses.

 

Tactics of the opposing force

Norwegian Tactics:- Hardrada's reliance on the shield wall was a reflection of Viking battlefield doctrine, emphasizing defense and counter-attacks. However, the lack of preparation and heavy armor, due to the warm weather, weakened his forces.

English Tactics:- Harold's strategy was rooted in speed and surprise. His disciplined housecarls (professional soldiers) combined with local fyrd (militia) overwhelmed the Vikings through sustained pressure and adaptability.

 

The outcome and aftermath

The battle ended with a decisive English victory. Both Harald Hardrada and Tostig Godwinson were killed, and the Norwegian army was annihilated. Of the initial invasion force of around 10,000 men, only 24 ships were needed to carry the survivors back to Norway.

Despite his triumph, Harold's forces were severely weakened. Just days later, he received news that William of Normandy had landed on the south coast. Harold's march to Stamford Bridge and back to face William at the Battle of Hastings, (portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry), would prove too taxing for his army, leading to his ultimate defeat on the 14th of October, 1066.

In conclusion, the Battle of Stamford Bridge stands as a defining moment in English history, marking the end of Viking dominance and showcasing the resilience and tactical brilliance of Harold Godwinson. Despite his victory, the cost was immense—an exhausted army and a kingdom left vulnerable to the Norman invasion just weeks later.

This pivotal clash not only symbolizes the end of one era but also the beginning of another, as the Norman Conquest reshaped the political, cultural, and social landscape of England. Stamford Bridge remains a testament to the shifting tides of history, where triumph and tragedy are inextricably intertwined.

 

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 Bayeux Tapestry

The tapestry portrays the Battle of Hastings after the Battle of Stamford Bridge and is an extraordinary piece of medieval craftsmanship that vividly depicts the events leading up to and including the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. Measuring nearly 70 meters in length, this embroidered cloth is believed to have been commissioned by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, the half-brother of William the Conqueror.

It is widely regarded as a crucial visual source for understanding the conquest, illustrating key moments such as Harold Godwinson's oath to support William, the Battle of Hastings, and Harold's death, famously portrayed as being struck in the eye with an arrow.

The tapestry's importance lies in its role as both an artwork and a historical narrative. As a near-contemporary source, it provides a detailed account of the Norman perspective, shedding light on the military strategies, naval preparations, and feudal relationships of the time. Its scenes offer rare visual insights into 11th-century armor, weaponry, ships, and daily life. Beyond its historical value, the tapestry is a masterpiece of Romanesque art, admired for its dynamic storytelling and vivid imagery.

However, caution is warranted when interpreting the Bayeux Tapestry, as it was created by or for the Norman victors. Its narrative aligns with William's claim to the English throne and portrays Harold as an oath-breaker who usurped power. This perspective naturally reflects the biases of the conquerors, potentially downplaying or misrepresenting the Anglo-Saxon viewpoint. For instance, Harold's oath to William—central to Norman propaganda—may have been coerced or misinterpreted. Moreover, the tapestry omits other events, such as the resistance of northern England to Norman rule, which complicate the story of the conquest.

In essence, while the Bayeux Tapestry is an invaluable artefact and narrative tool, its portrayal must be critically assessed. It remains a triumph of medieval storytelling, but its role as a tool of Norman legitimacy reminds us to scrutinize historical sources for the biases associated with the producer of the source.

The Bayeux Tapestry is housed in the Musée de la Tapisserie de Bayeux (Bayeux Tapestry Museum) in the town of Bayeux, located in the Normandy region of France. The tapestry has been displayed there since the 19th century, although it has been relocated temporarily at times for preservation or exhibitions.

The museum is specially designed to preserve the nearly 70-metre-long tapestry, which is displayed in a climate-controlled setting to prevent deterioration and is one of the most visited attractions in Normandy.

The Civil War was fought by the opposing forces of the Union and the Confederacy, often referred to by their respective colors, the Blue and the Gray. Following the Battle of First Manassas, it became evident to both factions that the ability to distinguish between allies and adversaries was essential for effective military operations. This realization prompted the need for a standardized uniform that could be easily recognized at a glance. While some differentiation based on the branch of service was advantageous, the primary requirement was that the colors worn by the soldiers be immediately identifiable.

This necessity ultimately led the Union to adopt dark blue uniforms, while the Confederacy opted for light gray. However, this is an oversimplification: Confederate soldiers primarily wore butternut, a shade of light brown, rather than gray. Moreover, in the early stages of the war, the Union army showcased a diverse array of uniforms, featuring various colors and styles, including Zouave attire, cadet gray, and a combination of both light and dark blue.

At this stage of warfare, brightly colored uniforms were preferred by armies to allow identification on smoke-filled battlefields. There was no need for camouflage in these battles, but there was a heavy insistence on unit cohesion. In that sense, style followed functionality, as clothes typically do.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Robert E. Lee in color.


Confederate Soldiers’ Uniforms

At the onset of the conflict, soldiers of the Confederacy donned garments sourced from their homes and crafted from homespun materials. As the availability of fabric diminished, the primary supply of uniforms for Confederate troops came from Union uniforms that had been captured. These dark blue uniforms were boiled in a mixture containing walnut hulls, acorns, and lye, which resulted in a light tan hue that the Confederates referred to as “butternut.” Additionally, weathered and faded gray uniforms also adopted a light brownish tint.

In the initial stages of the conflict, many uniforms were adapted from those of state militias, which had their own designated uniforms. During the early confrontations, certain Confederate units donned dark blue uniforms, leading to frequent misidentification on the battlefield as they were often confused with Union forces.

The establishment of the depot system in early 1862 marked a significant shift, as it facilitated the mass production and distribution of uniforms to the troops. Before this development, the "commutation system" was in effect, allowing soldiers the option to have their uniforms tailored according to the new regulations set forth by the Confederate States of America, with the assurance of reimbursement from the Confederate government. The move towards mass production not only streamlined the process of outfitting soldiers but also reflected the growing logistical capabilities of the Confederate forces as the war progressed.

The choice of gray for Confederate uniforms was influenced by the cost-effectiveness of gray dye production. Furthermore, the typical uniform color for state militias was a variant of cadet gray, which proved unsuitable for combat due to its bright blue-gray tones that easily revealed a soldier's position. In contrast, generals were not bound by such concerns and often wore elegant gray uniforms that they acquired at their own expense.

Contrary to the common belief that gray uniforms became less common in the Confederate army as the war progressed, the reality was quite the opposite. In 1863, the Confederacy began to procure ready-made uniforms from manufacturers located in England and Ireland. Among these suppliers, Peter Tait & Company of Ireland emerged as a significant uniform producer, successfully navigating the Union blockade to deliver their products to the Confederate forces.

The Confederacy had an ample supply of cotton for the production of uniforms; however, they also utilized wool and denim. Despite this variety, they lacked the resources to manufacture uniforms in the same large quantities as the Union. Consequently, Confederate uniforms often appeared different from each other, resulting in soldiers who frequently presented a diverse and mismatched appearance.

There are few photographs of Confederate soldiers that were taken in the field, as opposed to a studio. Perhaps the most famous photograph from the Civil War period is the image of three soldiers standing near a pile of lumber and a worn wagon taken soon after the Battle of Gettysburg. Scratched into the surface of one half of the stereo glass negative is written “rebel prisoners behind their breastwork.”  It was not published in the August 22, 1863 Harper’s Weekly issue that did feature 11 engravings of Mathew Brady’s other photographs

A closer look at their uniforms reveals the soldiers to be much better dressed than tradition would have it. According to legend, the Battle of Gettysburg began when barefoot Confederates entered the town looking for shoes. But historian Richard Pougher has used this photograph as evidence that "the common Confederate soldier in the Army of Northern Virginia was well dressed in Southern military uniforms, well-shod, and well accoutered … He was not the ragged, barefoot, poorly equipped individual in nondescript mix-and-match clothing so many have come to see him as."

 

Union Soldiers’ Uniforms

Since the Revolutionary War, American infantry has worn dark blue coats to distinguish themselves from the British Redcoats. During the Mexican War, these coats were complemented by pale blue trousers. However, with the onset of the Civil War and the need for mass production, the uniformity of dark blue became prevalent. The specific shade of blue used was known as Barlow’s indigo blue. Before the late 19th century, when Prussia perfected the mass production of inexpensive chemical dyes, natural indigo was significantly more costly than gray dyes.

Interestingly, the majority of indigo production occurred in the southern states, which led the Union forces to temporarily utilize logwood dyes. These dyes had the unfortunate tendency to turn brown when exposed to sunlight, resulting in many preserved uniforms featuring brown threads. The Union continued to rely on logwood for dyeing threads and other less expensive materials, as producing these dyes in the South was challenging due to resource limitations. Consequently, the darker blue-gray hue became synonymous with Confederate gray, as it was more readily available due to the blockade.

The factories in the Northern states possessed significant production capabilities, enabling them to manufacture high-quality wool uniforms for their military personnel. The soldiers of the United States were uniformly attired, presenting a cohesive appearance that reflected their well-organized outfitting. Union soldiers were equipped with a belt that secured various essential items, including a cap box, cartridge box, bayonet with scabbard, canteen, and a blanket roll containing a wool blanket, a shelter half, and a rubber blanket along with a poncho.

 

Zouaves

At the beginning of the war,  volunteer militias tried to establish unique uniforms that would project a sense of flair and distinction. Some of the Northern militias chose to adopt elaborate red coats and trousers, drawing inspiration from the famed Zouave fighters of North Africa, recognized for their intricate uniforms embellished with tassels and their unconventional combat strategies. These elite units utilized tactics akin to light infantry, characterized by open formations, prone firing, and swift maneuvers. However, as the war continued, these specialized Zouave units gradually evolved into standard army formations, resulting in a loss of their distinctive characteristics.

The Union Army boasted over seventy Zouave regiments, while the Confederacy maintained approximately twenty-five Zouave companies throughout the war. Ironically, the uniforms of the Zouaves were considered "nonuniform," as their procurement was neither straightforward nor cost-effective. Each regiment sported an oriental style of dress, yet the uniforms exhibited considerable variation due to the availability of materials and the preferences of commanding officers. Generally, the attire of the Zouave regiments bore a resemblance to that of the French Zouaves.

Other special units with distinctive uniforms included: Berdan’s sharpshooters wore green uniforms with matte buttons (to prevent glare); the 39th New York Infantry called the Garibaldi Guard wore puffy red shirts like Italian soldiers; and the New York 79th called the Highland Guard wore plaid clothes and cap to simulate Scottish Highlanders.

 

Generals and Other Officers

Confederate officers initially procured their uniforms through individual purchases, which were custom-tailored until the issuance of General Order 28 on March 6, 1864. This order permitted them to acquire uniforms from the same suppliers as the enlisted troops, and at cost. As a result, the uniforms reflected a range of personal styles: General Lee, representing the upper class, opted for the finest materials and craftsmanship, while General Pickett showcased a more flamboyant and distinctive appearance.

The insignia on the upright collar of full generals, lieutenant generals, major generals, and brigadier generals featured three stars embroidered in gold within a decorative wreath, with the central star being slightly larger than the others. While the collar insignia did not indicate the specific rank of the officer, the overcoats provided some distinction; major generals and lieutenant generals displayed two rows of nine buttons arranged in groups of three, whereas brigadier generals had two rows of eight buttons organized in pairs.

 

Buttons

Civil War Uniforms identified individual soldiers and the units they belonged to. Identification included buttons, colors, and rank markings.

Civil War buttons.

For the ranks of Second Lieutenants, First Lieutenants, and Captains, the uniform consisted of a single-breasted frock coat adorned with nine uniformly spaced buttons along the front, mirroring the design worn by enlisted personnel. The cuffs of enlisted uniforms featured two small buttons accompanied by an inverted chevron in the respective branch color, whereas officers' cuffs displayed three small buttons without any chevron.

 

Higher-ranking officers, including Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, and Colonels, donned a double-breasted frock coat characterized by seven evenly spaced buttons on each row. Brigadier Generals wore a similar double-breasted coat, but with eight buttons arranged in pairs. Major Generals, Major General Commanding, and Lieutenant Generals all shared the same style, featuring a double-breasted frock coat with nine buttons grouped in threes, along with three small cuff buttons and cuffs made of dark blue velvet.

