The Salvation Army, Economic Emigration, and The British Empire

The Salvation Army (the Army) is predominantly known as an international charitable organization. For over a million people worldwide, it is an Evangelical church with its own distinctive polity and practice, owing its heritage to British Methodism and American Revivalism. Less well-known is that between 1891 and 1932, the Army supported over 100,000 men, women, and children to travel from Britain to her colonies across the sea. This Evangelical movement and engine for social reform became an emigration agency because they believed that moving the ‘surplus population’ out of Britain into unclaimed land in the colonies would reduce poverty, specifically urban deprivation, in the mother country.

Christopher Button explains.

Salvation Army co-founder William Booth.

Introduction

The Salvation Army began social service work in 1866, with the first food depots providing meals for dockers who had been laid off during the collapse of the Poplar shipyards. By the 1870s, social service work had transformed into social reform work. Early examples included the establishment of rescue homes for female sex workers who were trained to become domestic servants or given jobs such as bookbinders. They also set up sheltered workshops for unemployed or homeless men to enable them to learn a trade and return to work. According to William Booth, the simple principle was that:

Any person who comes to a shelter destitute and starving, will be supplied with sufficient work to enable him to earn the fourpence needed for his bed and board. This is a fundamental feature of the scheme, and which I think will commend it to all those who are anxious to benefit the poor by enabling them to help themselves without the demoralising intervention of charitable relief…There is no compulsion upon anyone to resort to our shelters, but if a penniless man wants food her must, as a rule, do work sufficient to pay for what he has of that and of other accommodation. I say as a rule because, of course, our officers will be allowed to make exceptions in extreme cases.[1]

The Victorian demand that people should lift themselves up by their bootstraps was adopted by the Army. The Army expected and demanded from the customers of its social relief efforts that they engage in hard work, commitment to personal transformation, and, where absolutely necessary, the absolute minimum of charity to allow them to do so.

In Darkest England

In 1890, the Army released the blueprint for a new, totalizing, and universal scheme of social reform that would provide a system of welfare designed to work towards eradicating poverty and destitution and bring about the salvation of the world. This project was called In Darkest England and the Way Out, written principally by William Booth and published in 1890. It sold over 100,000 editions within the first few months. It was, in its way, quite a simple scheme. There were three parts to this scheme. Each was a form of colony, consciously adopting the structures of empire just as the book’s title borrowed from David Livingstone’s book Darkest Africa. The language is telling and is something we will return to.

The first step was the ‘City Colony’ including food depots, shelters, rescue work for women, salvage yards and ‘elevators.’

The ‘Elevator’ was a new concept in social services, combining generous acceptance with patient but unwavering discipline. ‘No one brings a reference here’ explained an officer in charge of one such institution. ‘If a man is willing to work, he stays; if not, he goes.’ No guide line could be simpler for the entrant; none more demanding upon those who were seeking his rehabilitation…The elevator was, in effect, and entry form of ‘sheltered workshop’ – a concept which was little known at the time and consequently less understood.[2]

The elevator was a combination of shelter and workshop or factory. Men could find somewhere to live and work in various trades to pay for their bed and board and gain enough stability to seek work in the trade they were learning. Central to every part of the city colony was regular, often daily, worship for all the residents. None were compelled to attend, but for many, it was an easy source of entertainment. Attendance at salvation meetings in the shelters across 1891 was recorded at 136,579, with 708 recorded as being converted. The work of social reform was undertaken hand in hand with the work of personal reformation with the intent of universal conversion.

For those city colonists who thrived and demonstrated their proper attitude to work, the second stage of the Darkest England scheme beckoned. This was the ‘Farm Colony.’ The Army intended to take select members of the urban poor who had demonstrated their willingness to work and submit to discipline and transplant them to training farms. Sir John Gorst QC MP wrote:

The unemployed is taken away from the town where he competes with a congested mass of workers, too numerous for existing employment opportunities, and brought back to the land, where he produces more than he consumes, where his labour enriches the nation without lessening the earnings of his fellow workmen.[3]

The Army in the UK bought a farm in Hadleigh, Essex, and developed it to receive colonists from the city. Similar farms were purchased in Australia, America, and South Africa. Farm colonists would work for the first month purely for bread and board. Then, if they demonstrated their willingness to learn, work, and behave, they would start to be paid. The farm colonists learned to work the land in small holdings or as tenant farmers. Some were returned to the city as unsuitable for the farm. Others were encouraged to purchase a 5-acre smallholding from the Army at favorable interest rates and become independent. But for others, they would be eligible for the third part of the Darkest England scheme — the Colony Across the Seas.

The Colony Across the Sea

Here, we come to the point at hand. The Darkest England scheme was dependent upon the British Empire. The Darkest England scheme could not have worked without the shared culture, language, infrastructure and transportation links. The fact that the scheme did not live up to its promise has less to do with the Empire and more to do with the incredible amount of funding necessary to make it practicable. Despite the relative failure of the Darkest England scheme beyond the city colony, the limited successes and the plans for the scheme highlight the inherent links between the Army and the Empire. William Booth said:

It Is absurd to speak of the colonies as If they were a foreign land. They are simply pieces of Britain distributed about the world, enabling the Britisher to have access to the richest parts of the earth.[4]

In the same way, the Army intended to send Britain’s poorest, properly trained and equipped, out to the parts of the Empire where land was underutilized. The movement from city to farm to overseas farm or factory was meant to become a new system built into the structure of Britain. By reducing the overall population and upskilling the urban poor, not only would Britain benefit, but the colonies would be developed. Ausubel wrote:

Indeed, one of the purposes of the In Darkest England scheme itself was to bring about structural change, since Booth was one of those Victorian reformers who believed that as population was the root course of the long depression from the early 1870s to the late 1890s and that mass emigration was part of the answer to this problem.[5]

The Army started supporting the emigration of its farm colonists to the colonies over the seas in 1891. Initially, colonists went to New South Wales and Queensland. By November 1891, 95 emigrants had been sent overseas by the Army with letters of recommendation for farms and factories in the receiving territories. The 1907 yearbook reported that since 1905, 15,000 people had emigrated through the Army’s agency. However, problems in the scheme were starting to emerge.

A key example comes from New Zealand, where there was…

Agitation against the scheme by Trades and Labour Councils…On the grounds that living standards of workers would be depressed by this introduction into the Colonies of what they termed ‘undesirable persons the Pauper and criminal scum of the alleys and byways of Great Britain.’[6]

The colonies, especially New Zealand and Australia, did not want to receive people who had been destitute and dwelling in London’s slums until recently. The costs involved in emigration had, until then, helped to ensure that those emigrating from Britain had been able to support themselves on arrival. The Army supported the Salvationist colonists, but they were travelling to improve themselves and did not go with their own resources.

Another issue was that William Booth and the Army had somewhat misunderstood the relationship between Britain and her colonies and dominions. By the early 1900s, the Empire was already starting to decentralize, especially in the self-governing states and dominions. Britain could not simply tell the governments of Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa to give spare land to colonists from The Salvation Army. The Army was not empowered to create new colonies, and the Imperial government could not provide the Army with new land. The Army was not given unused land in the existing colonies. The third stage of the Darkest England scheme seemed to be failing, so the Army had to turn to a broader approach to emigration.[7]

Family Emigration

Colonel David Lamb, the new commander of the emigration department, decided to broaden the project to include families as well as single men. This brought into reality some of William Booth's hopes for Darkest England.

In the Salvation Ship we shall export them all – father, mother, and children. The individuals will be grouped in families, and the families will, on the farm colony, have been for some months part more or less near neighbours, meeting each other in the field, in the workshops, and in the religious services. It will resemble nothing so much as the unmouring of a little piece of England, and towing it across the sea to find a safe anchorage in a sunnier clime. The ship which takes out emigrants will have the produce of the farms, and constant travelling to and from will lead more than ever to the feeling that we and our ocean-sundered brothers are members of one family.[8]

With Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa actively working against William Booth’s scheme of social imperialism, it was up to Canada to rescue Darkest England. The relationship between the Army emigration service and Canada developed until the Army became one of Canada’s leading immigration agencies, accredited and financially sponsored by the Canadian government and funded by direct donations in the UK. Between 1905 and 1907, the Army chartered fourteen ocean liners with a thousand immigrants on each. By the opening of the First World War, over 50,000 settlers had been supported in moving to Canada. By 1932, when the emigration service ended, more than 112,000 people from Britain had moved to Canada.

The system was comprehensive. Corps officers in the UK advertised the scheme and supported families in applying for emigration through the Army’s agency. Social officers helped identify likely candidates from the shelters or Hadleigh Farm and made their applications to the agency. The emigration department also stationed agents in the Army’s labour exchange bureaus, particularly helping domestic servants emigrate. The Army also offered emigration insurance for the settlers. For 10 shillings, the traveler would be insured against loss of belongings and against the risk of not finding employment. Whilst most settlers using the Army’s emigration agency had a position organized on their behalf for when they arrived, some went without work waiting for them in the hope of finding a position. The Army would pay for their return to Britain if they did not find work.

The Army chartered liners to carry the new colonists from the UK to Canada on an alcohol-free trip. They were accompanied on the ships by Salvation Army officers who led worship and prayer meetings, offered counsel, and gave lectures on the culture of the colonist's new home. The Salvationist colonists would then be welcomed by officers at receiving stations and transported to their new homes, where the local officer would make introductions and ensure they were connected to the corps. Then, if they did not join the local corps, they would receive a semi-annual visit from an Army officer to assess their progress. From start to finish, the whole scheme was operated as part of the Army’s international mission.

Conclusion

The Army combined the structures and methods of the British Empire with an Evangelical Zeal for conversion and the belief that salvation was as much about this world as it was about the next. William Booth wrote:

I saw that when the Bible said, ‘He that believeth shall be saved’ it meant not only saved from the miseries of the future world, but from the miseries of this [world] also. Then it came from the promise of Salvation here and now; from hell and sin and vice and crime and idleness and extravagance, and consequently very largely from poverty and disease, and the majority of kindred woes.[9]

The Army's social reform work was grounded In the underlying principle that social transformation would only make a lasting difference to the world if it were combined with individual conversion. Helping the poor through social reformation was at least partially undertaken to remove the obstacles to salvation. A hungry person, a cold person, or a homeless person would not become a Christian. By removing them from their circumstances of poverty, giving them a trade, and moving them to a new land with a place to become independent, the individual would better themselves and society as well.

However, far more critical for the Army was the hope that by transporting saved Salvationists around the world, they would create colonies of salvation which would spread the word of Salvationism. The central doctrine of Salvationism was that its members evangelized to the groups they had been part of. The converted drinker went back to preach to the drinkers. The sex workers told her previous colleagues about the possibility of rescue and redemption. Walker wrote:

One of the most significant features of The Salvation Army was the relationships of its members to the wider community. As soon as people were saved, they were asked to stand before a crowd and relate their experience of conversion…If the Spirit of God pervaded an individual, he or she was ready to preach and testify regardless of previous sinfulness, lack of education, of inexperience.[10]

Without the British Empire, its transportation network, its shared culture and language, and William Booth's implicit assumptions that the Imperial territories were simply an extension of Britain, The Salvation Army would not have been able to grow in the way it did. The British Empire was to be matched by a Salvation Empire, spread around the world, transporting Salvationists in ready-made units to the far reaches of Christendom to go out and grow William Booth’s Christian Imperium and usher in the prophesied Millennium.

Christopher Button writes at Theology Corner (link here).

Bibliography

All The World – Salvation Army Publication

Ausubel, Herman. In Hard Ties: Reformers Among the Late Victorians, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Booth, William, In Darkest England and the Way Out, (London: The Salvation Army, 1890)

Coutts, Frederick. Bread for my Neighbour: The Social Influence of William Booth, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978)

Sandall, Robert The History of The Salvation Army Volume III 1883-1953 Social and Welfare Work, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. 1955)

Walker, Pamela J. Pulling the Devil’s Kingdon Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain, (London: University of California, 2001)

White, Arnold, The Great Idea: Notes by an Eye-Witness on Some of the Social Work of the Salvation Army, (London: The Salvation Army, 1910)

[1] William Booth, quoted in Sandall, The History Vol. III, p. 120

[2] Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, pp. 106-107

[3] John Gorst quoted in Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, p. 78

[4] William Booth, Darkest England, pp. 143-144

[5] Ausubel, In Hard Times, p. 180

[6] Bradwell, Fight the Good Fight, pp. 53-54

[7] White, The Great Idea, p. 47-49

[8] William Booth, In Darkest England, p. 152

[9] William Booth, “Salvation to Both Worlds” All The World, January 1889 pp. 1-6

[10] Walker, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down, p. 187

How the North and South Treated Minorities During the U.S. Civil War

During the U.S. Civil War, the North and South treated minority groups in different ways – and some of these may be surprising to readers. Here, Jeb Smith looks at how the North and South treated Catholics, Jews, and Native Americans during the Civil War period.

Brigadier General Stand Watie.

"Their clergy [Catholic]blessed the flags of Confederate regiments, and their opposition to the federal regime in New Orleans was more uncompromising than that of any other group...A Richmond editor wrote, "Catholic Hierarchy of the South… were warm supporters of the Southern cause, and zealous advocates of the justice upon which this war of defense….was conducted."

-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America 1861-1865 Baton Rouge: The Louisiana State University Press 1950

Historian Phillip Tucker wrote, "The South in general was actually far more multicultural and more multiethnic than the North in 1860...the South was in general less racist towards ethnic groups, including the Irish and Jews, than the North." Minorities received better treatment in the South than in the North. Catholicism played a more significant role in the South and was more accepted by the population. Like the old South, traditional Catholicism honored hierarchy, aristocracy, chivalry, and other traditional values. Also, like the South, pre-Vatican II Catholics were traditionalists and rejected modernity. Traditional Catholics had more in common culturally and politically with the South than with the progressive North.

Catholics

Historian James McPherson  shows that Catholics under Pope Pius the IX (Pope from 1846-1878) still maintained much of their older traditional identity. Pius was described as a "violent enemy of liberalism and social reform." In his 1864 Syllabus of Errors, he wrote that it was an error to think the Pope should agree with "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization." Pope Pius X commanded "all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries" to take an "oath against modernism." In The Story of Christianity Volume II.  Historian Justo Gonzalez observed "a growing gulf between mainstream modern thought and society on the one hand and Catholicism on the other."

Further, nothing brings groups together like similar enemies. Robert Fogel shows that Republicans viewed "Catholicism and slavery as twin despotisms." They hated Catholics because "The Catholic church was in league with the pro-slavery democratic party to destroy the principles of free government," wrote an 1858 organ of the Republican party in Illinois. James McPherson  wrote, "The Puritan war against popery had gone on for two and a half centuries and was not over yet...hostility to Romanism (as well as rum) remained a subterranean current within Republicanism."

Like the Virginian theologian R.L Dabney, Archbishop John Hughes of N.Y. referred to abolitionists as "Red-republicans." Hughes condemned public schools as godless promoters of "Socialism, Red Republicanism, Universalism, Infidelity, Deism, Atheism, and Pantheism." And while Dabney was no friend of Catholic theology, they were kin in mind when it came to modernity. In Catholics Lost Cause, Adam Tate writes, "Catholics and southern conservatives viewed the North as the locus of American radicalism and took refuge in Jeffersonian conceptions of both the Union and the Constitution."

"Protestants funded Catholic churches, schools, and hospitals, while Catholics also contributed to Protestant causes. Beyond financial support, each group participated in the institutions created by the other. Catholics and Protestants worshipped in each other's churches, studied in each other's schools, and recovered or died in each other's hospitals…Catholic-Protestant cooperation complicates the dominant historiographical view of interreligious animosity and offers a model of religious pluralism in an unexpected place and time."

-Andrew Stern Southern Harmony: Catholic-Protestant Relations in the Antebellum South Cambridge University Press 2018

Kinship

Southerners felt a kinship with Catholics that was absent in the North. According to southern writer Daniel Hundley, "In Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and other portions of the far South, the progenitors of the Southern Gentleman were chiefly Spanish Dons and French Catholics." Compared to the North, Catholics had a much more significant influence on southern society. The Cavalier South was more tolerant and did not seek to conform others to their image as the Puritan North did. As a result, the South was admired by old-time Catholic conservatives like Lord Acton, Hilaire Belloc, and G.K Chesterton, who said: "Old England can still be faintly traced in Old Dixie."

In Catholic Confederates, Gracjan Kraszewski notes that "Catholics made themselves virtually indistinguishable from their Protestant neighbors." He refers to the "Confederatization" of Catholics that occurred to a greater extent in the South than in the North. The South accepted Catholics, and Catholics accepted the South. They became one with each other. Kraszewski writes, "More than one hundred years before Vatican II and JFK, Catholics in the South were fully integrated members of society who, save for their religion, believed the same things and acted similarly to their well-known Protestant neighbors."