 

Individuality

Union officers had to purchase their uniforms. Many field leaders by 1864 went with private purchase sack coats for comfort and because they would be cheaper to replace than frock coats, which required a lot of hand sewing and detail work. Many line and field grade officers by 1864 were also wearing subdued rank rather than shoulder straps. Subdued rank consists of merely the rank insignia sewn on the shoulders or even on the collar of a private purchase sack coat.

This fascinating photograph of II Corps leadership shows how different officers chose their individual styles. General Winfield Scott Hancock is shown with his 3 division commanders in the Wilderness, in May 1864. Hancock is seated still recuperating from his wound at Gettysburg. To the left is Maj Gen Francis Barlow is wearing his trademark checkered flannel lumberjack shirt with an open uniform coat. Note too the length of his sword: he carried an enlisted man’s cavalry saber.. To his left is Major General David Birney, and General John Gibbon. Gibbon is wearing  a regulation sack coat. Hancock and Birney are wearing the regulation Major General frock coat.

The general dress of Barlow is interesting and stylish, His coat is a 9 button jacket left open, and his trademark plaid shirt with a tie. The important feature of the plaid shirt is the presence of a white collar, which came with white cuffs, so when the jacket is buttoned it appears that he is wearing a white shirt., the color of a gentleman. He has the standing collar turned down and the front lapelled out, which was a common fashion in both armies at the time. Regulation called for ties at all times, and all 4 officers are wearing one. The only time that a tie could be omitted is if the officer is wearing a vest, but Barlow did both.

Barlow is also wearing an enlisted cavalry saber, while Gibbon wears the Model 1861 Staff Officer sword. Both wear their sword belt under their coats, with Barlow wearing what appears to be a standard issue belt. Birney is probably wearing, a Generals Officer belt, and over his frock per regulation. Hancock doesn’t appear to be wearing a belt at all, and most likely grabbed his sword for the photo op.

If the jacket doesn't have hooks or pillows on the back to support the saber belt at the true waist, then the common practice was to wear it around the waistband of the trouser, for support.

 

References

Lloyd W Klein The Blue and the Gray. Rebellion Research.  https://www.rebellionresearch.com/the-blue-and-the-gray

https://www.civilwaracademy.com/civil-war-uniform

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/american-civil-war/zouave-regiments-civil-war.html

https://howardlanham.tripod.com/linkgr5/link221.html



Image Gallery

Union soldier uniforms.

Colonel Rush Hawkins in the 9th Hawkins Zouaves uniform.

Major General George Pickett.

Top Row: Lieutenant, Major General, Brigadier General, Colonel

Bottom Photograph: Standing are lieutenants (single row of buttons). Seated are a brig gen, 2 colonels, and probably 2 captains. The man with his arms folded, can’t tell.

In spite of the Confederacy’s desire to preserve slavery, a number of African Americans actually supported the Confederates during the U.S. Civil War. Here, Jeb Smith looks at a wide range of ways that African Americans supported the Confederacy from financial support to the military.

A picture of Marlboro Jones. He was an African-American servant to a white Confederate soldier.

"These African Americans were real fighting men whose combat performances should not be silenced out of respect for these brave men and their sacrifices, despite the vigorous organized effort of today's politically driven historians and other black confederate deniers." 

-Phillip Thomas Tucker Blacks in Grey Uniforms A New Look at the South's Most Forgotten Combat Troops 1861-1865, America Through Time 2019 

 

"I myself have collected over 1,400 newspaper articles on this subject published between 1861 and 1865. That's a lot of ink spilled over something that some today call a "myth." You will find that these activist historians are not telling you the entire story." 

-Shane Anderson Black Southern Support for Secession and War the Abbeville Institute July 22, 2019 

 

The existence of black confederates is a debated and controversial subject. A search of the internet will show no shortage of articles, blogs, and videos of radical pro-North author's claiming black confederates are a "myth." They ask why a Southern African American would defend the Confederacy when blacks were treated horribly; rather they desired to run into the arms of the first white Yankee savior they saw. After all, the war was over slavery- the North fighting to liberate the slaves and the South to preserve the institution so southern blacks would jump at the chance to help the North and overthrow their racist masters.  

If anything, I am attempting to show that the winner wrote the history. If the South did not fight to preserve slavery, if the North did not fight to free the slaves, and if slaves were generally well treated and content, blacks supporting the Southern cause and their homeland, friends, and family should not surprise us. Some, for political purposes, seek to deny that blacks willingly sided with the South. Why should we allow these modern whites to tell us who blacks were allowed to support? 

Pro-north authors such as Eric Foner and Kevin Levin will argue that it is a myth that hundreds of thousands of blacks served in the confederate army as armed soldiers. These authors have set up a straw man to knockdown since it is easy to show hundreds of thousands of blacks were not soldiers. They can then ridicule "lost cause" authors and the sons of confederate veterans for claims of hundreds of thousands of black confederates. All in the hopes of disqualifying any other documentation of black confederates. Yet, I have noticed that even those who claim black confederates are a myth will simultaneously admit blacks served in the southern armies. In the live stream conversation Fighting for Freedom the Civil War and its Legacies, Eric Foner said, "There is no question that some small number of African Americans did volunteer and serve in confederate armies." 

Further, having searched the internet, including the hated Sons of Confederate Veterans, and having read many "lost cause" books on the subject, I can say no one claims hundreds of thousands of blacks fought as soldiers for the Confederacy. The Sons of Confederate Veterans website, in the article The Role of Black Soldiers in the Confederate Army, reads, "There was between 50,000 to 100,000 blacks that served in the Confederate Army as cooks, blacksmiths, and yes, even soldiers. "The majority is in the noncombatant form. On every estimate I have read, they always classify noncombatant services as cooks, musicians, etc., as those counted in the estimates.

As modern statists, Foner and Levin count only federally recognized soldiers and then feel free to dismiss the claims of large numbers of southern black soldiers. If cooks, musicians, and those forced into service do not count as actual soldiers, then the southern and northern servicemen drafted (white and black) are not actual soldiers. And since the vast majority of soldiers, North and South, were state volunteers, they were not actual soldiers either, according to these authors. They must fight only for the master, the federal government, to be "true" soldiers. 

One argument presented to deny black confederates is to tell us the many observations of thousands of blacks in service in the southern armies were of noncombatant form. This, of course, is often true. However, a great many observed soldiers as well. The logic they use to counter this is that these observers must be incorrect since the Confederacy (federal) did not approve blacks until late in the war. Once more, only federally recognized soldiers are "true" soldiers in their minds. So when we do see these armed black confederates, these are not "real soldiers" since the Confederacy does not recognize them.

These historians are coming from our modern nationalistic views and looking back to antebellum America. The federal government education had raised them, so it was hard for them to understand the time when the states had authority or where federal law did not control them. Thus only federal soldiers count in their minds, and any documents that say otherwise must be declared false. States or individuals could not have equipped slaves since the federal did not. Thus in Levin's mind, the fact that Confederate General Cleburne and other confederates pushed to arm slaves as Confederate [federal] recognized soldiers in 1864 proves that there were no black soldiers in the Confederacy before this time!!! Otherwise, why push for federally recognized soldiers in 1864?

One argument used by Levin is to point out Southerners' resistance to arming large numbers of slaves and the fear of them running away to northern lines. At most, it only proves that many masters feared losing their property and the loyalty of slaves. Believing not all slaves were or would be loyal to the South. Northern whites had the same fears of arming blacks. And these fears did play a role in why the federal arming of slaves in the Confederacy took so long. However, this does not show that owners and local authorities did not arm southern blacks. 

Levin also points out that Black Confederate soldiers were little known before the internet and that the Sons of Confederate Veterans initiated the recent popularity of the subject in response to the famous movie Roots in the 1970s. Even if this is true, that does not refute that black confederates were a historical reality. If a popular movie that influences public perception is released on any subject, there is usually a backlash from the other side wishing to give a fuller , more accurate portrayal. Because Roots portrayed blacks as heavily mistreated, it is not surprising that in response, the SCV would look through history and use examples to counter. To remove it from a Civil War context, transubstantiation was declared Catholic dogma at Trent in 1551. But this does not prove it was a 16th-century invention; it was the majority opinion down through Christian history, and had been official doctrine since the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. It was declared dogma in response to the early Reformation denial of the teaching. Likewise, the increase in awareness and books on black confederates is in response to the internet and, as Levin said, Roots. 

Very few of these arguments are about historical data. If you want to see the role of presuppositions and imaginative ways in which we are to "properly" understand newspaper photos and various other examples of black confederates, watch Kevin Levin's speech Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War's Most Persistent Myth at the US National Archives. One will find politics, philosophy, and worldview are far more important than historical data. If these authors wish only to prove that hundreds of thousands of blacks did not willingly serve the federal government of the Confederacy, then I think they will find no one will object. 

However, I define a soldier as one who willingly took up arms for the Confederacy or fought under a Confederate general regardless of federal recognition. In other words, state militia and individuals are actual soldiers. The Confederacy left it up to the states to decide if slaves were to fight as soldiers. If the South objected to the federal government's involvement with slave property in the old Union, why would they allow the confederate government to do the same in the South? So slaves' involvement was up to the state and, more importantly, the slave and master. Free blacks were also left to local control. 

 

"Even before the opening of the conflict, Southerners began to enroll free blacks for service with the state militias, sometimes by state law or by purely local action. The use of free blacks in the military was varied, as they saw service as laborers, support staff or in rare instances as soldiers." 

-Frank Edward Deserino University College London A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment to the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London Department of History University College London July 2001

 

This is not intended to show a vast treasure of previously unknown material but as a summary of some of the findings of historians on the subject of black confederates that the general public does not encounter. Firstly, we will look at some examples of how southern blacks supported the Confederacy.

 

Southern Patriots

"About sixty free negroes volunteered and went down to Fort Macon to do battle for their country, while another gave twenty-five dollars cash to help support the war; and still another, who is a poor man, having just arrived at our wharf with a load of wood for sale, delivered it up to the town auctioneer, with a request to sell it and appropriate it in the same way." 

Richmond Daily Dispatch, April 19, 1861 

 

Just as John Brown was mistaken when he believed slaves would join him in revolt against the South, the abolitionists also predicted massive slave revolts during the war. Instead, it could be argued that Southern blacks sided with their own country. In Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees, Ervin Jordan wrote that "Black confederate loyalty was more widespread than American historians has acknowledged." And while blacks who volunteered for the Union often had to be protected from whites, Southern blacks needed no such protection. Southerners were excited to have blacks volunteer.

 

"The free negroes of New Orleans, La., held a public meeting and began the organization of a battalion, with officers of their own race, with the approval of the State government, which commissioned their negro officers. When the Louisiana militia was reviewed, the Native Guards (negro) made up, in part, the first division of the State troops. Elated at the success of being first to place negroes in the field together with white troops, the commanding general sent the news over the wires to the jubilant confederacy: "New Orlean, November 23,1861. "Over 28,000 troops were reviewed today by Governor Moore, Major-General Lovell and Brigadier-General Ruggles. The line was over seven miles long; one regiment comprised 1,400 free colored men."

 -Joseph T Wilson The Black Phalanx African American Soldiers in the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil War Da Capo Press New York 1994

 

Tens of thousands of Southern blacks, both slave and free, supported the confederate cause. Many southern blacks wanted to defend their country from the Yankee invaders. Many enslaved blacks had deep loyalty and family ties with their masters and followed them off to war. While it might be hard for some to believe today, many African American slaves and slave owners wanted slavery to continue and fought to protect the institution. In The Negro in the South, Booker T Washington writes, "A few colored men, it is said, were actually enrolled and enlisted as soldiers in the confederate army, fighting for their own continued enslavement."

"One may get the idea, from what I have said, that there was bitter feeling toward the white people on the part of my race, because of the fact that most of the white population was away fighting in a war which would result in keeping the Negro in slavery if the South was successful. In the case of the slaves on our place this was not true, and it was not true of any large portion of the slave population in the South where the Negro was treated with anything like decency." 

-Booker T Washington Up From Slavery Value Classics Reprint 1901 

 

As slave owners, many blacks defended slavery as an institution vital to their financial well-being. One Union soldier described a free black church as "Half-crazed black secessionists." Wealthy colored plantation owners such as South Carolina's William Ellison donated large sums of money to the Confederacy and bought confederate bonds and treasury notes in support. Ellison stopped growing cotton and instead grew food to help feed the confederate armies. Ellison's grandson John Buckner volunteered and fought for the 1st South Carolina artillery and helped defend Ft Wagner from the famous assault made by the 54th Massachusetts colored regiment. 

In the summer of 1861, The Winston Salem NC newspaper, People’s Press, reported that "fifteen free men of color volunteered for state service" and that they were in fine spirits and wore a "We will die for the South emblem." In New Bern, "fifteen to twenty free Negros came forward to volunteer their service to defend the city." A newspaper in Lynchburg, Virginia, reported on the 70 free blacks who enlisted to defend Virginia "Three cheers for the patriotic Negros of Lynchburg." 

Historian Phillip Tucker quotes a statement by the free mulatto population of South Carolina "Our allegiance is due to SO Ca. and in her defense, we are willing to offer up our lives, and all that is dear to us." And on March 21, 1863, the Nashville Daily Union Tennessee reported, "Negro rebel Cavalry pickets on the south bank of the Rappahannock below Fredericksburg shows that negroes are ready enough to serve masters on the field, and that the rebels are ready enough to make use of them serve as common soldiers...these negroes are well in the service, as in their sympathy, of the south."

Abolitionist Horace Greeley published The American Conflict in 1866, and he quotes the following wartime newspapers reporting on black patriotism in the South. "A Washington dispatch to The Evening Post (New York), about this time, set forth that—"A gentleman from Charleston says that everything there betokens active preparations for fight…negroes busy in building batteries, so far from inclining to insurrection, were grinning from ear to ear at tile prospect of shooting the Yankees." The Charleston Mercury of January 3 said: "We learn that 150 able-bodied free colored men of Charleston, yesterday offered their services gratuitously to the Governor, to hasten forward the important work of throwing up redoubts wherever needed along our coast."  The Memphis Avalanche joyously proclaimed that - a procession of several hundred stout negro men, members of the "domestic institution," marched through our streets yesterday in military order, under the command of Confederate officers. They were all armed and equipped with shovels, axes, blankets, etc. A merrier set was never seen. They were brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs."

 

"About fifty free negroes in Amelia county have offered themselves to the Government for any service. In our neighboring city of Petersburg, two hundred free negroes offered for any work that might be assigned to them, either to fight under white officers, dig ditches, or anything that could show their desire to serve Old Virginia. In the same city, a negro hackman came to his master, and insisted, with tears in his eyes, that he should accept all his savings, $100, to help equip the volunteers. – The free negroes of Chesterfield have made a similar proposition. Such is the spirit, among bond and free, through the whole of the State." 

 – The Daily Dispatch, April 25, 1861, Quoted in Shane Anderson Black Southern Support for Secession and War Abbeville Institute July 22, 2019

 

Financial Support

Many blacks supported the Confederacy in a non-military capacity, and "enthusiasm with which many blacks endorsed secession" was widespread. Large-scale demonstrations of blacks were held in Petersburg and New Orleans. In Petersburg, blacks offered to construct fortifications for the Confederacy, telling the mayor of Petersburg:

"We are willing to aid Virginians cause to the utmost extent of our ability….there is not an unwilling heart among us." Charles Tinsley, Spokesman for Petersburg free blacks 1861. When handed a confederate flag he said "I could feel no greater pride."

 - Mrs J Blakeslee Frost The Rebellion in the United States or the war of  1861 Hartford, CT: Published by the Author, 1862

 

Blacks in Vicksburg, Mississippi, donated $1,000 to the war effort. In General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians, Frank Cunningham tells how it became custom for slaves to hold balls and concerts to give money to the war effort in Arkansas. Free and slave negroes gave a ball at 50 cents ahead for support for the Confederacy and General Hindman of Arkansas, who stated the local blacks "Have displayed much loyalty and patriotism in their donations to the confederate cause." Cunningham also tells of General Albert Pike's slave Brutus, who kept $63,000 safe from the federals during the battle at Pea Ridge. He returned to his master, who gave him his freedom in payment, but Brutus did not accept it and served General Pike instead. James Muschett, a free black store owner in Virginia, donated food, clothes, and blacksmith services to the confederate government. Later he was imprisoned by the Union for being a spy and a confederate sympathizer. 

J K Obatala writes about a slave named Henry Jones who donated $465 in gold to the Confederate government, and the Union Milledgeville, Georgia, on August 26, 1863, reported on the balls all over the South where blacks were donating large sums of money to the cause. In The Unlikely Story of Blacks Who Were Loyal to Dixie. Obatala writes, "Many slaves made financial and material contributions to the Confederacy. In Alabama, William Yancy's slaves brought $60 worth of watermelons to Montgomery for the soldiers." Historian E Merton Coulter wrote, "It became custom for slaves to hold balls and concerts and give the money...to aid soldiers." These were not isolated incidents but common actions throughout the South.

The "Confederate Ethiopian Serenaders" singers used all their funds to finance gunboats and munitions for the Confederacy. Horace King of Alabama gave clothes to soldiers. Just two months before Appomattox, blacks gave dinner to confederate soldiers in Louisburg, Virginia. A Fairfax County free black sold 28 acres of land and donated the money to the defense of Virginia. During the war, blacks gave to help build a monument for Stonewall Jackson. Former North Carolina slave David Blunt said, "Yes mam, de days on de plantation wuz de happy days..he hated de yankees for killing Massa Tom. In fact, we all hated de Yankees." It seems not to have been uncommon for blacks to side with the South.

"All de slaves hate de Yankees an when de southern soldiers came late in de night all de ******* got out of de bed an holdin torches high dey march behin de soldiers, all of dem singin We'll hang Abe Lincoln on de Sour Apple Tree. yes mam, dey wuz sorry dat dey wuz free an' dey ain't got no reason to be glad, case dey wuz happier den dan now." 

 - Alice Baugh North Carolina Slave Narratives, reminiscing about her enslaved mother’s Stories

 

"The consequential manner of the negro, and the supreme contempt with which he spoke to his prisoner, were most amusing. This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and of his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist. Nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous negroes with the Southern armies speak of their liberators." 

-Lt.-Colonel Arthur J. Fremantle, Three Months in the Southern States 1864

 

Information From Black Civilians

Southern blacks helped spread vital information to confederates or acted as spies. Former Arkansas Slave James Gill, a young boy at the time, said of his family "Us was Confedrits all de while...but de Yankees, dey didn’ know dat we was Confedrits." Slave Martin Robinson was hanged for falsely leading the federal troops the wrong way during the Kilpatrick- Dahlgren raid in 64. Slaves acting as spies for the South was so common that Union General Halleck gave his "General order number three" that disallowed any blacks into the federal lines because blacks were acting as runaway slaves but, in reality, were southern spies who gave vital information back to the Confederates. On November 20, 1861, Major-General Halleck wrote, "It has been represented that important information respecting the numbers and condition of our forces is conveyed to the enemy by means of fugitive slaves who are admitted within our lines. In order to remedy this evil it is directed that no such person be hereafter permitted to enter the lines of any camp or of any forces on the march and that any now within such lines be immediately excluded therefrom." 

Slave Burrel Hemphill refused to give information on his master's hidden money and silverware, so Sherman’s men tied a rope to his ankle and dragged him back and forth by a horse until he died, still never saying a word. Federal soldiers after Bull Run were too trusting of southern blacks when they asked slaves for food; instead, the slaves brought them to confederate lines, and they were taken prisoner. In Thomas Jordan and J.P Pryors The Campaigns of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the authors tell of a local negro who helped Forrest capture federal cavalry with information helpful to confederates. Another local black helped General Forrest by leading the federals into a confederate trap. In 1864 a free black named Goler misled union soldiers of his loyalty by providing food and shelter, only then to notify the confederates who captured the federal soldiers in the night. 

Georgia's governor Joseph E Brown is recorded in The Confederate Records of the State of Georgia Volume 2 stating "The country and the army are mainly dependent upon slave labor for support… it is impossible for the women and children to support themselves." With their masters away, slaves worked the plantations. Slaves' work kept the families from starving and allowed whites to fight the war. Federal General M.C Meigs wrote, "The labor of the colored man supports the rebel soldier, enables him to leave his plantation to meet our armies, builds his fortifications, cooks his food, and sometimes aids him on the picket by rare skill with the rifle." Slave Henry Warfield of Warren County, Mississippi, said, "Negroes were used by the Confederates long before they were used by the Union forces...and a large number of these fought by the side of their masters or made it possible for the master to fight." And as US Grant said, slaves "worked in the fields and took care of the families while white able bodied men were at the front fighting." 

Confederate General Richard Taylor [son of President Taylor] said: "Wives and little ones remained safe at home, surrounded by thousands of faithful slaves." With the men gone, slaves could have left for the North or refused to work, yet the overwhelming majority worked so the master could leave to fight. Often masters put a trusted slave in charge of the family while gone. In many ways, this trusted slave took over the master's role.

"In order to defend and protect the women and children who were left on the plantations when the white males went to war, the slaves would have laid down their lives. The slave who was selected to sleep in the" big house" during the absence of the males was considered to have the place of honour. Any one attempting to harm "young Mistress" or "old Mistress" during the night would have had to cross the dead body of the slave to do so...As a rule, not only did the members of my race entertain no feelings of bitterness against the whites before and during the war, but there are many instances of Negroes tenderly caring for their former masters and mistresses who for some reason have become poor and dependent since the war. I know of instances where the former masters of slaves have for years been supplied with money by their former slaves to keep them from suffering."                                           

-Booker T Washington Up from Slavery Value Classics Reprint 1901

 

After the South officially allowed federal black soldiers in the armies, Abraham Lincoln took the positives away from the action. He said, "There is one thing about negros fighting for the rebels... they cannot at the same time fight in their army, and stay home and make bread for them."

Another way southern blacks supported the cause was in what today is considered an unpardonable sin, moral support by waving the confederate flag. The Central Georgian, April 24, 1861, reported, "Secession flags dot the country along the route from Wilmington, and even the negroes waved the Confederate banner at the cars as they passed." 

                                               

Service in the Confederate Military

"The credit of having first conquered their prejudices against the employment of Blacks, even as soldiers, is fairly due to the Rebels." 

-Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: Volume II Hartford. Published by O. D. Chase and Company. 1866

 

"Thousands of black southerners voluntarily supported the Confederate cause, ignoring an offer of federal freedom and, when allowed, to do so, took up arms to defend Dixie."

 -Charles Barrow, J.H Segars and R.B. Rosenburg, Black Confederates Pelican Publishing Company GretnaLouisiana 2004

 

Blacks, both free and slave, offered their service in the Confederate military. An estimated 58,000 blacks served in Confederate armies in a noncombatant role as cooks, musicians, chaplains, medics, scouts, or manual labor. Unlike the Federal army, Confederate armies gave equal pay to black service members (and soldiers) from the start of the war. The North did not do so until late in the war. Likewise, the southern blacks were in integrated units while the Federal troops segregated black union soldiers.

In Tenting Tonight, celebrated historian James Robertson writes, "Some slaves felt great loyalty to their masters and asked to be allowed to take up arms to defend what was, after all, their homeland too." Slave-owning Southern soldiers often brought along a slave with whom they had a close personal relationship. They had played together, ate together, worked together, and now wanted to defend their family and homeland together. Historian Phillip Tucker quotes from black confederate Tom Phelps who wrote home in June of 1861 "I will leave…today for a scout about the woods for yankees give my love to mistress and master…. Ps goodbye to the white folks until I killed a yankee." Azariah Bostwick of the 31st Georgia Infantry wrote home, "He [southern blacks] is no better to fight for his country than I am, my home is his." Even slaves not loyal to the South showed loyalty to their masters. A slave at Antietam risked his life to pull his master to safety before then running across the battlefield to the federal soldiers and freedom.

"A good many white confederates, who mostly hailed from the yeomentry, or small farmer class, actually considered these black confederates to be best friends and faithful companions and vice versa, because they knew each other so well, after having grown up together since childhood…A general familiar-like sentiment towards blacks was often demonstrated by white confederate soldiers, from lowly private to high ranking officers, and this has been fully revealed in their personal letters that were written from 1861-1865. After all blacks and whites shared a common southern culture and heritage, and especially in regard to love for their homeland that was now under threat." 