When the separation came, southern Bishops almost universally sided with the South. After the fall of Fort Sumter, the local bishop, a rabid secessionist, led Catholics in the celebration by singing a Latin hymn. A number of Confederate generals were Catholics, including James Longstreet and the Confederacy's first general, Pierre Toutant Gustave Beauregard. The secretary of the Navy, Stephen Mallory, was also a Catholic and a member of Jefferson Davis's cabinet.

When federals occupied Natchez, Mississippi, they ordered all pastors and priests to pray for Abraham Lincoln, but Catholic Bishop William Henry Elder refused. He was briefly  imprisoned for his non-conformity and was heralded as a legend across the South. The most popular post-war poem among former Confederates was "The Conquered Banner." This poem -recited in southern schools for generations was composed by Catholic priest and Confederate army chaplain Abram Joseph Ryan.

Catholic priests made devotionals for the soldiers used by all denominations, and nuns served in confederate hospitals. Some Catholic Confederate chaplains could not stay out of the war; despite it being against canon law, John Bannon fired a cannon at the Yankee hordes. The similarities between traditional Catholicism and the South provided an "easy symbiosis" for the thousands of southern Catholic soldiers, writes Kraszewski. When the Confederacy sent Father John Bannon to Ireland, it was his view that devout Catholics of Europe could find in the Confederacy the remnant of Christendom. In the North, Bannon stated, one could only find puritans and anti-Catholic prejudice.

"Roman Catholics and Jews found an accepted place, sometimes a very successful place, in the South when such was unknown in the North....at the time of the war, a high proportion of American Catholics and Jews were found in the South and were loyal confederates. Nearly all Catholics and Jews elected to public office in the U.S. were in the South. The two most famous anti-Catholic incidents in the pre-war period took place in Boston and Philadelphia...no such incidents occurred in the South. The letters of Lincoln supporters are full of anti-Semitic comments, and , notoriously, General Grant was to banish Jews from the Union army lines."

-Clyde Wilson The Yankee Problem An American Dilemma Shotwell publishing 2016

Jews

Jews were clearly more accepted in the Southern states. Robert Rosen, in The Jewish Confederates, tells how the Southern Jewish population were among the most rabid secessionists. They were integrated into Confederate units, and some reached high ranks in the military, such as Col. Abraham C. Myers, quartermaster general of the Confederacy; Maj. Adolph Proskauer of the 12th Alabama; Maj. Alexander Hart of the Louisiana 5th; and Phoebe Levy Pember, chief matron at Richmond's Chimborazo Hospital, are some examples he gives. Judah Benjamin was a Senator from Louisiana before joining President Jefferson Davis' cabinet. He served as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State for the Confederacy. Rosen wrote, "the Confederate South was, contrary to popular belief, the exact opposite of the image of the Old South held by most contemporary Americans."

Union General U.S Grant gave General Order No. 11, expelling all Jews from his military district. He had earlier ordered a subordinate to "Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out." The following day he issued another command to "Give orders to all the conductors on the [rail] road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them." Grant said the black-market cotton exports were done "mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders." General Sherman wrote to the Union Army adjutant-general that "The country will swarm with dishonest Jews who will smuggle powder, pistols." And as with Jews and Catholics, so it was with Native Americans.

"In the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power…Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade…Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed ...The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government...the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August , in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes."

-Tahlequah, C. N., October 28, 1861. THOMAS PEGG, President National Committee. JOSHUA ROSS, Clerk National Committee. Concurred. LACY MOUSE, Speaker of Council. THOMAS B. WOLFE, Clerk Council. Approved. J.N.O. ROSS.

Native Americans

The most significant discrepancy in the treatment of minorities is given when we look at Native Americans. The majority of the "civilized" Native American tribes sided with the South during the war. General Stand Watie of the Cherokee was the last Confederate general to surrender on June 23, 1865. He was the only Native American to be promoted to general on either side of the war. Native American tribes sent a higher percentage of their population to war than any state in the Confederacy and lost a higher percentage than any southern state. No one was more devoted to the Southern cause, not South Carolina or Virginia. They sacrificed the greatest and held out the longest.

The Indian Territory mainly sided with the South and sent delegates to Richmond. Richmond sent government officials, food, money, and supplies to the Indian Territory to help and support them. The formation of an Indian State in the Confederacy was offered to the tribes if they desired it. However, the Confederacy gave them complete autonomy for their government and offered a postal service even if they remained autonomous.

"...the several Indian treaties that bound the Indian nations in an alliance with the seceded states, under the authority of the Confederate State Department.. an innovation, in fact, that marked the tremendous importance that the Confederate government attached to the Indian friendship. It was something that stood out in marked contrast to the indifference manifested at the moment by the authorities at Washington...The Confederacy was offering him [the Indian] political integrity and political equality."

-Annie Heloise Abel Ph.D. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist an Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy Arthur H Clark Company Cleveland 1915

The Federals attacked and killed women and children of a neutral tribe during the war, driving even more support for the South. In response, the Confederacy sent financial support to displaced families under Union occupation. In General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians, Frank Cunningham quotes multiple tribal leaders' thankfulness for the treatment of their tribes by Richmond and President Davis.

Historian Annie Heloise Abel tells how it was John Calhoun and other Southern men who desired the entire west to be shut off from whites and to allow the Native Americans self-governance, "Southern politicians, after his time, became the chief advocates of Indian territorial integrity, the ones that pleaded most often and most noisily that guarantees to Indians be faithfully respected." As with Catholics, the tribes had more in common with the South in culture and institutions. As slave owners and planters, they tended to be agrarian. For example, on January 29, 1861, Arkansas governor Henry Rector wrote to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, "Our people and yours are natural allies in war and friends in peace."

"On behalf of the Creek people...the cause of the South is our cause, her hopes our hopes, and whatever her misfortunes may be it shall be our pleasure to bear them patiently with her, even unto death. If she falls we fall, and if she prospers we only desire it to be our privilege to enjoy her prosperity….we are enrolling every able-bodied man in service for war."

-Samuel Checote, Creek Nation

Heneha Mekko, "Principal Chief of the Seminoles," said:

"The Confederate States have not deserted us, we have been provided for, our women and children are fed, our soldiers get all they should expect. The Government is engaged in a great war, she cannot do any more for us now then she is doing...assure the President the Seminoles are yet true and loyal. Their treaty stipulations are sacred. The destiny of your government shall be ours. If she falls we will go with her: if she triumphs no rejoicing will be more sincere than ours."

The western "wild" plains Native Americans did not side with the South, but still fought against the North. The North sent General Pope to deal with the "savages' 'like the Sioux. Lincoln signed off on the hanging of 38 Native Americans in 1862 in Minnesota.

Lincoln's attitude towards Native Americans might have been affected by an earlier time in his life. His close friend Ward Lamon tells of the great impact that the murder of Lincoln's grandfather by Native Americans had on the future president. Lincoln said, "The story of his death by the Indians, and of Uncle Mordecai, then fourteen years old, killing one of the Indians, is the legend more strongly than all others imprinted upon my mind and memory." Lincoln's uncle Mordecai "hated Indians ever after" and even was reputed to murder innocent Native Americans when he had the chance. Lamon tells us "Many years afterward, his neighbors believed that he was in the habit of following peaceable Native Americans as they passed through the settlements, to get surreptitious shots at them and it was no secret that he had killed more than one in that way." So it should not surprise us that aged 23, Abraham Lincoln volunteered for a chance to fight Native Americans in the Black Hawk War.

Attacks from the North

The North then attacked and kicked the wild plains Native Americans off their land in pursuit of a transcontinental railroad to bring their territory under the domain of the industrialists and capitalists. In their book The South Was Right!James and Walter Kennedy document numerous cases of northern abuses of minorities. Federal General Pope ordered that the Native Americans "Are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made." He declared, "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux." Professor Thomas DiLorenzo quotes Lincoln's friend Grenville Dodge, Union general and railroad icon, who suggested using captive Native Americans as forced labor (I thought Republicans did not like slavery- though perhaps it was only when they were not master) on the railroads.

Republicans did not care for Native American rights. In the Personal Memoirs of U.S Grant, among his ruminations on the consequences of the conflict was "It is probable that the Indians would have had control of these lands [west] for a century yet but for the war. We must conclude, therefore, that wars are not always evils unmixed with some good." So the taking of land from the Native Americans was such an excellent "good" that it helped justify the evils of the civil war to our former Republican President and civil war "hero."

In Nothing Like it in the World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869, Historian Stephen Ambrose quotes the Chicago Tribune newspaper as observing, "The railroad men...have an infallible remedy for the Indian trouble, that remedy is extermination. These men, most of them tender and gentle with the weak of their own race, speak with indifference of the wiping out of thousands of Papoos and Squaws." Ambrose then quotes General Sherman, "The more [Indians] we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of Paupers." Dodge said, "We've got to clear the dumb Indians out." Oliver Ames, President of the Union Pacific railroad, said, "I see nothing but extermination to the Indians as a result of their thieving disposition, and we shall probably have to come to this before we can run the [rail] road safely."

Before the war, northern abolitionist Republicans like William Seward had declared the removal of the Native Americans was necessary. Arthur Ferguson, Union Pacific Railroad surveyor, said, "I have no sympathy for the red devils…. May their dwelling places and habitations be destroyed. May the greedy crow hover over their silent corpses. May the coyote feast upon their stiff and festering carcasses." Drunk on industrial power, Sherman told the Native Americans, "We build iron roads, and you can't stop the locomotive any more than you can stop the sun or moon, and you must submit...we now offer you this, choose your homes, and live like white men, and we will help you all you want."

According to DiLorenzo in The Feds versus the Indians, "During an assault," Sherman instructed his troops, "the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as "the final solution to the Indian problem," a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later." DiLorenzo said Phil Sheridan and Sherman popularized the phrase "a good Indian is a dead Indian." Sherman's ultimate objective was to eliminate the tribes. "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux," Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant, "even to their extermination, men, women, and children." The Sioux must "feel the superior power of the Government."

The U.S. superintendent of Indian affairs, Clark Thompson, revealed the mindset of Republicans towards Native Americans and how to make them worship the same god [money] as the Yankees do.

"Many plans proposed to bring about a change of their habits, customs, and mode of living...his whole nature must be changed. He must have a white man's ambition, to be like him…to change the disposition of the Indian to one more mercenary and ambitious to obtain riches and teach him to value the position consequent upon the possession of riches."

-Clark W Thompson Superintendent Indian Affairs United States Congressional serial set, Volume 1117

The North could not allow anything or anyone, no matter what race, to get in its way of building an empire in the worship of its true god, progress. So, they would either exterminate or remake such culture that got in its way, either the South or the Native Americans. The South had experienced it from the Union and prophetically warned the Native Americans.

"Another, and perhaps the chief cause, is to get upon your rich lands and settle their squatters, who do not like to settle in slave States. They will settle upon your lands as fast as they choose, and the Northern people will force their Government to allow it. It is true they will allow your people small reserves—they give chiefs pretty large ones—but they will settle among you, overshadow you, and totally destroy the power of your chiefs and your nationality, and then trade your people out of the residue of their lands. Go North among the once powerful tribes of that country and see if you can find Indians living and enjoying power and property and liberty as do your people and the neighboring tribes from the South."

-Quoted in Annie Heloise Abel Ph.D. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy Arthur H Clark Company Cleveland 1915

Distrust

It should be no wonder that the Native tribes distrusted the North and sided with the South when the war broke out.

"Resolved further.. We shall be left to follow the natural affections, education, institutions, and interests of our people, which indissolubly bind us in every way to the destiny of our neighbors and brethren of the Southern States upon whom we are confident we can rely for the preservation of our rights of life, liberty, and property, and the continuance of many acts of friendship, general counsel, and material support."

-Choctaws Council Resolutions February 7, 1861

The Native Americans, Jews, Catholics, and the South were diverse cultures that held to a live and let live attitude. They did not seek to conform each other to their image but allowed for diversity and self-governance. This was unlike the Yankees, who puritanically thought themselves superior to all and through military force, government coercion, sheer numbers, and forced indoctrination eradicated opposing cultures' ideologies and brought them all under its dominion. There no longer is any such thing as self-governance unless you are a disciple of the Yankee empire in America. This subjugation of opposing cultures and forced conformity seems a perfectly intolerant and discriminatory practice. While Cash is speaking of the South here, it equally applied to all non-conforming societies the Yankee empire came into contact with.

"The Civil War and Reconstruction represent in their primary aspect an attempt on the part of the Yankee to achieve by force what he had failed by political means: first, a free hand in the nation for the thievish aims of the tariff gang, and secondly, and far more fundamentally, the satisfaction of the instinctive urge of men in the mass to put down whatever differs from themselves—the will to make over the South in the prevailing American image and to sweep it into the main current of the nation."

-W. J. Cash The Mind of the South Vintage Books New York 1941

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

Napoleon's First Major Battlefield Defeat

The Battle of Aspern-Essling, fought on May 21nd and 22st, 1809 marked one of the most significant land engagements of the Napoleonic Wars and the first major setback for Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte on the battlefield.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of Essling, May 1809. By Fernand Cormon.

Taking place on the northern bank of the Danube River near Vienna, this confrontation was part of the War of the Fifth Coalition, wherein Austria, under the leadership of Archduke Charles, sought to challenge Napoleon's dominance in Europe. The battle demonstrated the growing capacity of the Austrian military to resist the previously unstoppable French Grande Armée.

Napoleon's strategic goal was to cross the Danube and strike decisively at the Austrian forces, effectively neutralizing their threat and consolidating French control over Central Europe. The crossing of the mighty river presented logistical challenges, requiring the construction of pontoon bridges. Despite the French emperor's reputation for meticulous planning and tactical brilliance, unforeseen complications and the resilience of the Austrian forces thwarted his ambitions.

Archduke Charles, leading the Austrian army, with his subordinate commanders capitalized on the vulnerabilities created by the French reliance on fragile pontoon bridges. The Austrians launched a surprise counteroffensive, targeting Napoleon's forces as they attempted to consolidate their position in the villages of Aspern and Essling.

Over two days, intense combat unfolded, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. While the French initially made gains, the destruction of their supply lines and bridges by Austrian forces turned the tide of the battle, forcing Napoleon to withdraw, a rare occurrence in his military career.

The battle's outcome was a psychological and strategic turning point. For the Austrians, it was a validation of their renewed efforts to oppose French hegemony. For Napoleon, the defeat underscored the risks of overextension and the challenges of managing a vast empire amidst persistent opposition. Aspern-Essling also highlighted the emergence of Archduke Charles as a capable commander and underscored the shifting dynamics of warfare in the Napoleonic era.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling would set the stage for further confrontations, most notably the Battle of Wagram in July 1809, a decisive yet costly victory for Emperor Napoleon's French and allied army. However, its immediate impact resonated as a demonstration of Napoleon's vulnerability and the fierce resistance of a reformed Austrian army.

The political and cultural lead-up to the battle

By 1809, Napoleon's grip on Europe was tightening. After numerous battlefield victories, his dominance was largely unchallenged. However, Austrian dissatisfaction with French hegemony and the territorial rearrangements of the Confederation of the Rhine led to a resurgence of resistance. Austrian reformers under Archduke Charles modernized their army, introducing conscription and improved training. Encouraged by Napoleon's focus on Spain and the perceived overstretch of French forces, Austria declared war in April 1809.

The Fifth Coalition War was characterized by Austria's attempt to rally German-speaking states to their cause and Napoleon's swift counteroffensive. The French Emperor sought to decisively crush Austrian resistance early to discourage other powers from joining the coalition.

Culturally, the war symbolized a clash of national pride. Austria, as an old European power, sought to restore its waning influence, while Napoleon aimed to consolidate his modern empire.

The strategic context

The Danube River was the lifeline of the theatre, serving as a critical supply route and barrier. Napoleon's strategy revolved around rapidly crossing the Danube to bring Archduke Charles to battle, using his signature approach of speed and decisive action to envelop and destroy the Austrian forces.

Archduke Charles, on the other hand, aimed to exploit Napoleon's reliance on rapid maneuvers. He sought to use the Danube as a defensive advantage, forcing Napoleon into a constrained engagement while leveraging Austria's numerical superiority.

The Commanders

Napoleon Bonaparte: The French Emperor's reputation as a military genius was unassailable by 1809. Known for his bold tactics and ability to adapt to battlefield conditions, Napoleon sought to secure yet another victory to maintain his aura of invincibility.