-Phillip Thomas Tucker Blacks in Grey Uniforms: A New Look at the South's Most Forgotten Combat Troops 1861-1865 America Through Time 2019 

 

When interviewed decades later, many servants often were proud of their master's ability to fight Yankees "Why mass can whale a dozen of em fore coffee is hot, fair fight." Often the personal slaves would serve as cooks or general servants, but sometimes, they would be armed and join in a fight in various circumstances, or be armed as soldiers by their masters. Isaac Stier of Mississippi said, "When de big war broke out I sho' stuck to my Marster an' I fit de Yankees same as he did. I went in de battles' long side of him an' us both fit under Marse Robert E. Lee." Herndon Bogan of North Carolina told his master, "Ide rather go wid you ter de war, please sur, massa, let me go wid you ter fight dem yanks... old massa got shot one night an pap grabs de gun fore hit de earth an lets de yanks have it." 

Ervin Jordan wrote in Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees, "Body servants fought for the south if given the chance and occasionally replaced fainthearted white rebel soldiers." He gives an example where during the Seven Days Battles, Westley, a body servant, took the weapons from a frightened white confederate and killed a Yankee with almost every shot and was "An inspiration to the white soldiers." A servant named Jem was described as "A black fire eater," a strong supporter of secession, and fought at First Manassas. Other servants were thrown in as artillerymen at First Manassas. Historian Phillip Tucker quotes the Evansville Daily Journal of Indiana who mistakenly reported a regiment of confederate negro cavalry at Bull Run when in reality it was 30-40 armed servants who joined in the pursuit of retreating Federals.

Slave Primus Kelly volunteered for  the 8th Texas Cavalry and fought in the battles. Likewise, 12th Virginia Cavalry captain George Baylor's two slaves Tom and Overton "picked up arms" and "Joined in the company charges." Former Mississippi slave Henry Warfield observed "Negroes were used by the Confederates long before they were used by the Union forces...and a large number of these fought by the side of their masters."

On rare occasions, masters would send a slave to serve in their place. Former slave Geroge Kye said, "When the war came along I was a grown man, and I went to serve because the old master was too old to go, but he had to send somebody anyways, I served as Geroge Stover."

While not official in the ranks of the units, some of these body servants would serve as sharpshooters. Ervin Jordan documents Federal soldier George Hapman of the 89th NY reported killing a "Rebel sharpshooter negro" in June of 1863. Herman Clarke of the 117th NY wrote home that he was ambushed by a "****** sharpshoter." Tucker gives many examples of this class of southern soldiers.

One southern black sharpshooter around Yorktown earned a reputation for his aim among union soldiers who wrote of, "A rebel negro riflemen, who through his skill as a markeman, had done more injury to our men than any dozen of his white compeers." This sharpshooter was so good he eventually had to be taken out by the Federals' famous sharpshooter "California Joe," as reported in the NY Herald under "Sniper duels with black confederates." In June of 1862, George Hapman of the 89th NY wrote home that he had a ring made out of the tree that "Joe shot the rebel sharpshooter ****** out of."

Servant snipers became so common that on January the 10th, 1863, Harper's Weekly did a front-page illustration of two black confederate snipers titled "Rebel negro pickets as seen through a fiberglass." Tucker again quotes the Daily Sun of Columbus, Georgia, reporting on a servant soldier at Belmont. "In the recent battle at Belmont, Lieutenant Shelton [13th Arkansas]…had his servant Jack in the fight. Both Jack and his master were wounded, but not till they had made the most heroic efforts to drive back the insolent invaders. Finally, after Jack had fired at the enemy 27 times, he fell seriously wounded in the arm. Jack's son was on the field and loaded the rifle for his father, who shot at the enemy three times after he was upon the ground." Tucker quotes James G Bates of the 13th Indiana vol infantry writing home, "The rebels have negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters, and the boldest of them all here is a negro." Thomas Knox, a journalist for the NY Herald, reported on the battle of Chickasaw Bayou "On our right a negro sharpshooter has been observed whose exploits are deserving of notice. He mounts a breastwork regardless of all danger, and getting sight of a federal soldier, draws up his musket at arm's length and fires, never failing of hitting his mark."

 

Black Confederate Soldiers

"As a matter of fact, it was in the Confederate armies that the first negro soldiers were enlisted. During the latter part of April, 1861, a Negro company at Nashville, Tennessee made up of "free people of color" offered its services to the Confederate Government. Shortly after, a recruiting office was opened for free Negroes at Memphis Tennessee."

-Booker T Washington, The Story of the Negro; the Rise of the Race from Slavery  New York, Doubleday 1909 

 

"It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still." 

-Frederick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, September 1861 

 

Thousands of Southern blacks loyal to Dixie fought as soldiers in Confederate armies. Southern states and local militia allowed blacks into service from the outset of the war, while the North initially rejected the idea. Virginia and Tennessee, in particular, set up recruitment stations for all able-bodied blacks. The colored Tennessee militia was described as "Brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs." In Memphis, Tennessee. Two black regiments were raised in September, becoming the first state to authorize black soldiers

 

"The legislature of Tennessee...enacted in June, 1861, a law authorizing the governor—"To receive into the military service of the State all male free persons of color, between the age of 15 and 50, who should receive $8 per month, clothing and rations." 

-Joseph T Wilson The Black Phalanx African American Soldiers in the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil War Da Capo Press New York 1994

 

The "Native Guards, Louisiana" consisted of 1,500 free colored volunteers from Louisiana who supplied themselves. They stated they were fighting because "The free colored population of Louisiana …own slaves and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana …They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-1815." Swearing to the Louisianan Governor to defend the Confederacy, they became the first civil war unit to appoint black officers. On May 12, after the capture of New Orleans, Bailey Frank of the 34th NY volunteers wrote: "There is no mistake, but the rebels have black soldiers for I have seen them brought in as prisoners of war, I saw one who had the stripes of an ordinary Sargent on his coat." 

The very first land battle of the war in Hampton, Virginia, on June 10, 1861, involved a black confederate. Tucker reports that Sam, a servant soldier of Captain Richard Ashe, was the hero of the battle. Sam shot Union major Theodore Winthrop, stopping the advance of the federals. Winthrop was the first Union officer killed in battle. (Note: three different white soldiers also claimed to have killed Winthrop.) Tucker also reports on the battle of New Market, Virginia, where local black militia helped win the day. The NY Herald, on December 28, 1861, reported, "The rebels have an entire company of infantry composed of negroes." And "The skirmishers of the 20th NY vol regiment discovered the enemy, consisting of three companies of infantry. Among them one company of negroes, who appeared in the front, and made the attack." The local militia fought so well defending their home state, the Milwaukee Daily News headlined in January, "white soldiers outdone by blacks." One federal officer they quoted from the battle said, "Fifty armed negroes flanked the whites formed the center, and they fought better than their white fellows." And "Negro infantry opened fire on our men...the wounded men testify positively they were shot by negroes, and that not less than 700 were present, armed with muskets." On December 23, 1861, NY Tribune wrote of the "Attack on our soldiers by armed negroes." In all, six patriotic southern blacks were killed defending their homeland in the battle. After the battle, Ervin Jordan quotes a NY soldier who wrote, "If they fight us with negroes, why should we not fight them with negroes too?.... let us fight the devil with fire."

Likewise, Jordan reports the 1st Ohio Volunteer were was attacked on June 17, 1861, by the 1st South Carolina, accompanied by "A body of 150 armed negroes." Black members of the 1st Regiment Virginia Cavalry company H killed a Union soldier on July 2, 1861, at Falling Waters. Phillip Powers wrote to his wife that an armed black in his company shot and killed an escaping federal. General D.Stuart was quoted in the Army and Navy Gazette reporting, "The enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men. The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55." 

Black fought with units at Petersburg. Bull Run, Vicksburg, Seven Days, Brandy Station, and Antietam. Frank Cunningham tells of armed negroes with no uniforms who fought for the Confederacy in Arkansas under a McIntosh regiment in March 1862. Both free and enslaved blacks fought under general Forrest, who after the war said: "Better Confederates did not live." In his book The Appomattox Campaign, Chris Calkins reports a skirmish on April 5, 1865, when black and white Confederate soldiers defended a confederate wagon train but were eventually captured by the 1st Pennsylvania and 24th NY cavalry. The federals reported that among the captured black prisoners some were termed "teamsters." After Gettysburg, the NY Herald, July 11, 1863, "Reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers." 

Thomas Tobi, a black man, served with the Army of Northern Virginia as a volunteer from May 12, 1861, to April 16, 1865,. A free man of color, Charles Lutz of the 8th LA volunteer infantry, was a two-time POW during the war. He fought at major engagements in Virginia and was first captured at Chancellorsville. Six blacks joined the Goochland light artillery and fought at Chaffin's Bluff. In August 1861, near Hampton, Virginia, Union army Colonel John W. Phelps of the 1st Vermont Infantry reported artillery manned by Negroes. 

 

"The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc and they were an integral portion of the Southern Confederate army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixing it up with all the Rebel horde."

 -Union Sanitation Commission Inspector Dr. Louis Steiner, Sept. 1862 

 

"William Colen Revels was twenty years old when he volunteered for Confederate service, and was one of the first men of any color in Surry County, North Carolina, to march off to war. He spent the greater part of the war in the 21 North Carolina Infantry, and is listed on the rolls as a "Negro." He was wounded in the leg at Winchester, and caught a bullet in the right thigh at Gettysburg, probably on East Cemetery Hill on July 2 1863." 

-Frank Edward Deserino University College London A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment to the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London Department of History University College London July, 2001

 

How Many Black Confederates Fought?

"We were defeated, routed and driven from the field. ... It was not alone the white man's victory, for it was won by slaves. Yes, the Confederates had three regiments of blacks in the field, and they maneuvered like veterans, and beat the Union men back."

-William Henry Johnson, 8th Connecticut Volunteer Infantry at Manassas Quoted in Kari A Kornell African Americans in the Civil War Abdo Publishing 2016

 

"At least nine documented blacks….served in the ranks of the 6th Louisiana Calvary...another company of enthusiastic blacks Louisianan troopers hailed from a vibrant free black community of Catholic mulattoes whitch was known as Isle Brevels these hard riding black cavalrymen...slashing with sabers at a target dummy with the appropriate name of "abe lincoln." 

-Phillip Thomas Tucker, Blacks in Grey Uniforms; A New Look at the South's Most Forgotten Combat Troops 1861-1865 America Through Time 2019 

 

After researching the question, Harvard professor John Stauffer concluded, "Thousands of Southern slaves and freedmen fought willingly and loyally on the side of the Confederacy." There is no question blacks willingly fought for the South; Historian Phillip Tucker writes, "To deny the fact that these courageous black rebels, free and slave, risked their lives in fighting on the battlefield has been a great injustice rooted in personal agendas that have little to do with history." 

However, it is impossible to tell how many blacks fought for the South as not all the records survived the war, nor were they all recorded. Estimates range from a few thousand to 10,000. Historians Stauffer and Tucker both estimate between three and ten thousand in total. Historian John Winters estimates that 3,000 black and mulattoes came from Louisiana alone, the state that provided more colored troops to the Confederacy than any other. Of course, we must define what a soldier is. If we only count those after the confederate congress officially recruited black soldiers in the regular army in 1865, then less than 1,000 served. If we accept a black man armed as an individual, in mixed regiments, or in-state militia units, fighting under a confederate general, then I would guess at least a few thousand. In some cases, blacks might have been forced by their master or white officer to help fight in battle; these would not count as soldiers, in my opinion.

However, there were a great many slaves who wanted to fight, but their masters would not allow them. Masters would send their sons to die, but not their slaves. In a speech given on February 9, 1865, Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin said, "Let us now say to every negro who wishes to go into the ranks on condition of being free, go and fight—you are free. My own negroes have been to me and said, 'Master, set us free and we'll fight for you." 

The Slave Narratives provide many examples of slaves wanting to go to war with their masters, but either their masters were unwilling to send them, or they were too young. Many free mulattoes had to sneak into the service to fight. One Confederate who pushed for the freeing of slaves and their enlistment by the Confederate federal government, was General Lee, who said he "Regrets the unwillingness of owners to permit their slaves to enter the service." And Charles Marshall wrote to General R.S Ewell on March 27, 1865, "The state authorities can do nothing to get those negroes who are wanting to join the army, but whose masters refuse their consent."

Large numbers of southern blacks wanted to join but many stubborn slave owners were unwilling. In fact, some slaves, like William Rose of the 1st SC Infantry, ran away to join the army as a musician.

 

"Every precaution should be taken to insure proper and kind treatment of the negroes and to render them contented in the service...there should be a system of rewards too, for good conduct and industry...most of the negroes are accustomed to something of this sort on the plantations." 

-J.F Gilmer Major-General and Chief of the Engineer Bureau 1864 

 

When the Confederate Congress did authorize the enlistment of federal black confederates, they did so with fair treatment in mind as statements like "primary importance that the negroes should know that the service is voluntary on their part" and "harshness...or offensive language or conduct to them must be forbidden." Southern blacks receive fair treatment from the outset of the war. They received equal pay and worked in integrated units, but they were also treated fairly otherwise.

On April 29, 1862, Secretary of War George Randolph heard rumors the slaves doing manual labor for the Southern army were in dire conditions on the Peninsula. He wrote to confederate general John Magruder who responded, "The soldiers, however, have been more exposed and have suffered far more than the slaves. The latter have always slept undercover and have had fires to make them comfortable, while the men have been working in the rain, have stood in the trenches and rifle pits in mud and water almost knee-deep without shelter, fire or sufficient food." Hard to detect any racism and discrimination there. 

Other minorities fought for the South as well. Jews were the largest minority group of soldiers to fight for the Confederacy, with an estimated 10,000 soldiers who fought. Other minority groups who supported the Confederacy with thousands of soldiers were Native Americans, Chinese and Mexicans. As DiLorenzo points out, those who desire to make the civil war one of slavery and white supremacy of the South vs. tolerance and freedom from the North must stop to consider that federal units with slave owners fought against non-slave-owning southerners through the entire war. And black southerners volunteered to fight while white southerners, both slave-owning, and non-slave-owning, avoided the war.

 

 

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

The Battle of Bairén, fought in the late 11th century, was a significant encounter between the forces of Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, famously known as El Cid, and coalition armies on both sides. Set against the backdrop of the Reconquista, this battle unfolded near the coastal region of Bairén (near present-day Gandía in Valencia), where the rugged landscape and the strategic location along Spain's eastern coast played crucial roles in shaping the outcome.

Terry Bailey explains.

A depiction of El Cid form an 18th century Spanish book, Retratos de Españoles ilustres.

As Christian and Muslim forces vied for control over the Iberian Peninsula, El Cid's military acumen and tactical innovation were put to the test. The battle not only demonstrated El Cid's skill in integrating cavalry and infantry in a coordinated effort but also highlighted the role of regional alliances, with support from Peter I of Aragon adding a further layer of complexity to the conflict. The victory at Bairén solidified El Cid's reputation as a formidable military leader and left a lasting impact on the power dynamics of the region, foreshadowing the eventual Christian reconquest of Spain.

The Battle of Bairén took place in the turbulent political landscape of 11th-century Spain. Following the breakup of the Umayyad Caliphate, a series of small taifa kingdoms emerged across the Iberian Peninsula, creating a fractured Muslim rule. The Christian kingdoms in the north, seeing an opportunity, sought to expand southward. This period was marked by alliances and rivalries between Christian and Muslim leaders, with Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, known as El Cid, navigating both worlds as a military leader skilled in securing patronage from both sides.

By the time of the Battle of Bairén, the Almoravid dynasty from North Africa, led by Sultan Yusuf ibn Tashfin and later his son Muhammad ibn Tasufin, had intervened in the Iberian Peninsula, aiming to unify Muslim rule and resist the advancing Christian forces. The growing influence of the Almoravids presented a direct threat to the Christian kingdoms, including that of Castile and Aragon. El Cid and King Peter I of Aragon, recognizing this threat, allied to push back against Almoravid's control.

The clash at Bairén wasn't only about territory; it was also influenced by the complex dynamics between Christian and Muslim leaders, as well as the evolving power struggles among the taifa royalties. While Christian kings sought to reclaim territories through military and diplomatic efforts, they also had to manage internal rivalries and the question of allegiance.

El Cid, with his proven track record as a military commander, had gained significant autonomy and influence, adding complexity to the Christian side. Whereas, on the Muslim side, the Almoravids aimed to reassert Islamic orthodoxy and bring stability to the taifas. They were motivated both by religious conviction and the desire to prevent Christian incursions. The Almoravid army, known for its disciplined infantry and the expertise of its Berber warriors, contrasted with the Christian focus on heavy cavalry.

 

Leadership and Commanders

Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar and Peter I of Aragon jointly commanded the Christian forces. El Cid brought extensive military experience and was respected as a tactician who could adapt to various battlefield scenarios. Peter I of Aragon, motivated by the expansionist aims of his kingdom, provided crucial support to El Cid, both in terms of manpower and additional cavalry.

Whereas, Muhammad ibn Tasufin led the Almoravid army, commanding a well-organized force with experienced Berber infantry, supported by archers and light cavalry. His objective was to quash the Christian advance and consolidate Almoravid authority in eastern Spain.

 

Development of the battle

The Battle of Bairén unfolded near Gandía on Spain's eastern coast, with both forces arrayed on the rugged terrain surrounding Bairén Hill. The landscape provided natural defensive advantages, which El Cid and Peter I exploited effectively. The Christians positioned themselves to prevent any Almoravid advance inland, using the hill as both a vantage point and a defensive barrier.

As the Almoravids advanced, they sought to overcome the natural barriers by leveraging their infantry, aiming to draw the Christians into close combat where their forces could dominate. El Cid, understanding the terrain's potential, used it to isolate Almoravid units, disrupting their cohesion. He also timed his cavalry assaults to maximize the impact on disorganized sections of the Muslim line.

 

Tactics of Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar

El Cid's reputation as a master tactician is demonstrated in his approach at Bairén, where he utilized a coordinated strategy of cavalry and infantry attacks.

El Cid's forces combined the maneuverability of cavalry with the steadfastness of infantry to create a versatile fighting force. His knights, renowned for their discipline and power, delivered rapid charges that disorganized the Almoravid ranks. Meanwhile, his infantry secured the flanks, maintaining a defensive stance that prevented Almoravid units from encircling the Christian forces.

Rather than launching a single, overwhelming charge, El Cid ordered successive waves of cavalry attacks. This tactic maintained pressure on the Almoravid forces, exhausting their infantry and forcing Muhammad ibn Tasufin to commit his reserves prematurely. By cycling his cavalry charges, El Cid wore down the Almoravid line, making them vulnerable to a final coordinated assault.

Choosing to hold the higher ground allowed El Cid to control the pace of the battle. He positioned archers and crossbowmen to harass Almoravid forces from above, forcing them into tighter formations that could then be targeted by the cavalry.

 

Role of Peter I of Aragon's forces

Peter I's contingent played a pivotal role by providing critical reinforcements. His forces added depth to the Christian line, allowing El Cid greater flexibility with his cavalry. Peter I's support enabled El Cid to execute his tactical vision without risking a breach in his defenses, as the Aragonese forces held strategic positions that checked the Almoravid's advance.

Together, El Cid and Peter I demonstrated a unified command that leveraged their complementary strengths—El Cid's battlefield acumen and Peter I's strategic support. Their collaboration ensured that the Christian forces at Bairén were not only formidable but resilient under pressure.

 

Outcome and aftermath

The Christian victory at Bairén halted the Almoravid momentum in eastern Spain, allowing the Christian kingdoms to consolidate their positions in the region. El Cid's reputation as an exceptional military commander grew, and the battle strengthened his political influence. For the Almoravids, the loss represented a setback, though they would continue their campaigns against the Christians in subsequent years.

In the broader scope of the Reconquista, the Battle of Bairén underscored the effectiveness of coordinated Christian alliances against Almoravid expansion. It demonstrated how skilled leadership and strategic foresight could offset the numerical or technological advantages of the opponent. This engagement became a testament to El Cid's legacy as both a warrior and a tactician, highlighting his ability to unify disparate forces and achieve victory through intelligent and adaptable military strategy.

In conclusion, the Battle of Bairén stands as a vivid example of the complex interplay between strategy, cultural dynamics, and military prowess in medieval Iberian conflicts. Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar's adaptive use of cavalry and infantry alongside Peter I of Aragon's support showcased innovative tactics that ultimately altered the balance of power in the region.

This battle underscored the importance of alliances, as well as the profound impact of individual leadership on the battlefield. Through its outcome, Bairén paved the way for shifting allegiances and future confrontations that would shape the political landscape of Spain for centuries to come. The lessons from Bairén echo through history, reminding us of the enduring influence of strategic vision and the intricate tapestry of medieval warfare.

 

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.

 

 

Note:

The epithet of "El Cid" meant "the Lord, the Muslim troops under El Cid's command would hail him as Sayyidi.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

On January 13, 1396, the House of Plantagenet was spiraling. A controversial marriage had just taken place in Lincoln Cathedral. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster defied all reason and reputation to marry his long-time mistress, Katherine Swynford. Though most mistresses throughout English history did not exceed their scandalous station, Katherine Swynford did what many could not; she legitimized her children and started a rival line for the throne. Because of her, the British monarchy today exists.

Kristine de Abreu explains.

A depiction of the tombs of Katherine Swynford and her daughter, Joan Beaufort (before they were damaged). Source: available here.

Early Life and First Marriage

Katherine Swynford (born Katherine de Roet) started out in life rather unremarkably. She was neither of noble blood nor a struggling peasant. She was somewhere in between, a member of the gentry. As her father was a knight in the service of King Edward III and his queen Phillipa of Hainaut, Katherine spent the early years of her life at court under the care of the latter. The queen doted on her and her sister Phillipa, resulting in them receiving the same education as the noble and royal children at court. Katherine grew into an exceptionally beautiful, poised, demure and obedient woman whom many respected at court. This included the lords and ladies above her. Eventually, she entered into the service of Blanche of Lancaster, the first wife of John of Gaunt. John was the fourth son of Edward and Phillipa.

Due to her closeness to the royal family, they chose to arrange her marriage. They paired her off with Sir Hugh Swynford of Kettlethorpe, a knight of modest social standing. Though he owned lands and an estate, the mills and small buildings were neglected and the land was infertile. Therefore, the couple had to depend on Hugh’s salary as a knight. Historians determine they had at least four children. Sadly, misfortune struck the Swynfords when Hugh died in 1371 after participating in a military campaign, leaving Katherine a widow. For a poor widow, this was basically a death sentence.

 

An Affair with John of Gaunt

But Katherine’s good standing with the royal family saved her as John of Gaunt supported her financially and gave her a job in the household of his new wife, Constance of Castile, whom he married after the death of Blanche of Lancaster. Though Katherine’s situation improved substantially with John moving heaven and earth to ensure she received a decent inheritance, it also became way more complicated than she expected. She and the married John of Gaunt fell in love. Historians cannot conclude exactly when the affair began but vote in favor of it being during his marriage to Constance.

This was not a temporary fling of short-lived clandestine meetings at night. Rather, it was a long-term relationship where all the nobles knew of the infidelity, including Constance. Katherine gained unofficial status as John’s mistress and even became the governess of John’s daughters (with Blanche). Whether Constance cared or not is up for debate, as Constance had a better advantage keeping quiet, considering how her union with John would mean reclaiming the Castilian throne. But Katherine had four children with John, all of whom were cared for, educated and raised alongside royalty, despite their status as bastards. He gave them the surname Beaufort, a family who’d play a major role in the War of the Roses decades later. It was an odd state of affairs. Not only did the court not come to Constance’s defense but they seemed to approve of Katherine and John’s love. There was a strange acceptance of the blended families, both legitimate and illegitimate, and life was relatively harmonious among all parties involved. Despite Katherine remaining in good graces with the nobility, the public had a different opinion.

John of Gaunt was not afraid to parade the relationship in front of the masses. A famous incident recorded around 1378 by chronicler Thomas Walsingham described John and Katherine riding side by side while his wife Constance was riding behind them. This was a public display of their affair which elicited outrage and disgust from the common folk. They wanted justice and vengeance for Constance, declaring John’s behavior unholy and labeling Katherine a seductress and witch. The public pressure was too much to handle. Three years later was the Peasants’ Revolt, for which John blamed himself and his indiscretions. The peasants demanded his head for his treachery. So, in a heartbreaking decision driven by guilt, he formally broke from Katherine. He still supported her and their children financially and saw her from time to time. She left court to seek residence in Lincoln.

Despite the public renunciation of the relationship, Katherine and the royal family’s relationship remained solid. King Richard II, John of Gaunt’s nephew, bestowed upon her the Order of the Garter, chivalric award and title. Katherine led a quiet existence in the countryside, working in noble households and enjoying a comfortable lifestyle. It seemed as though this was to be the status quo until Constance died in 1394.