Archduke Charles of Austria: A reformer and tactician, Charles was Austria's most competent commander. Though often overshadowed by Napoleon, he was well-versed in defensive operations and had a deep understanding of the terrain.

The development of the battle

On the 20th of May, Napoleon initiated his plan to cross the Danube using pontoon bridges constructed by his engineers near the villages of Aspern and Essling. His goal was to establish a bridgehead on the northern bank, a vital step toward forcing the Austrians into a pitched battle. However, the Austrian army, aware of his movements, positioned itself strategically to counter this crossing.

Initial French success (May 21st, 1809)

Napoleon's forces crossed the river and established positions near Aspern and Essling. The French vanguard quickly pushed into Aspern, with fierce fighting erupting as Austrian troops counterattacked. By evening, the French had secured a tenuous foothold but faced relentless Austrian pressure.

Austrian resilience (May 22nd, 1809)

Overnight, the Austrians launched a determined assault on both villages, seeking to isolate the French forces. The Austrian artillery targeted the French pontoon bridges, severing Napoleon's critical supply line and reinforcements. This disruption stalled French momentum and left Napoleon unable to fully commit his reserves.

Throughout the day, the battle seesawed, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. Napoleon personally led counterattacks, attempting to retake Aspern and secure the river crossing, but Austrian resistance, bolstered by their superior numbers and entrenched positions, held firm.

By late afternoon, Napoleon realized his precarious situation. With his forces dangerously exposed and his supply line compromised, he ordered a retreat across the Danube, marking the first time he was forced to abandon a battlefield under direct opposition.

The influence and outcome of tactics

French tactics

Napoleon's strategy hinged on rapid crossing and overwhelming force, but his reliance on hastily constructed pontoon bridges proved a critical vulnerability. His characteristic use of concentrated artillery and massed infantry attacks faltered due to supply disruptions and Austrian counter-battery fire.

Austrian tactics

Archduke Charles's decision to engage the French immediately after their river crossing was pivotal. He leveraged his superior numbers and defensive positions to great effect. Austrian engineers and artillery played a crucial role, repeatedly targeting the French bridges and disrupting Napoleon's logistical base.

The Austrian use of flexible defensive lines and coordinated counterattacks demonstrated their improved tactical doctrine and underlined their determination to resist French dominance.

The aftermath

The Battle of Aspern-Essling was a pyrrhic victory for Austria. While they successfully halted Napoleon and inflicted heavy casualties (37,000 combined), they could not capitalize on their success in delivering a decisive blow. For Napoleon, the battle was a sobering experience that exposed vulnerabilities in his strategy and his army's logistical operations.

The immediate aftermath saw both sides preparing for the inevitable rematch. Just six weeks later, Napoleon reorganized his forces and decisively defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Wagram. However, Aspern-Essling tarnished his image of invincibility and emboldened resistance movements across Europe.

In conclusion, the Battle of Aspern-Essling stands as a defining moment in the Napoleonic Wars, a clash that tested the limits of Napoleon's strategic brilliance and Austria's resolve. While not a decisive strategic victory for either side, it marked a significant psychological shift in the war and the perception of Napoleon's invincibility on land.

For Austria, the battle symbolized the fruits of military reform and demonstrated that even Napoleon's formidable forces could be thwarted with preparation, determination, and tactical ingenuity. Archduke Charles's leadership, the precise targeting of French supply lines, and the Austrians' effective use of defensive positions and counterattacks revealed the vulnerabilities in Napoleon's reliance on speed and maneuver.

For Napoleon, Aspern-Essling was a sobering reminder of the risks inherent in overconfidence and the perils of logistical weakness. The loss of pontoon bridges and the resultant supply line collapse illustrated the growing complexity of sustaining a large, modern army in the field. While he would swiftly recover and triumph at Wagram, the psychological and symbolic implications of this defeat reverberated across Europe, inspiring his adversaries and energizing resistance movements.

Strategically, the battle highlighted the increasing role of engineering, logistics, and coordination in early 19th-century warfare. The lessons learned on both sides would shape subsequent engagements, influencing military thought and practices for years to come.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling is not merely a story of tactics and bloodshed but a tale of the evolving nature of war. It serves as a powerful reminder of the interplay between leadership, preparation, and adaptability, a narrative that continues to resonate in military studies and strategic planning to this day.

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.

Adolf Hitler and the Build-up to World War 2 - The Rhineland and Austria

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 look at Hitler’s actions in the build-up to World War II. Read part 1 on Hitler’s early years here, and part 2 on Hitler taking power in the 1930s here.

Seyss-Inquart and Hitler with (on the right) Himmler and Heydrich. Vienna, March 1938. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 119-5243 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

After World War I, Germany was subjected to economic sanctions, lost territory, and was prohibited from having more than 100,000 soldiers in its army, or arming itself in any way that might pose a threat to another country. The German army did not even have an air force.

Hitler portrayed himself in all his speeches and international meetings as a peace-loving man, but at the same time he was working to rearm Germany and strengthen its army as quickly as possible. The truth is that the rearmament plan was initiated by some officers in the German army before Hitler even came to power. For example, in 1920, General Hans von Seekt, one of the generals who was responsible for building the army, decided to train soldiers as officers to overcome the shortage of soldiers, because if there was an opportunity to increase the number, it would be easier for these officers to lead the new recruits.

The German army was also not allowed to have tanks, so the same General Hans von Seekt used tanks called tractors. As for the air force, the leaders of the civil aviation industry were studying designs for fighter aircraft, in anticipation of the time of implementing these designs, but this was impossible as long as Germany was committed to the Treaty of Versailles.

Rhineland

In 1935, Hitler ended the Treaty of Versailles, and made a law reorganizing the armed forces, establishing the Air Force, and returning compulsory conscription from the age of 20. Even children were included in an organization called the Hitler Youth, and the League of German Girls. This would over time implicitly help to increase the size of the army, which in 1937 had 5 million members in service and 8 million in the reserves.

In 1936, France signed a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, which Hitler considered a violation of the Locarno Treaty of 1925, in which five treaties were then signed: a Rhine Pact which guaranteed the western borders of Germany, and four other arbitration treaties (Germany-France, Germany-Belgium, Germany-Poland, and Germany-Czechoslovakia).

Hitler ordered the redeployment of troops to the Rhineland, a strip between Germany and France that had been demilitarized, consisting of the western bank of the Rhine River to France, and 25 miles from the eastern bank.

The army leaders opposed the German entry into this area because it would provoke France, especially since the German army was not ready because the rearmament process was not yet complete, but Hitler was determined to put the army to the French border because he thought that any move without military action was evidence of weakness for him.

Hitler also believed that France would not respond militarily, and would not exacerbate the issue for two reasons: the first reason is that it could not enter a second war after World War I, and the second reason is that the British government was pursuing a policy of appeasement in dealing with Nazi Germany.

On February 12, 1936, Hitler authorized the ‘Operation Winter Exercise’ to remilitarize the Rhineland.

On March 7, 1936, 19 German battalions crossed the Rhine River; fearing war with France, Hitler ordered them to withdraw if they opposed it.  In fact, the French had already proposed a joint attack on 11 March 1936, but when Britain refused to participate, France decided it could not do it alone.

As a result, Germany occupied the Rhineland and its military fortifications, which only increased his ambitions.

Austria

In his book Mein Kampf in 1925, Hitler wrote: ‘Germany-Austria must return to the great German motherland, and not because of economic considerations of any sort. No, no, even if from the economic point of view this union were unimportant, indeed, if it were harmful, it ought nevertheless to be brought about. Common blood belongs in a common Reich. As long as the German nation is unable even to band together its own children in one common state, it has no moral right to think of colonization as one of its political aims. Only when the boundaries of the Reich include even the last German, only when it is no longer possible to assure him of daily bread inside them, does there arise, out of the distress of the nation, the moral right to acquire foreign soil and territory.’

Hitler saw the need to unite the Germans in Europe under one rule, and the largest place where there were Germans outside of Germany was Austria, where he was born.

To move safely, Hitler decided that there should be no country on the borders of Austria that would move against him.

Italy was internationally isolated and needed allies, so Mussolini sent his son-in-law and his foreign minister to Berlin, and then signed a secret agreement in which Italy agreed to Germany's invasion of Austria, but on the condition that it would not violate the Italian borders. Hitler also promised Mussolini his support, and that he would let him do what he wanted in the Mediterranean region, in exchange for Mussolini letting Hitler do what he wanted in Europe north of the Alps.

Hitler only had to find a pretext to invade Austria, for the sake of the international community, and in 1938, Hitler hosted the ruler of Austria, and threatened him that if he did not do what he wanted, he would invade him militarily. At the end of the same day, the members of the Nazi Party who were arrested in 1934 when they carried out a failed coup in Austria were released. The ruler of Austria also agreed to appoint Nazi ministers in the government, including the Minister of the Interior, Arthur Seyss-Inquart.

After that, the Nazis in Austria rioted and demonstrated, the result of which was that the Minister of the Interior asked Hitler to intervene and send the German army into Austria to maintain security and safety, so Hitler ordered the invasion of Austria. The invasion happened without a single drop of blood and Hitler then organized a referendum to legitimize their military action.

On April 10, 1938, more than 99% of Austrians voted to join Germany - in a sham referendum.

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

U.S. Civil War Hats

The headgear worn by soldiers during the Civil War presents a fascinating topic. Before the adoption of metal helmets for cranial protection, hats played a significant role in denoting rank, indicating branch of service, and serving as a means of personal expression, as exemplified by the distinctive plume worn by JEB Stuart.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Stonewall Jackson in a forage cap.

Kepi & Forage Cap

The kepi had been the most common headgear in the French Army. Its predecessor originally appeared during the 1830s, in the course of the initial stages of the occupation of Algeria, as a series of various lightweight cane-framed cloth undress caps called casquette d’Afrique. These were intended as alternatives to the heavier, cloth-covered leather French Army shako. As a light and comfortable headdress, it was adopted by the metropolitan (French mainland) infantry regiments for service and daily wear, with the less practical shako being relegated to parade use.

Etymologically, the term is a loanword of French: képi, itself a re-spelled version of the Alemannic German: Käppi, a diminutive form of Kappe, meaning “cap”. Modern-day baseball caps are the direct descendant of kepis.

In 1852, a new soft cloth cap was introduced for the campaign and off-duty. Called bonnet de police à visière, this was the first proper model of the kepi. The visor was generally squarish in shape and oversized and was referred to as bec de canard (duck bill). This kepi had no chinstrap (jugulaire). Subsequent designs reduced the size of the cap and introduced chinstraps and buttons.

The kepi became well known outside France during the Crimean War and was subsequently adopted in various forms by many other armies (including the U.S. and Russia) during the 1860s and 1870s.

The kepi emerged as the quintessential hat associated with Union soldiers, largely due to the superior options available to their Southern counterparts. Characterized by its flat circular crown and a prominent visor, the kepi featured a leather or cloth peak and a chinstrap made of either leather or cord.

Among Union forces, a style often referred to as the McClellan cap, was prevalent, with officers frequently embellishing their caps in accordance with French fashion influences. This style had a flat top and squared visor.

The forage cap, or bummer cap, called the McDowell cap, had a curved top based on the model 1858 forage cap This shapeless design was particularly favored by the eastern Union army, while troops in the West tended to opt for broad-brimmed felt hats. Some southern troops also wore a forage cap, most notably Stonewall Jackson.

Regulations established by the U.S. Army mandated that insignia be affixed to the top of the cap, displaying the branch of service—whether infantry, cavalry, or artillery—at the center, with the company letter positioned above and the regimental number below. In 1863, the Army of the Potomac introduced the corps badge as a means to enhance troop morale, which was subsequently incorporated onto the cap. For infantry soldiers, a bugle horn was placed beneath the disk, featuring the regimental number inscribed within the horn, the company letter situated above it, and the corps badge positioned at the top. However, it was common for soldiers to lack this complete set of insignia, and at times, only the branch of service, company letter, or regimental number insignia was displayed. Additionally, some units opted for colored variations of these insignia.

In the Confederate army, a color-coding system was employed to differentiate between various branches of service. The infantry was represented by blue, the cavalry by yellow, and the artillery by red.

These were later changed to a thin band with the color of the branch wrapped around the base of the cap to identify the area of service. All uniforms regardless of being Union or Confederate had prominent markings on them which identified whether a soldier was an enlisted man or an officer.

Slouch Hat

The slouch hat is one of the most enduring icons of the Confederate soldier, ranking alongside his bedroll, shell jacket and pants cuffs tucked into his socks.  Indeed, the slouch hat came to be the quintessential American military campaign headgear by the end of the Civil War. The Confederate slouch hat was adopted for numerous reasons: it was well-liked, practical and available (when caps were not). Despite the regulation prescribing the French kepi-style cap for wear by all soldiers and officers, many were not able to obtain the cap.  They had to use the common citizen slouch hat. Moreover, the slouch hat was found to be more practical: it was comfortable and provided better protection against the elements.

The slouch hat is a wide-brimmed felt or cloth hat often, although not always, with a chinstrap. The name "slouch hat" refers to the fact that one side droops down as opposed to the other which is pinned against the side of the crown. The style is highly variable and personal, with various types of crowns and crown heights, brim widths and degrees of softness.

This style of hat has been worn for many hundreds of years, especially during the English Civil War during the 17th century when it became associated with the forces of King Charles I, the Cavaliers, but it was also fashionable for the aristocracy throughout Europe.

The slouch hat was introduced to this country by a spirited Hungarian patriot named Louis Kossuth. In 1852, Mr. Kossuth completed a speaking tour of our country where he sought and received a great deal of support for Hungarian liberties after his country had become dominated by the Czar of Russia. Louis Kossuth was described by William Cullen Bryant as a man who is “fearless, eloquent, large of heart and of mind, whose one thought is the salvation of oppressed Hungary, unfortunate, but undiscouraged, struck down in the battle of liberty, but great in defeat, and gathering strength for triumphs to come.” From a banquet in honor of Louis Kossuth with the Press of New York, December 9, 1851.

Hardee Hat

The Hardee hat, also known as the Model 1858 Dress Hat and nicknamed the "Jeff Davis", was the regulation dress hat for enlisted men in the Union Army. The Hardee hat was also worn by Confederate soldiers. However, most soldiers found the black felt hat to be too hot and heavy and preferred a forage cap or slouch hat.  The Hardee hat was worn most often by western Union troops, but also by the Iron Brigade, which were popularly known as "The Black Hats".

The hat was named after William J. Hardee, a career officer in the U.S. Army from 1838 until resigning his commission on January 31, 1861. Hardee was Commandant of Cadets at West Point from 1856 to 1860.

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

Images

McClellan cap.

Different hats.

Regimental Lt Colonel kepi.

The Normans: Their History and Conquests

The Normans were one of the most dynamic forces of the Middle Ages. Famous for the conquest of England and throughout the Mediterranean, these Viking descendants of Northern France proved a dynamic force to be reckoned with from the borders of Scotland to the Holy Land. But while the Normans maintained a deserved reputation for their martial ability, they also proved to be apt administrators and patrons of culture, displaying remarkable willingness for adaptation and integration of local populations. These fascinating warriors would seemingly depart from the world stage as quickly as they arrived laying the foundations of a stable and modern society in their wake.

Brian Hughes explains.

The Norman Invasion of England, as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry.

Origins

Deriving their name from the early French word for “North Men” the Normans as they came to be known were comprised of the Christian descendants of Viking raiders who after generations of marauding were granted a large swathe of territory in the North of France by the French King Charles the II as a means of pacification. This area would come to be known as Terra Normanorum, “The Land of the Northmen” later Normandy. The Vikings would rapidly convert to Christianity and intermarry with the locals gradually eschewing the relics of their forefathers including their language as the Old Norse tongue began to fade away in favor of French. One important vestige of their Viking ancestors in which the Normans would retain would be their sheer martial prowess and their innate thirst for war and conquest. This they would have no issue fulfilling as Northern France proved to be a consistently unstable corner of Europe in which powerful and ambitious feudal Dukes and Lords often challenged the rather tenuous authority of the French Kings in Paris whom they were nominal vassals of. The Normans would regularly clash with their neighbors in Brittany, Maine, and Paris, honing their military capabilities and adopting the latest advances in tactics and technology. These serial conflicts with other French powers would likewise contribute to the Normans shaping their already unique cultural and political identity.

Conquest of England

It was not only impressive military capabilities that defined Norman success. The Normans proved enthusiastic in their recent conversions to Christianity currying great favor with the Church in Rome in addition to more local Bishoprics. Establishing such successful rapport with the Church would greatly benefit The Normans who demonstrated themselves to be ample opportunists taking advantage of instability and political fragility throughout Europe to further extend their influence and power. The most famous example of this is “William the Bastard’s” swift and brutal conquest of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of England for which he would earn the eternal epithet “William the Conquer.” William took advantage of a succession crisis following the death of the English King Edward the Confessor.

A claimant of the throne of England himself, being a distant relative of the English King, William denounced the recently crowned Harold Godwinson as a usurper and immediately mobilized a coalition of forces including men from Brittany and Flanders. While Harold successfully battled Harold Hardrada, a third contestant to the throne at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in the North of England, William bided his time waiting for the most opportune time to strike knowing Harold’s exhausted and rapidly dissipating army would have to march hundreds of miles south to confront this new threat. In short, William’s impressive tactical and strategic grasp of events would enable the Normans to prevail at the Battle of Hastings in which Harold and the bulk of the Anglo-Saxon nobility would fall thus paving the way for a rapid conquest of the remainder of England. Part and parcel to Norman victories would include their lethal application of cavalry in which Norman Knights sporting Hauberks or large chain mail cloaks charged in tight and cohesive formation with long lances and modern saddles thus enabling them to defeat often more numerous oppositional forces. The Normans would immediately consolidate such victories through rapid castle and fortification construction, mainly of the motte and bailey model which were primarily assembled of earth and timber later to be replaced with more solid stone foundations. These ad hoc forts would be quickly garrisoned and often within close distance to one another thus ensuring quick reinforcement capabilities and in addition to making powerful visual statements to the local populace with their intention of staying. William would follow up his victories with the notorious “Harrying of the North” in which the last remnants of opposition were brutally quelled by fire and sword.

Mediterranean and Holy Land

The conquest of England often overshadows other Norman conquests in the Mediterranean and Holy Land. Showcasing their typical aggressive energy, Norman Warlords such as the notorious Robert Guiscard descended on Italy then mostly controlled by the Byzantine Empire. Norman soldiers and adventurers would likewise prove invaluable as mercenaries fighting for squabbling local rulers earning deadly reputations in the process. The largest and likely most prosperous island in the Mediterranean Sicily, would soon find itself under Norman occupation. By 1131, a Norman Nobleman Roger II of Sicily would unite all Southern Italy, Sicily, Malta, and parts of North Africa creating the Kingdom of Sicily in which a multi-cultural mix of Normans, Arabs, Byzantines, and others flourished, developing a unique culture architecturally, religiously, and intellectually in which remnants can still be observed today in cities such as Palermo.

The Normans would yet again be at the forefront of one of the most successful expeditionary campaigns in the history of warfare, The First Crusade. With the intention of “liberating” the Holy Land from Islamic control, Christian Princes and Warlords from across Europe but mainly France banded together consolidating their forces to march across the continent and reconquer the sacred sites of the Bible under the banner of Christendom. Given decades of conquest, renowned Normans such as Bohemond of Taranto, an Italo-Norman and Robert Curthose, eldest son of William the Conqueror would be in the vanguard. The First Crusade proved successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams or calculations. The Crusaders not only captured the Holy City of Jerusalem but also carved up Kingdoms and Duchies from Anatolia to Egypt. Norman resourcefulness and aggression proved to be an effective force multiplier for the outnumbered and meagerly supplied Christian coalition.

Conclusion

In many ways the Normans embody the spirit and ethos of the Medieval world. On one hand they were brutal conquerors who ruthlessly slaughtered unprovoked local populations as a means of consolidating their power and rule. However, The Normans at times would also display remarkable tolerance and flexibility over their subjects regardless of ethnicity or religion thus enabling for flourishing societies serving as sort of trendsetters for modern multi-ethnic cosmopolitan societies. Overtime the independent spirit and identity of the Normans would give way to the broader nationalistic identity of the two nations in which they were forever linked to England and France. The Normans may have lost their quasi-independent identity, but to this day the world can be reminded of their short-lived but eternal impact from the Tower of London to Jerusalem.

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.

Sources

Matthew, D. (1992). The Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Cambridge University Press

Renaud, J. (2008). ‘The Duchy of Normandy’ in Brink S. (ed), The Viking World (2008). United Kingdom: Routledge

Brownworth Lars. (2014) The Normans from Raiders to Kings. Crux Publishing

The Battle of the Nile: Turning the Tide of Napoleonic Ambition

The Battle of the Nile, fought from the 1st of August to the 3rd of August, 1798, stands as one of the most decisive naval engagements in European history. It marked a turning point in the French Napoleonic expansion, showcasing the strategic brilliance of Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronte, (Rear Admiral on the dates of the Battle of the Nile), in addition to the tactical vulnerabilities of the French Mediterranean fleet under Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers.

This confrontation occurred in Aboukir Bay, off the coast of Egypt, where Napoleon Bonaparte's expeditionary force had recently landed to secure French dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean and disrupt British access to India.

Nelson's victory at the Battle of Nile shattered French naval power in the region, isolating Napoleon's army in Egypt, and shifting the balance of power in favor of Britain and its allies. The battle not only demonstrated Nelson's innovative approach to naval warfare but also underscored the critical role of sea power in determining the outcome of continental conflicts. Its implications rippled far beyond the waters of Aboukir Bay, influencing the geopolitical dynamics of Europe and the Middle East for years to come.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of the Nile, 1 August 1798. By Nicholas Pocock.

Lead-Up to the Battle

The late 18th century saw Europe embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars, with France seeking dominance both on land and sea. Napoleon's Egyptian expedition aimed to disrupt British access to India and the broader Eastern trade network. Politically, this was part of a broader strategy to diminish British global influence. Culturally, Napoleon sought to emulate Alexander the Great by casting himself as a liberator and modernizer in the ancient land of Egypt.

The French fleet, transporting Napoleon's army, had eluded Nelson's pursuit across the Mediterranean. Arriving in Egypt, they landed troops and established a foothold near Alexandria. The French strategy relied on maintaining naval superiority in the region to secure supply lines and support the occupation. Nelson, recognizing the broader strategic stakes, relentlessly sought the French fleet, finally discovering the fleet anchored in Aboukir Bay.

The commanders and strategic preparations

Nelson, one of Britain's most innovative naval tacticians, had a clear strategic aim: destroy the French fleet to isolate Napoleon's army. His aggressive approach, favoring close-quarters combat and surprise, contrasted with the more cautious French commander Brueys, who opted to anchor his fleet in a defensive crescent formation in Aboukir Bay. The French commander assumed this position would protect his ships' flanks and benefit from shore-based artillery support.

However, Brueys underestimated Nelson's ingenuity and the capabilities of the British fleet. Nelson, commanding from HMS Vanguard, planned a daring assault to outmaneuver and envelop the French crescent formation.

The Battle unfolds

On the evening of the 1st of August, Nelson's fleet approached Aboukir Bay under cover of dusk. Exploiting the French assumption that the bay's shallow waters were impassable, Nelson directed several ships to sail around the northern end of the French line, attacking from the landward side. This maneuver caught the French off-guard, allowing the British to double their firepower against some French vessels.

The battle developed into a series of brutal, close-quarters engagements. By nightfall, the French flagship L'Orient, a massive 120-gun ship, caught fire and exploded in a catastrophic blast, dealing a psychological blow to the French morale. Over the next two days, the British systematically captured or destroyed the majority of the French fleet, with only a few ships escaping.

Tactical considerations and strategic outcomes

The British victory was the result of superior tactics, aggressive execution, and Nelson's ability to exploit French vulnerabilities. The French defensive anchorage, though formidable on paper, left little room for maneuver and failed to anticipate a two-pronged assault. Nelson's audacity in navigating uncharted waters and using surprise as a weapon decisively tilted the scales.

The destruction of the French fleet isolated Napoleon's forces in Egypt, cutting them off from reinforcements and supplies. Politically, the battle re-energized Britain's position in the Mediterranean and emboldened other European powers to resist French expansion.

Aftermath and Legacy

The Battle of the Nile was a turning point in the Napoleonic era, and Napoleon's ambitions in the East were effectively stymied, forcing him to focus on continental Europe. For Britain, the victory cemented Nelson's reputation as a national hero and affirmed the Royal Navy's supremacy.

The battle's tactics influenced naval warfare by highlighting the importance of mobility, surprise, and exploiting weaknesses in an enemy's formation. Nelson's approach became a textbook example of decisive leadership and innovative strategy, inspiring generations of naval commanders. In the broader scope of history, the Battle of the Nile not only reshaped the course of the Napoleonic Wars but also underscored the enduring importance of naval power in global conflicts.

In conclusion, the Battle of the Nile stands as one of the most significant naval engagements in history, epitomizing the decisive influence of maritime supremacy on geopolitical outcomes. Through a combination of bold strategy, meticulous execution, and unrelenting determination, Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson and his fleet delivered a devastating blow to French aspirations in the eastern Mediterranean. This victory not only derailed Napoleon's Egyptian campaign but also reasserted British dominance at sea, altering the balance of power across Europe.

Strategically, the battle underscored the critical role of naval control in projecting and sustaining military power. Nelson's innovative tactics, marked by his ability to think unconventionally and take calculated risks demonstrated how naval engagements could decisively shape the trajectory of broader conflicts. The destruction of the French fleet left Napoleon's forces isolated, transforming what had begun as an ambitious campaign into a protracted struggle for survival in an unfamiliar land.

The psychological and symbolic ramifications of the British triumph reverberated across the continent. For Britain, it was a moment of profound national pride and a rallying point for further resistance against French expansion. For France, the defeat shattered illusions of invincibility and exposed vulnerabilities in its strategic planning. Moreover, the battle encouraged the coalition of European powers opposed to Napoleon, reigniting their resolve to challenge French hegemony.

The legacy of the Battle of the Nile extends far beyond its immediate effects. It solidified Nelson's place in the pantheon of great military leaders and elevated the Royal Navy to an unparalleled status, ensuring Britain's dominance at sea for much of the 19th century. Furthermore, the lessons drawn from the engagement, emphasized adaptability, the element of surprise, and strategic foresight, which continue to resonate in military doctrines to this day.

Ultimately, the Battle of the Nile was not merely a clash of fleets but a transformative event that shaped the course of history. It affirmed the enduring importance of naval power as a determinant of global influence and left a legacy of leadership and innovation that continues to inspire. Nelson's daring victory serves as a timeless reminder of how ingenuity and resolve can change the fate of nations.

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:

Napoleon was a master tactician, and strategist, in addition, his expert use of field artillery gave him many victories on land, however, Napoleon was no seafarer and was reliant on his Admirals and navy to perform maritime duty to support his army.

Needless to say, the French naval gunnery was no match for the Royal Navy who were renowned as the best in the world not only for their accuracy but also for the speed of reloading and firing.

A quote from a French navel prisoner at the later Battle of Trafalgar, 21st of October 1805.

"The Devil loaded the guns for it was impossible for men to load and fire as quick as they [British] did."

Commanders

Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson

Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronte, (Rear Admiral on the dates of the Battle of the Nile), (18th of September 1758 (Julian calendar) - 21st October 1805) died at the later Battle of Trafalgar, aboard the Flagship HMS Victory, (21st October 1805), after successfully defeating the combined French and Spanish fleets. This final battle assured Nelson's name would become a naval legend.

Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers

Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers, Comte de Brueys (12th of February 1753 – 1st of August 1798), died at the Battle of the Nile aboard the French flagship.

The History of the Female Power Suit

The female power suit is more than just a fashion statement; it is a symbol of women's evolving role in society and the workforce. From its origins in the early 20th century to its status as an iconic representation of female empowerment today, the power suit has undergone significant transformations, reflecting broader social changes and the ongoing struggle for gender equality. Women’s fashion has long been a source of contention and argument, as it reflects the role of women within the larger society.

Dr. Shelby Robert explains.

Coco Chanel in 1928.

Early Beginnings: The 1920s and 1930s

The concept of women wearing tailored suits dates back to the early 20th century, particularly during the 1920s and 1930s. During this time, women began to enter the workforce in greater numbers, driven by economic necessity and the aftermath of World War I. Designers like Coco Chanel revolutionized women's fashion by introducing more practical and comfortable clothing, including tailored suits. Chanel's designs featured simple lines and a more masculine silhouette, which allowed women greater freedom of movement and a break from traditional, restrictive female attire.

The 1940s: War and Utility

The 1940s, marked by World War II, saw women taking on roles traditionally held by men, including in factories and offices. The need for practical and functional clothing led to the popularization of utility suits. These were often characterized by broad shoulders, nipped-in waists, and knee-length skirts, embodying a mix of femininity and practicality. The suit became a uniform of sorts for working women, signifying their contribution to the war effort and their increasing presence in public life.

The 1960s and 1970s: Breaking Boundaries

The 1960s and 1970s were decades of significant social upheaval and change, particularly in terms of gender roles. The feminist movement gained momentum, and women began to challenge traditional norms more vocally. During the 1960s, women began to reject traditional, restrictive clothing in favor of more comfortable and practical attire. The introduction of the miniskirt by designer Mary Quant epitomized this shift, symbolizing freedom and rebellion against conservative norms. Women embraced trousers and jeans, which were previously considered male garments, as a statement of equality and practicality.

The 1970s saw the continuation of these trends, with the rise of the women's liberation movement further influencing fashion. Feminists adopted androgynous styles, favoring unisex clothing that blurred gender distinctions. The era also saw the popularity of the "power suit," which allowed women to assert their presence in the professional world. These suits, often characterized by tailored jackets and trousers, became a symbol of women's empowerment and their increasing participation in the workforce. This period's fashion was not just about aesthetics; it was a statement of identity and a tool for challenging and changing societal norms.

This era saw the emergence of the power suit, a radical departure from the skirted suits of previous decades. Designers like André Courrèges and Yves Saint Laurent pioneered this look, with Saint Laurent's "Le Smoking" tuxedo becoming an iconic piece. The pantsuit was not just a fashion statement but a bold assertion of women's right to dress as they pleased and occupy spaces traditionally dominated by men.

The 1980s: The Power Suit Era

The 1980s is often regarded as the golden age of the power suit. This decade was characterized by a culture of excess and ambition, and the fashion of the time reflected these values. Power suits featured bold, exaggerated shoulders, wide lapels, and tailored lines, often paired with blouses that had equally dramatic details like large bows or ruffles. Designers such as Giorgio Armani and Donna Karan became synonymous with the power suit, which became a staple for women climbing the corporate ladder. The suit symbolized confidence, authority, and a break from traditional gender roles in the workplace.

The 1990s and Beyond: Evolving Styles

In the 1990s, the style of power suits began to evolve. The exaggerated features of the 1980s were toned down, giving way to more minimalist and streamlined designs. This decade saw the rise of business casual attire, but the power suit remained a key element of professional wardrobes. Designers like Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren offered suits that were both sophisticated and versatile, suitable for a variety of professional settings.

The 21st Century: Diversity and Empowerment

In the 21st century, the power suit continues to be a symbol of empowerment, but its interpretation has become more diverse. Modern power suits come in a wide range of styles, cuts, and colors, reflecting the individuality and personal style of the wearer. The rise of women in leadership positions across various industries has kept the power suit relevant, and designers continue to innovate with bold patterns, luxurious fabrics, and unconventional silhouettes.

The modern power suit is not just confined to the corporate world; it has also found its place in politics, entertainment, and beyond. High-profile figures like Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, and celebrities like Lady Gaga and Zendaya have all donned power suits, each bringing their own flair to this iconic garment. Most recently, Vice President Kamala Harris has been pictured frequently wearing a power suit with converse. Her campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is a perfect example of the evolving roles that women are seeking in the modern era. Her modern interpretation of the powersuit is a mark of her mission to embrace female power through the clothing that she CHOOSES to wear.

Conclusion

The history of the female power suit is a testament to the ongoing struggle for gender equality and the changing roles of women in society. From the early 20th century to the present day, the power suit has evolved to reflect broader social changes and the empowerment of women. As women continue to break barriers and assert their presence in all spheres of life, the power suit remains a powerful symbol of strength, confidence, and independence.

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

Sources

Craik, Jennifer. Uniforms Exposed: From Conformity to Transgression. Berg, 2005.

Friedman, Vanessa. "How Fashion Became a Feminist Issue." The New York Times, March 5, 2018.

Steele, Valerie. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.

Steele, Valerie. Women of Fashion: Twentieth-Century Designers. Rizzoli International Publications, 1991. 3.

Tulloch, Carol. The Birth of Cool: Style Narratives of the African Diaspora. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016.

Warwick, Alexandra. "The Power of the Suit: A History of Female Authority Dressing." Fashion Theory, vol. 10, no. 3, 2006, pp. 271-292.

Charles Darwin’s Life: The Well-Known – and the Not So Well-Known

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 Other Major Battle of 1066 AD in England - The Battle of Stamford Bridge

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.