 

A line secured

Now that Constance was dead, John immediately sprang into action to legitimize his mistress and children. He appealed to the Pope for his approval, which he gave by manner of a Papal Bull. He then married Katherine at Lincoln Cathedral in 1396, thereby making her his third wife and the Duchess of Lancaster of England. Their children, the Beauforts, were now princes and princesses. The marriage was initially met with resistance but the nobles relented and accepted the reality.

John’s long anticipated marriage to Katherine did not last long. He died from a disease (possible STD). Upon his death, Katherine had all her assets temporarily seized but Richard II came to her aid. She stayed out of politics and chose to live her life out of the spotlight in Lincoln once again. When John’s first-born son with Blanche of Lancaster, Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard, Katherine switched sides and supported him, probably in the hopes of not making an enemy of her stepson. This proved the best strategy as Henry continued the family tradition of showing her favor financially. Her children swore fealty to their new king which gave them immense leverage and helped them set up their descendants for success. John and Katherine’s eldest son John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset fathered Joan Beaufort, the wife of James I King of the Scots and John Beaufort, the father of Margaret Beaufort and grandfather of King Henry VII (Tudor). Also a descendent of Katherine and John was Cecily Neville, the mother of Edward IV, Richard III and George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. This made the Beauforts connected to both the House of Lancaster and the House of York. By the time the War of the Roses peaked, the House of Beaufort aligned with Lancaster as pertaining to their lineage by John and Katherine. Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at Bosworth Fields and sealed their legacy through blood and iron at that fated battlefield.

So, the intense love affair between John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford resulted in the British monarchy’s security with the reigns of the Houses of York, Tudor, Stuart all the way to today’s House of Windsor. John and Katherine’s legacy even made it to the United States with presidents such as George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D Roosevelt and George W Bush being descendants.

 

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

 

 

Works Cited

“Writing medieval women's lives: the case of Katherine Swynford, Lady of Kettlethorpe (and Duchess of Lancaster).” renaissanceissues, 23 December 2016, https://renaissanceissues.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/writing-medieval-womens-lives-the-case-of-katherine-swynford-lady-of-kettlethorpe-and-duchess-of-lancaster/. Accessed 18 November 2024.

“Katherine Swynford: Life And Legacy Of The Scandalous Duchess.” HistoryExtra, 29 November 2021, https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/katherine-swynford-mistress-duchess-john-gaunt/. Accessed 18 November 2024.

“Katherine Swynford (c.1350-1403) – Women's History Network.” Women's History Network, 21 August 2011, https://womenshistorynetwork.org/katherine-swynford-c-1350-1403/. Accessed 18 November 2024.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

Thousands of political science books and magazines discuss the idea of ​​democratic transformation. For example: how can a country once under authoritarian rule, transform from that to individual and democratic rule? And what do we truly know about dictatorships? Can a democratic country transform into a dictatorial country, despite the pre-existence of a constitution and elections?

Probably the most well-known example of this is Germany: which had a parliament; a multi-party system; laws protecting elections; and laws protecting individual freedoms. At the time, the illiteracy rate was almost zero percent,yet it transformed from a democracy into an expansionist dictatorship in 1933, after Hitler's rise to power.

Here, Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter explain how Adolf Hitler took power. Read part 1 on Hitler’s early years here.

Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Reich President Paul V. Hindenburg in March 1933. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S38324 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Taking advantage of Germany’s financial and social instability, Hitler’s party became the largest in the Reichstag in 1932. Later then President of Germany, Paul Von Hindenburg, appointed Hitler Chancellor. Meanwhile, Hitler also hadarmed paramilitary troops known as “Storm Troops” or more commonly known as Brownshirts, because of their brown uniforms. The Storm Troops were under Hitler's command, and the number of soldiers reached in the region of some 400,000 in 1932. The goal of these forces was to control the streets, because; Hitler saw that controlling the streets was the key to controlling the state. Despite his growing military force and political power, Hitler did not yet have theabsolute power, which would enable him to achieve his expansionist dreams. In order to achieve full power, he would need a majority in parliament; the support of the German people; and the support of the German army. Seeing the growing militia power on the streets, however, the military had begun to fear the influence of the Brownshirts.

 

Taking power

Hitler systematically and strategically overcame these obstacles. The German parliament contained left-wing parties who strongly opposed to the Nazi Party. On February 27, 1933, the opposition became violent when  Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the German parliament in protest against the spread of Nazism. Hitlerrecognized this as an opportunity in his interest, as this was an opportunity to get rid of his opponents in parliament.Combined with his growing power on the streets, this was a brutal stab against democracy. The next day, Hitler issued a decision to suspend civil and political freedoms under the guise of bringing safety and order to the chaos.The result was a successful declaration of emergency law.

On March 5, 1933, the government organized new elections, in which Hitler won 44%, 17 million votes. Because Hitler still did not have a majority,  he proposed and persuaded parliament to vote legislation called The Enabling Act. This legislation allowed Hitler to issue laws without the approval of  parliament. With this power, any known communists in parliament were arrested, beaten and prevented from entering parliament. With legislative and executive power in hand, Hitler issued a decision to dissolve all parties and unions except the Nazi Party. With control over the leadership an electoral body, Hitler's target now became the German army.

 

1934

In 1934, Hitler’s paramilitary Storm Troops numbered roughly 2 million soldiers, many times more the number of soldiers in the German army. Ernst Röhm, who had socialist political beliefs, was also the commander of the Storm Troops. He demanded that Hitler carry out their original plans to lead a revolution and implement socialism. The original party values had been to support the German workers, and in fact they had been known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler’s goals had changed however, and he knew that in order to achieve control, he would need the support of businessmen. When Ernst Röhm asked Hitler to join the German army with his Storm Troops under his command as one entity, Hitler had a decision to make. He knew that this combined army would carry out the promised Socialist revolution. The army leaders, however, opposed this therefore Hitler had two options: either  take control of the army leaders who might betray him, or give the power of the military to his friend Ernst Röhm. He chose the army over his friend.

Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the Nazi SS, an elite Nazi security force separate from the Storm Troops, informed Hitler that Ernst Röhm was planning a coup against him. In response Hitler ordered the killing of Ernst Röhm and other Storm Troops Leaders without trial. On June 27, in what became known as the Night of the Long Knives, more than 800 people were liquidated in cold blood. This once again showed Hitler to be a bloody and violent ruler. The German president thanked him and told him that he had saved the German nation.

Hitler knew that a massacre of German citizens could have dangerous repercussions. In order to get control of the media and message, he ordered Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda, to spread the word that there was a plot to overthrow him by Ernst Röhm. If he could justify in the minds of the people that what happened was simply law and order, and for their safety, then fewer people would question his actions. In addition, he bribed terrified wives and children of those who were killed that night to keep silent about anything that might harm his image.

 

Greater power

Shortly after the Night of Long Knives, German President Paul von Hindenburg died, and the position of presidentmerges with that of Chancellor. A referendum was held in August 1934, where the German people voted for Hitler to be the Supreme Leader or "Führer." Then, as the Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels already controlled all film production companies, and newspapers, helping to consolidate power. Another factor for Hitler’s success was the Autobahn - work began in 17 cities at the same time, and would ultimately be a giant highway network linking German cities together. This project was so important to Hitler, that he himself opened the excavation works in his first year in power. This project aimed to eliminate unemployment, giving jobs to at least 600,000 Germans, Promises of employment and spending on a huge project, combined with the propaganda, inevitably increased  his popularity and he won easily.

 

Scapegoat

The economic improvement did not last long. The Autobahn only employed approximately 125,000 people and old problems such as unemployment and inflation reappeared. Clutching at power, Hitler used a people he considered to be an enemy, a scapegoat on which to hang all the problems.

The Jews, whom Hitler blamed for everything, from economic difficulties to the decision to surrender in the war, were influenced by Hitler's anti-Jewish ideology since he was in Austria, and also the communists who were carrying out strikes that were one of the reasons for the surrender in 1918, most of whom Hitler said were Jews.

In 1935, in a celebration at the Berlin Opera House, Hitler issued a set of laws called the Nuremberg Laws, which divided the German people into: Germans and Jews. They would mean that Jews were stripped of their German citizenship, were forbidden to marry non-Jewish Germans, were barred from entering universities and schools, and were required to wear visible badges that would identify them on the street.

These laws established the legal persecution of Jews before they were systematically exterminated.

This continued until November 1938, when a German Jew living in France, Herschel Grynszpan, shot a German diplomat in France, Ernst Vom Rath, and a major campaign of incitement against the Jews began. On November 9, 1938, this resulted in  the Jews being subjected to a wave of severe violence in which about 100 Jews died, and the synagogue, homes, and shops of Jews were destroyed. This night is known as the Night of Broken Glass, and a collective fine was also imposed on the Jews, and about 30,000 Jews were arrested.

 

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

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The Battle of Gaugamela (Γαυγάμηλα), or Battle of Arbela (Ἄρβηλα), fought on the October 1, 331 BCE, was a turning point in ancient history, marking Alexander the Great's decisive victory over the Persian Empire and solidifying his place as one of history's greatest military tacticians and strategists.

The confrontation was the culmination of escalating hostilities between the ambitious Macedonian king, Alexander III of Macedon who became known as Alexander the Great, (Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας), and Darius III, the ruler of the vast Persian Empire.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of Gaugamela by Jan Brueghel the Elder, 1602.

The lead-up to Gaugamela

Following his father King Philip II's unification of the Greek city-states and establishment of the League of Corinth, Alexander ascended to the Macedonian throne with aspirations of expansion beyond Greece's borders. His campaign against Persia began in 334 BCE, with Alexander's victories in battles such as Granicus, (Μάχη του Γρανικού), 334 BCE and Issus, (Ἱσσὸς Μάχη), 333 BCE setting the stage for a showdown.

These early successes inspired confidence among Alexander's ranks and raised concerns for Darius, who had underestimated Alexander's prowess. In the wake of the Battle of Issus in 333 BCE, where Alexander had struck a significant blow to the Persian forces, Darius offered peace terms, including a generous ransom for his captured family and large territorial concessions.

Alexander, however, saw himself as Darius's equal and declined the offer, seeking to claim the Persian Empire for himself. Politically, Darius now faced mounting pressure from his subjects to protect the empire's core territories, therefore, moved to consolidate his forces near Gaugamela, a strategically chosen location on the Mesopotamian plains, where he could deploy his army's full strength and exploit the open terrain.

 

Commanders and armies, strategy and tactics

On the Macedonian side, Alexander commanded a seasoned, highly disciplined army composed of approximately 47,000 troops, including phalanx infantry, elite companion cavalry, and specialised units like archers and highly mobile light infantry. Alexander's forces were strategically flexible and accustomed to his aggressive, calculated tactics. Central to Alexander's strategy was a deep understanding of mobility and the use of oblique formations to outflank larger forces.

Darius III, on the other hand, led a considerably larger force, with estimates ranging from 100,000 to as high as 250,000 troops. The Persian army was a diverse coalition, including cavalry, infantry, chariots equipped with scythes, and a small contingent of war elephants. Darius positioned himself at the centre of his forces, with infantry and heavy cavalry on the flanks and chariots prepared for a decisive charge. His strategy relied on overwhelming Alexander's smaller army with sheer numbers, hoping to use the flat plains of Gaugamela to his advantage.

 

The battle unfolds, tactics and action

As the battle began, Darius attempted to use his numerical superiority by sending waves of cavalry on both flanks to encircle Alexander's troops. However, Alexander the Great's tactics at the Battle of Gaugamela were masterfully adapted to the open, flat terrain, which should have favoured Darius III's much larger Persian forces. Recognising that a direct, head-on confrontation with such a massive army would be risky, Alexander orchestrated a strategy to exploit his troops' agility, discipline, and skill.

Central to this was his innovative integration of cavalry and infantry, forming a highly flexible, responsive battle line that allowed him to neutralise the Persians' numerical advantage and leverage his own army's strengths. Alexander placed his heavy infantry, the Macedonian phalanx, at the centre of his formation, forming a strong, disciplined core that could hold against Persian attacks.

His famed companion cavalry, led personally by Alexander, was positioned on the right flank, along with other light infantry and cavalry units. This flank was the decisive wing of his army, where Alexander intended to deliver a powerful blow. On the left, under the command of General Parmenion, were additional cavalry and light infantry, tasked with holding their ground against Persian attacks. The integration of cavalry and infantry on both flanks gave the Macedonian army flexibility, allowing Alexander to adapt quickly to Persian moves.

Alexander also employed a tactical feigned retreat and oblique advance, pulling his right-wing cavalry gradually to the right. This manoeuvre drew Persian forces away from their solid front line, stretching them and exposing gaps. When Darius ordered his cavalry to pursue Alexander's right flank, Alexander seized the opportunity.

The Persian line thinned, especially near the centre, where Darius was stationed. At the critical moment, Alexander and his companion cavalry swung sharply to the left, charging through the gap in the Persian centre toward Darius himself. Meanwhile, the Macedonian phalanx advanced, keeping the Persian infantry occupied and preventing them from reinforcing their vulnerable centre.

This coordinated use of cavalry and infantry allowed Alexander to drive a wedge into the Persian army, isolating Darius and forcing him to flee. As the Persian king retreated, the morale of his troops broke, leading to a chaotic withdrawal. Alexander's tactical ingenuity in using a mix of direct engagement and flanking manoeuvres on such open terrain proved decisive, showcasing his ability to adapt and exploit the unique conditions of the battlefield.

 

Aftermath and legacy

The Battle of Gaugamela signalled the collapse of the Persian Empire, opening the doors for Alexander's forces to capture the key cities of Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis. This victory marked the effective end of Persian power and the beginning of a new era of Hellenistic influence across the former empire. Alexander's victory at Gaugamela became a testament to his strategic brilliance, shaping his legacy as one of history's most formidable conquerors.

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:

Ancient Macedonia

Ancient Macedonia (Μακεδονία), known as Macedon was an ancient kingdom on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, which later became the dominant state of Hellenistic Greece.

The kingdom was founded and initially ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, which was followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties. Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centred on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, and bordered by Epirus to the southwest, Illyria to the northwest, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south.

Not to be confused with the Republic of North Macedonia, a landlocked country in Southeast Europe, sharing land borders with Greece to the south, Albania to the west, Bulgaria to the east, Kosovo to the northwest and Serbia to the north.

 

Alexander the Great's empire

Alexander the Great's empire was one of the largest in the ancient world, stretching from Greece to northwest India.

 

Extent of the Empire

At its height, Alexander's empire covered approximately 5.2 million square kilometres (2 million square miles), making it the largest empire in the world at the time.

It stretched from Macedonia and Greece in the west, across the Middle East, through Persia (modern-day Iran), and reaching India in the east. The empire also included Egypt and parts of Central Asia.

 

Key regions and territories conquered

Macedonia and Greece: The empire began here and remained Alexander's cultural and administrative base.

Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey): Alexander moved here after defeating the Persians at the Battle of Granicus, (Μάχη του Γρανικού), 334 BCE.

Persian Empire (modern Iran, Iraq, Syria, and parts of Central Asia): After his decisive victory at the Battle of Gaugamela, (Γαυγάμηλα), in 331 BCE, Alexander claimed the entirety of the Persian Empire, which was the dominant power in the region.

Egypt: He was welcomed in Egypt as a liberator and founded the city of Alexandria.

Mesopotamia and Babylon: These regions became central to his empire after the fall of Persia.

Punjab Region in India: Alexander's easternmost conquests reached the Punjab region, but he did not extend further due to his army's reluctance.

 

Population and diversity

Alexander's empire was highly diverse, encompassing various cultures, languages, and religions. The empire was home to tens of millions of people, though exact population estimates vary.

 

Administration and influence

Alexander's conquests helped spread Greek culture, language, and ideas across these regions, influencing them for centuries to come in what became known as the Hellenistic Period. His empire, however, was difficult to govern due to its sheer size, and it began to fragment soon after he died in 323 BCE.

Alexander's empire was significant not only for its size but also for its lasting cultural impact. Greek influence persisted through the Hellenistic kingdoms that succeeded his empire, blending with local cultures across Asia and the Mediterranean.

 

Phalanx, (φάλαγξ)

One of the most effective and enduring military formations in ancient warfare was that of the Greek phalanx. The age of the phalanx formation may be traced back to Sumeria in the 25th century BCE, through Egypt, and finally appearing in Greek literature through Homer in the 8th century BCE (and since has been generally associated with Greek warfare strategy, the name itself coming from the Greek word for 'finger').

The phalanx formation was a close-rank, dense grouping of soldiers armed with long spears and interlocking shields with the first few ranks of soldiers projecting their spears out over the first rank of shields.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

The Industrial Revolution marked a huge change in history. It turned slow handwork into fast machine production and changed economies, cities, and societies in many places. For those who want to know how this time shapes our world today, Industrial Revolution books offer rich insights. They provide context for modern economic changes and help readers understand current events more deeply. Here, Andrii Andriievskyi discovers books that shed light on this era and its impact on our modern world.

A depiction of the opening of Britain’s Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830.


Foundational books

Books that explore the basics of the Industrial Revolution help readers grasp how this era began and evolved. They show how machines replaced hand tools, changing economies worldwide. Let’s explore some key books, with summaries you can read with the Headway app.

 

"The unbound Prometheus" by David S. Landes

David S. Landes provides a detailed look in "The Unbound Prometheus." This book tracks technological growth in Europe from 1750 to 1850. It sheds light on how innovations in machines reshaped industries. Landes explains these changes with clear examples and shows their effects on society.

 

"Industry and empire" by Eric Hobsbawm

In "Industry and Empire," Eric Hobsbawm discusses the ties between industrial growth and historical shifts in Britain. This book reveals how industry influenced social classes, government policies, and global relations. Hobsbawm offers a critical view of both the positive and negative impacts of industrialism. He writes with a keen focus on how industry shaped modern capitalism.

 

"The age of revolution: 1789-1848" by Eric Hobsbawm

Eric Hobsbawm offers another profound work with "The Age of Revolution." This book reviews the period from 1789 to 1848, highlighting the changes caused by the Industrial Revolution and other global movements. Hobsbawm connects political events with economic shifts, clearly showing how societies evolved. He also examines how these transformations brought new social norms and challenges.

 

Deep dives into economic and technological change

Books on economic history and technological impact show how the Industrial Revolution altered the world. These works help readers see the long-term effects of this pivotal era. Let’s look at some books about the Industrial Revolution that cover these topics in depth.

 

"The British industrial revolution in global perspective" by Robert C. Allen

Robert C. Allen looks at England's role in the Industrial Revolution. He explains why this change started there and how it affected global markets. Allen discusses the importance of wages, energy, and trade during that period. Readers discover how these factors came together to spark industrial growth in Britain. The book provides an easy-to-understand view of complex economic changes.

 

"The lever of riches" by Joel Mokyr

Joel Mokyr explores technological advancement through history. The book highlights inventions that changed production processes and boosted economies. Mokyr clearly shows how innovation led to long-term success for some countries. He emphasizes the link between technology and prosperity across different eras. Readers find valuable insights about progress and challenges from this historical period.

 

"Power and plenty: trade, war, and the world economy in the second millennium" by Ronald Findlay and Kevin H. O’Rourke

This book examines world trade dynamics over a thousand years, including the Industrial Revolution. Ronald Findlay and Kevin H. O'Rourke consider how war and commerce shaped global connections during this era. They connect past events with present-day economic systems, showing the legacy of industrial growth and trade routes. Using historical evidence, the authors demonstrate the lasting impact of these changes.

 

Cultural and social impacts

The Industrial Revolution did more than change machines and industries. It touched daily lives, shifted social norms, and sparked new cultural movements. Some works explore these deep ties, examining how society moved with growth.

 

"The Enlightened Economy" by Joel Mokyr

Joel Mokyr digs into how the Industrial Revolution changed society in "The Enlightened Economy." He shows how the ideas of the Enlightenment boosted innovation and progress. Knowledge spread more quickly, inspiring new ways to use machines and solve problems. Mokyr explains how thinkers of the time helped create a better future by fostering curiosity and learning.

 

"Culture and Society 1780-1950" by Raymond Williams

Raymond Williams explores the link between culture and industrial growth from 1780 to 1950 in "Culture and Society." He writes about how literature, art, and social ideas tried to keep up with quick changes in industry. Williams talks about how writers and artists responded to shifts in work and life that machines brought. He looks at debates about what culture should mean when old traditions meet new technology.

 

"The Condition of the Working Class in England" by Friedrich Engels

Friedrich Engels paints a picture of life for workers during industrialization in his book. He describes the hard conditions many faced as cities grew crowded with factory jobs. Engels focuses on the struggles workers deal with, such as long hours and poor living environments. He offers viewpoints on the social inequality that grew more visible alongside progress.

 

Comparative perspectives

Different countries experienced the Industrial Revolution in unique ways. Some Industrial Revolution books look at how Britain's Industrial Revolution compared to those in Europe and the U.S. Readers can better understand how it shaped diverse economies and societies.

 

"The Comparative Industrial Revolution" by Robert C. Allen 

Robert C. Allen examines how various countries went through changes differently. He compares the growth in Britain to that in other European nations and the U.S., pointing out key differences in resources, policies, and challenges. Allen shows why Britain led initially, but others caught up later. His analysis gives a broad view of patterns across nations.

 

"The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism" by Richard N. Langlois 

Richard N. Langlois explores how different economic systems shaped industrial growth in various countries. He contrasts Britain's capital-driven model with approaches seen in Europe and America, focusing on business practices and innovations that emerged. Langlois highlights both successful strategies and pitfalls encountered by each nation.

 

"Nations and Firms in the Global Economy" by Steven Brakman, Harry Garretsen, and Charles van Marrewijk

This book delves into global trade dynamics, focusing on history's role in shaping current economic systems. It analyzes Britain's influence on worldwide industrial networks compared to other major players like Europe and America. The authors discuss trade patterns, capital flows, and firm strategies across different regions.

 

Discover the impact of a changing era: Start reading now

The Industrial Revolution holds big lessons for today. It shows how past changes in machines and economies connect to today's tech and markets. By looking at this era, we can better see how today's world evolved. The Industrial Revolution books mentioned above give clear insights. They explain how the past shapes the future, helping us understand ongoing changes. Reading these works can deepen our view of industrial impacts on societies worldwide.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Louis Wigfall serves as a compelling character within the context of political leadership. Often, we associate the origins of our political figures with their achievements in finance and business, which are perceived as essential for a successful political trajectory. However, Louis Trezevant Wigfall, a prominent Senator of the Confederate States of America and a fervent advocate for secession, lacked such conventional qualifications. His ascent to prominence is an intriguing tale reflective of the Old South, and his exercise of power reveals a distinct dimension of that societal framework.

Lloyd W Klein MD explains.

Louis Wigfall.

Origin and Character

Wigfall was born on a plantation in the vicinity of Edgefield, South Carolina, to a prosperous merchant from Charleston, while his mother hailed from French Huguenot lineage. Tragically, his father passed away when Wigfall was merely two years old, and he lost his mother at the age of thirteen. He had an older brother, Hamden, who met his demise in a duel, a significant detail in Wigfall's life narrative, while another brother, Arthur, rose to prominence as a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Wigfall pursued his education at what would later be known as the University of South Carolina, where he spent a considerable amount of time in taverns, with the exception of a three-month period during which he participated in the Seminole War.

Afterwards, Wigfall engaged in a lifestyle characterized by excessive drinking and gambling, ultimately depleting his inheritance and accruing substantial debts from friends and even his future spouse. He eventually returned to Edgefield, where he assumed control of his deceased brother's law practice, although he did not find success in this endeavor either. The South Carolina Encyclopedia describes him as “financially irresponsible,” noting that he wasted his moderate inheritance on vices such as gambling, alcohol, and illicit relationships.

However, these shortcomings were not the most alarming aspects of Wigfall's character. He was known for his violent disposition, frequently challenging others to duels despite the tragic fate of his brother. Notably, he was involved in at least two duels prior to the Civil War. His political affiliations led him into a series of altercations, including a fistfight, two duels, and three near-duels over a span of five months, culminating in a charge for homicide, although he was not indicted. In a notable duel with Preston Brooks, who later gained infamy for assaulting Charles Sumner in the Senate, Wigfall sustained gunshot wounds to his thighs.

 

Political Career

None of this helped his political aspirations, so in 1848, he moved to Texas, joining a law practice. The dynamic and often tumultuous nature of Texas politics proved to be more aligned with his temperament, as he held a seat in the Texas House of Representatives from 1849 to 1850, followed by a tenure in the Texas Senate from 1857 to 1860.

He emerged as a prominent member of a faction known as the "Fire-eaters," which included notable figures such as Edmund Ruffin, Robert Rhett, and William Lowndes Yancey. During a convention in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1850, the Fire-Eaters advocated for southern secession, emphasizing the irreconcilable differences between the North and South, and they intensified regional tensions through their use of propaganda against Northern interests. He became a staunch adversary of Sam Houston, who espoused pro-Union sentiments, and actively campaigned against him during Houston's gubernatorial run in 1857, criticizing his congressional record. In 1859, Wigfall was elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat, serving until his withdrawal on March 23, 1861, and was subsequently expelled on July 11, 1861, due to his support for the rebellion.

Position on Slavery

Wigfall's stance on slavery was characteristic of the traditional Southern viewpoint prevalent during his era. He advocated for a societal structure dominated by the planter class, which was fundamentally reliant on slavery and the principles of the chivalric code. Following the gubernatorial election of 1857, there appeared to be a shift in public sentiment towards the Union, particularly as the Know-Nothing Party began to disband. However, the John Brown Raid reignited the contentious debate surrounding slavery, likely contributing to his electoral success. Upon his entry into the United States Senate in 1859, Wigfall consistently resisted any initiatives aimed at alleviating political discord. He emerged as a prominent figure in the campaign to guarantee the rights of Southern slaveholders to migrate with their slaves into new territories. Additionally, he was a staunch advocate of nullification during his time in South Carolina and fervently supported the expansion of slavery while opposing protective tariffs.

He resorted to threats of violence in his politics as well as in his personal life. Regarding the difference of opinion about slavery that northerners had, he said, “You shall not publish newspapers and pamphlets to excite the non-slaveholders against the slaveholders, or the slaveholders against the non-slaveholders. We will have peace; and if you do not offer it to us, we will quietly, and as we have the right under the constitutional compact to do, withdraw from the Union and establish a government for ourselves; and if you then persist in your aggressions, we will leave it to the ultimo ratio regum (a resort to arms), and the sovereign States will settle that question. And when you laugh at these impotent threats, as you regard them, I tell you that cotton is king.”

 

Secession

The conflicts between Wigfall and Sam Houston, the Texas governor, were marked by intensity. Houston was a strong proponent of the Southern cause but believed that the best strategy was to stay in  the Union and bring about change from within, not to fight a war over secession. Wigfall labeled Houston as a coward and a traitor to the Southern cause. Wigfall stood out as one of the rare individuals in opposition to Houston who could match him in oratory skills, and he received considerable recognition for contributing to Houston's loss in the gubernatorial race of 1857.

Wigfall's role in the Democratic Convention of 1860 was of significant consequence. As a leading fire-eater, he advocated for the Democratic party's platform to explicitly demand that the Federal government ensure the protection of slavery within the territories. His efforts were instrumental in the fracturing of the Democratic party, which ultimately facilitated the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. In January 1865, he expressed his views on social hierarchy by stating, “Sir, I wish to live in no country where the man who blacks my boots or curries my horse is my equal.” His support for secession was rooted in the belief that it would provide a lasting solution to the sectional tensions of the time.

Following Lincoln's election, Wigfall played a pivotal role in drafting the "Southern Manifesto," which proclaimed that any prospects for reconciliation within the Union had vanished. He argued that the dignity and autonomy of the South necessitated the formation of a Southern Confederacy. Despite this strong stance, Wigfall did not resign from the United States Senate until he had successfully undermined all compromise efforts proposed in early 1861, demonstrating his commitment to the cause he championed.

Wigfall maintained his Senate seat even after Texas seceded on February 1, 1861, passionately advocating for the Southern cause while criticizing his Northern counterparts both in the Senate chamber and in various Capitol Hill establishments. Unlike other senators, such as Jefferson Davis, who chose to resign following their states' secession, Wigfall opted to remain in office for a period. It is widely believed that he leveraged his position to gather intelligence on military activities and procure arms for the Confederate forces.

Following secession, Wigfall's influence grew significantly, rooted in his ideological beliefs and support from his Texas constituency. He was inducted into the Provisional Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, where he contributed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Additionally, he represented Texas in the Provisional Confederate Congress, which established the Confederacy's provisional government and appointed Jefferson Davis as its president. During his tenure in Washington, Wigfall engaged in espionage against Federal military preparations, arranged for the transport of weapons to the South, and, after being expelled by his Senate colleagues, traveled to Baltimore, Maryland, to enlist soldiers for the Confederacy before making his way to Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital.

And then, he travelled to Charleston to do what he could to start a war.

 

Fort Sumter

Wigfall advocated an attack on Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens with the intention of encouraging Virginia and other upper southern slave states to align with the Confederacy. He recognized that the Border States and those still undecided would likely choose to secede once an armed conflict targeting the South commenced. His fervent advocacy was directed towards both the media and his political associates. Upon his arrival in Charleston, South Carolina, during the onset of the siege of Fort Sumter, diarist Mary Chestnut identified him as the only individual who appeared “thoroughly happy”. His presence during the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter from Morris Island was seen as a reckless provocation.

While acting as an aide to General Beauregard amid the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Wigfall took it upon himself to approach the fort without prior authorization. He rowed a small boat to the island and demanded the surrender of Major Robert Anderson. Acting independently, he commandeered a rowboat on Morris Island, accompanied by Private Gourdin Young of the Palmetto Guard and two enslaved individuals, to reach Fort Sumter. Upon his arrival, he sought an audience with Major Anderson and entered the fort through an open embrasure. Wigfall informed the Federals, “Your flag is down, you are on fire, and you are not firing your guns. General Beauregard wants to stop this.” His intervention successfully halted the hostilities and he offered favorable terms for surrender.

His actions received significant media attention, enhancing Wigfall's public profile; however, the reports omitted the crucial fact that he had not communicated with Beauregard for two days prior to his actions. When the official representatives eventually arrived at the fort, they were taken aback to discover that Wigfall had extended terms to Anderson that had already been rejected by Beauregard. This misalignment between Wigfall's unilateral decision and the command structure of the Confederate forces highlighted the complexities and tensions within the leadership during this critical moment in the conflict.

 

Military Service

Following his pivotal involvement in orchestrating the surrender of Fort Sumter, he attained a level of public recognition that had previously eluded him. Drawing from his combative history, he opted to enlist in military service as a means to enhance his public image. On August 28, 1861, he was appointed as colonel of the First Texas Infantry, and subsequently, on November 21, Davis nominated him for the rank of brigadier general in the Provisional Army, a nomination that was later ratified by the Confederate Congress. Wigfall took command of the Texas Brigade within the Army of Northern Virginia.  2. During the winter of 1861–1862, he established his residence in a tavern located near his troops in Dumfries, Virginia, where he often summoned his men to arms at midnight, driven by fears of a Federal invasion. His anxiety was attributed to his excessive consumption of whiskey and hard cider. As a result, Wigfall's effectiveness as a brigadier general diminished, and he frequently appeared intoxicated, both on and off duty, in front of his soldiers.

 

Confederate Congress

So, finding military life a bit too regimented, he resigned on February 20, 1862 and took a seat in the First Confederate Congress and served throughout the war. He sat on the committees on Foreign Affairs; Military Affairs; Territories; and Flag and Seal. John Bell Hood replaced him in  brigade command, and became known as Hood’s brigade, which he personally led at Antietam.

He had started as a close friend of Jefferson Davis. Initially he served as a military aide to Davis. An arrogant man, Wigfall soon came into conflict with President Davis. After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room. Although a friend and supporter of the Confederate military, he was also an obstructionist in opposing Davis’ nominations.

What could a fire-eater like Wigfall find objectionable about Davis, the ultimate states rights advocate? Davis began to recognize that to survive, the new nation needed a powerful executive with powers that superseded state governors. Inflation, recruitment of soldiers, the building of a navy and acquiring war resources necessitated a strong central government. Davis’ nationalized the salt industry, for example, and regulated salt production, a responsibility more similar to socialism than capitalism or states rights. Meanwhile, Wigfall as senator blocked the creation of a Confederate Supreme Court and openly questioned many of Davis’ military decisions.

Wigfall proposed the first conscription law ever enacted in American history. His main legislative successes were initiating Conscription and then extending its age requirements and funding much needed railroad construction.

During the last two years of the Confederacy Wigfall carried on public and conspiratorial campaigns to strip Davis of all influence. His continuing conflict with Davis and his support of military men and strategies that Davis did not like led to his loss of influence in the final years of the war. He did very little constructive work for the people of Texas.

As the war increasingly turned against the CSA, Wigfall became the predominant critic of the Davis war effort, including his choice of commanders.

After Appomattox, Wigfall’s belligerence remained unabated. He escaped back to Texas. He spent six years in self-imposed exile in London before returning briefly to Baltimore, and later to Galveston, Texas. He never adjusted to defeat and never admitted to losing.

Wigfall was very close to Joseph E Johnston, who of course was not one of Davis’s favorites. He also early on suggested promoting Robert E Lee to commander of all Confederate armies, a post Davis would never create.

After Gettysburg and western defeats, Wigfall attacked Robert E. Lee, John Pemberton and Braxton Bragg. In January 1865 his successor as head of the Texas Brigade, John Bell Hood, is relieved of command after a loss at Franklin. The influential Wigfall announced that Davis’ “pig-headedness and perverseness” were destroying the South.

After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room.

He opposed the arming of slaves and was willing to lose the war rather than admit that Blacks were worthy of being soldiers. He stated that he didn’t want to “make a Santo Domingo of his country.” His racial prejudices remained unchanged from his youth.

He tried to foment war between Britain and the United States, hoping to give the South an opportunity to rise again. 

 

Famous Quotes

“We want no manufacturers, we are a nation of proud farmers who want to preserve our lifestyle'.

 

December 11, 1860, on the floor of the Senate; "I said that one of the causes, and the one that has created more excitement and dissatisfaction than any other, is, that the Government will not hereafter, and when it is necessary, interpose to protect slaves as property in the Territories; and I asked the Senator if he would abandon his squatter-sovereignty notions and agree to protect slaves as all other property?" [Quote taken from The Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 58.]

 

Regarding the Homestead Act: "It provides land for the land-less, homes for the home-less, but no slaves for the slave-less." (he actually used the N-word, which I am changing here for obvious reasons).

 

I realize that it is painful to read these words in their raw, unfiltered original form. The point is that when confronted with what was actually said, we see meanings that were in fact intended that otherwise gets lost in the translation, which then gets twisted into: “Slavery wasn’t all that bad.” But this is what the intent was.

Wigfall was a confederate politician from the State of Texas. He is regarded as one of the most conservative politicians of his time and place, which is really radical, who wanted to carve out a unique identify and future for Texas. He wanted to build Texas on the model of old European aristocratic systems where the few owned all of the land. But he went further: they would also own all of the people who worked on their land. He supported the use of slaves and believed that they were integral in order to preserve a system of order. Essentially, he was advocating a hereditary, aristocratic serf system that was racially based.

Although it is well recognized that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone” was slavery and racism, it is sobering to recognize that their thought leaders went way beyond that. Their dream was a class and economic system that benefitted the very few at the expense of the many, a return to medieval feudalism before the Magna Carta. And the underlying rationale was white supremacy mixed in with a superiority of heredity. It is breathtaking to think that this was only 160-170 years ago in America.

And to accomplish that, they were willing to forego industrial and manufacturing progress to keep their society in line. The hubris of thinking that they could keep technological advances out of their culture is mind blowing, and not unlike that seen in certain Middle East sheikdoms, which has also had to be modified in light of modern progress. This is the foundation of why illiteracy and poor education was the real cornerstone of the Confederacy. I believe this subject has not been addressed in the historical record to any great extent.

 

Summary

Wigfall's reputation for oratory and hard drinking, along with a combative nature and high-minded sense of personal honor, made him one of the more imposing political figures of his time.  It is interesting that his overarching interests became military strategy, personnel and recruitment. His advocacy of the preservation and expansion of an aristocratic agricultural society based on slave labor was his main domestic position. He was a belligerent drunkard who was happy to fight anyone physically. But he actually had a cogent, albeit outrageous and unethical, economic blueprint for what he wanted to see his country and state become. He had a vision of America that modern Americans would not recognize.

 

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

 

 

Further reading

Louis Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater by A. L. King. Men of Secession by James Abrahamson.

King, Alvy L. Louis T. Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Lord, C. W. “Young Louis Wigfall: South Carolina Politician and Duelist.” South Carolina Historical Magazine 59 (April 1958): 96–112.

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant

https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant/ 

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.nps.gov/people/louis-wigfall.htm

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones