The Modern Greek State: 1827-1862 – A Bad Start

On March 25, 2021, the modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece. This article covers the period from 1827, when Ioannis Capodistrias was appointed governor of the New Greek State, until 1862, the year of the deposition of King Otto I. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

A depiction of King Otto I, leader of Greece from 1832 to 1862.

Introduction

Following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, the Greek world did not dissolve. It remained organized around its church, with its own aristocracy in Constantinople, serving in the Ottoman administration, and in local communities, responsible for maintaining order and collecting taxes. It also had its own armed groups of kleftes and armatoloi, men that had served in foreign armies, experienced sailors and war ready navy.

This organization of the Greeks was utilized before and during the War of Independence initiated in 1821, when an internal crisis of the Empire required Ottoman forces to fight against the ambitious Ali Pasha of Ioannina. Despite the Ottoman crisis, the time was not favorable. The turbulent period after the French Revolution and the horror of the Napoleonic Wars that followed, made the European powers hostile against any movement that could reignite the previous turmoil. 

Nevertheless, astonishing Greek victories during the first two years of the war and Ottoman atrocities against civilians caused a wave of support for the Greeks among many Europeans. These Philhellenes collected and disposed money and other resources for the success of the war or even came to Greece to fight side by side with the Greeks. In their eyes the rebels were children of antiquities’ Greats, fighting to free themselves from the Ottoman yoke. (Kakouri, 2019) (Kostis, 2018)

The bad start begins

One would expect that the Greeks would try to build on this favorable turn of events. They did not. After 1823, the leading groups of the war (repatriates, local elites and chieftains) engaged in a civil war, fighting for privileges and power in a state that did not even exist yet. At the same time, the sultan agreed with Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt to send the latter’s son Ibrahim to suppress the revolt in Greece. 

The Greeks, preoccupied with their own rivalries, had very little to oppose Ibrahim. The turn of events though is another lesson in the primacy of the dynamics of the international system over the forces at the disposal of one of its lesser members. Conflicting interests between Russia and Great Britain regarding the integrity of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the Protocol of London, co-signed by France, granting autonomy to the Greeks.

The critical issues of the definition of the borders of the autonomous state and obtaining resources for its organization would be tackled by Ioannis Capodistrias, the first governor of the modern Greek State. He was elected by the third National Assembly on April 6, 1827 for a term of seven years. (Evaggelidis T. , 1996) (Divani, 2010)

Ioannis Capodistrias

Ioannis Antonios Capodistrias was born in Corfu in 1776 to a noble family of the island and was a distinguished diplomat at the service of Russia. He arrived in Greece in January 1828 knowing that he had to act fast. The European Powers were proceeding with their plans and French forces were to drive Ibrahim out of the Peloponnese. If Greece wanted to have a say on the definition of its borders, Greek forces had to pursue gains in Central Greece also. Furthermore, law and order had to be restored and basic state functions needed to be established so that Greece could claim (some) self-determination. 

The new Governor worked hard and in a short time managed to reorganize the army, so achieving significant territorial gains in Central Greece. (Malesis, 2018 ) At the same time Great Britain opted for an independent Greece to work as a counterbalance to the Russians who emerged victorious out of a new Russo – Ottoman war (April 1828 to September 1829). Indeed, with another protocol signed on February 3, 1830 Russia, France and Great Britain recognized the independence of the modern Greek State.  

Capodistrias did not only sow the seeds for a national army and navy or deal with foreign policy. In a very short time, he managed to eliminate piracy and improve public safety. He created a national bank and issued national currency, the phoenix. He introduced the farming of maize and potato, products unknown to Greeks at the time, and established an Agricultural School. He also established a Military Academy, monitorial schools and orphanages. He oversaw the imposition of taxes and tariffs. Justice was to be administered by State Courts.

Capodistrias’ was aware of the power games between local elites and anticipated their reaction. In order to restrict their freedom of movement, he succeeded in suspending the force of the constitution voted during the 3rd National Assembly in 1827. The reorganization of the army also aimed at breaking the bonds between the soldiers and local chieftains. At the same time, although Capodistrias made sure that entrusted persons, like his brothers, assumed key positions in the state mechanism, he also appointed some of the elite members to government bodies, like the Senate, or as officers in the army in order to gain their support. 

The Greek notables were seeing ulterior motives in most of the governor’s actions though. He wanted to cut the bonds between the soldiers and their leaders (reorganization of the army). He wanted to keep the people uneducated (Capodistrias considered that, during the first years of the New State, it was more important for the Greeks to learn to read and write and established monitorial schools, but not universities). And finally, he wanted to become a lifelong leader of Greece (suspension of the constitution, appointment of family members to key government positions). Capodistrias’ position was further undermined by the Protocol of 1830, commanding that the independent Greek State would be ruled by a hereditary monarchy. Thus, his rule was temporary. 

 The opposition did not restrain itself to verbal accusations against the government. In fact, it undertook surprisingly harsh actions that were against the interests of Greece - and not only its government. The most striking perhaps was the seizure of principal ships of the Greek fleet by admiral Andreas Miaoulis, a hero of the War of Independence. In order to limit Capodistrias’ abilities for naval operations, in July 1831 Miaoulis blew up the ships bought with the limited resources of the State to guarantee its security. 

Another revolt took place at Mani, in southern Peloponnese, where Petrobey Mavromichalis, another hero of the war was a key figure. Relations between the Mavromichalis clan and Capodistrias were tense because of the attempts to create a centralized state. Mavromichalis was arrested by Capodistrias, found guilty for high treason and put in to jail. The imprisonment of Petrobey brought Konstantinos and Georgios Mavromichalis, the son of Petrobey, to Nafplio, where they were put under police supervision. Nevertheless, they managed to bring their guards to their side and on the morning of September 27, 1831 they assassinated Capodistrias at the entrance of St. Spyridon Church, where he was going to attend Sunday mass.

After the Governor’s assassination the country fell into chaos. The struggle for power intensified as the politico-military factions were antagonizing to better position themselves in view of the arrival of Otto, the second son of King Ludwig of Bavaria, who was appointed by the Great Powers as King of Greece. (Evaggelidis T. , 1894)

King Otto I

What exactly was the state that the Bavarians were called to rule? At the eve of its independence, Greece’s area was 47,500 square kilometers, which is 35% of today’s area. Its population was about 800,000. Out of 30,000,000 hectares of arable land, only 500,000 were cultivated. With the exception of the island of Naxos’ emery, the rest of the country’s mineral wealth (marble, lignite, porphyry, silvery lead etc.) was also not exploited. 

After ten years of war, Greece was also lacking the necessary infrastructure to support its economy (roads, bridges, railways etc.). The merchant fleet was strong but transporting the goods to and from the ports was expensive.  It goes without saying that the country’s industry was also non-existent. However, small investments would suffice to boost sectors like the textile industry, where spinners could be substituted with imported machines.   

Thus, the continuation of Capodistrias’ work was necessary for the country’s potential to be realized. The administration’s mechanisms should set a stable framework to boost domestic and attract foreign investments (organization of the banking system, rationalization of taxation, creation of land registry, restoration of order etc.). The Bavarians, upon arriving in Greece, had a loan of 60,000,000 francs at their disposal, which could help this effort. Their undertakings had poor results though. (About, 2018)    

The struggle between the previous regime and the local elites was known to the Bavarians. King Otto, therefore, distrusted the Greeks. When he arrived, he brought with him his own army of 3,500 German mercenaries and filled the state mechanisms with foreign officials.      

Otto relied on the army for the consolidation of his sovereignty. During the first decade of his reign, military spending made up 50% of total public expenditure. With another 26% going to the repayment of the public debt there was not much left for social policy, e.g., education, or public works to boost the economy. In fact, in 1843 Greece was no longer able to serve the public debt and strict fiscal controls were imposed by the lenders. (Kostis, 2018)

With the army and state mechanism full of foreigners, the Greek chieftains turned to banditry for a living. They often enjoyed the protection of the politicians who used them to embarrass the government on a local scale, portraying their actions as acts of resistance against a repressive monarchy. This kind of political patronage extended to officers of the regular army who were underprivileged compared to their foreign colleagues.

The result was the first major intervention of the army in politics. The Revolution of September 3, 1843 was initiated by units located in Athens. The movement did not aim to overthrow the monarch. The participating military and political elites demanded the removal of the Bavarians from the state institutions and a constitution limiting royal power. Otto had no option but to comply. (Malesis, 2018 )    

The years of constitutional monarchy did not change much though. The Greek elites gained better access to state institutions (Parliament and Senate) and the monarch used the same ‘clientele’ approach against them. All elections after 1844 were won by the government that staged them, an indication that constitutional rights were violated by the parliament majority (e.g., by annulling rivals’ votes) for the promotion of their own interest. There were incidents where state sponsored violence was used by the monarch to promote his preferred candidates, in which case, the opposition often resorted to banditry to ensure their political survival.

To defuse the situation internal problems needed to be ‘exported’ somehow. This is the time of the Great Idea (Megali Idea), when the Greek State portrayed itself as the champion of all still enslaved Greeks with the mission to free them by conquering the territories remaining under Ottoman occupation. Ironically, at the same time, during the meetings of the National Assembly for the adoption of the constitution of 1844, special care was taken to expel and exclude heterocthons (Greeks from abroad settled in the New State) from government positions as their education and distance from local elites made them hard to manipulate. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )

Thus, the King supported uprisings of the Greeks in Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia during the Crimean War (1853 – 1856). As a result, France and England, now allies of the Ottoman Empire against Russia, identified Greece with the latter and occupied Piraeus and Athens in April 1854. The Greek insurgents eventually withdrew from the Ottoman territories and the humiliating occupation ended in February 1857. The three political parties of the time, carrying the names English, French and Russian, from the corresponding power they relied on for support, were dissolved after 1854.

The opposition against Otto reached its culmination point in 1862. In October, mainly low-ranking non-commissioned officers of the army supported the uprising that led to the overthrow of Otto. The king was touring the country at the time to gather support, as he was aware of the opposition’s movements. He never made it back to the capital. After consulting with the ambassadors of the Great Powers, he was persuaded to leave the country. Doubts were cast regarding the people’s participation in the uprisings of 1843 and 1862 though. Indeed, it would not be surprising if the common people, also systematically abstaining from the national elections, were preoccupied with a much more important issue at that time. Namely, their survival. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )   

Conclusion

Bad use of available resources, very moderate attempts to develop the country’s economy, oligarchy conflicts, distanced citizens and ‘clientelism’, overweening ambitions and foreign intervention. These are the main characteristics that undermined Greece’s potential during the War of Independence and the first thirty years of the modern Greek State. Their effects remain to this day.

What do you think of the early years of the modern Greek State? Let us know below.

Now read part 2 on the Modern Greek State - 1863-1897, bankruptcy and defeat here.

References

About, Edmond. Otto’s Greece. Athens: Metaixmio (in Greek), 2018.

Divani, Lena. The Territorial Completion of Greece (1830-1947), An Attempt at Local Lore.  Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek), 2010.

Evaggelidis, Triffon. History of Otto, King of Greece (1832-1862). Athens: Aristidis Galanos (in Greek), 1894.

Evaggelidis, Trifon. Ioannis Capodistrias, The history of the Governor of Greece. Athens: Livanis (in Greek), 1996.

Kakouri, Athina. 1821 The Beginning that Was Not Completed, When and How the State that We Live Today was Created. Athens: Patakis (in Greek), 2019.

Kostis, Kostas. History’s Spoiled Children, The Formation of the Modern Greek State. London : Hurst & Company, 2018.

Malesis, Dimitris. “… let the Revolution Begin”, Great Idea & the Army in 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek), 2018.

What was Britain’s Victorian-era New Poor Law?

The New Poor Law was introduced to Victorian-era Britain in 1834. It replaced the long-standing Old Poor Law as a major piece of social legislation aimed at the poorer people in the country. Here, Chloe Dickinson tells us about the law.

A depiction of poor people coming to a workhouse for food. Source: Wellcome Trust, L0006802. Available here.

The Victorian era seems like a distant memory when we think about the past, but, in fact, it is our close ancestors who lived through the turmoil of the reign of Queen Victoria. Indeed, two key aspects of the life of a pauper were begging and life in the workhouse. In images of the time, the wealthy were shown as cowering away from the paupers who begged, selling the idea that there was a deep divide between the wealthy and the poor. Conversely, in workhouses there were dividing walls to keep inmates separate and large outside walls to prevent life on the outside from creeping in. Cruelty, turmoil, and instability are three words that spring to mind when historians think about the New Poor Law; cruelty because of the deprivation and despair it pushed people into and turmoil and instability because of the strong Anti-Poor Law Movement. So, what was the New Poor Law? How did it come to be? What where the key components? Read on to find out.

The Sampson Kempthorne workhouse design for 300 paupers.

What was the New Poor Law?

To put it plainly, the New Poor Law (Poor Law Amendment Act) is the most important piece of social legislation enacted in Britain. Inaugurated in 1834, the New Poor Law was a radical attempt to overhaul the entire system of poor relief and touched almost every aspect of life and labor from the moment it was implemented.[1] Not only were life and labor affected, but wages, housing, settlement, medicine, and education were all influenced in one way or another. No two counties throughout England and Wales experienced the New Poor Laws components the same. For example, the agricultural South, which had previously used outdoor relief to a great extent felt the cruelty of the New Poor Law more than the industrial North, where there was a high turnover of employment. 

The New Poor Laws key principles were: 

·      The reorganization of local parishes into large Unions 

·      Well-regulated workhouses within each Union

·      A new central body was to be set up to monitor the New Poor Law (Poor Law Commission 1834-1847, then rebranded as the Poor Law Board) 

·      The setting up of Boards of Guardians in each Union and paid officials to administer and grant relief

Something that really brings the New Poor Law to life, is a snippet from a well-loved and famous book – A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (1843): 

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”[2]

The fact that the ‘gentleman’ states that he wishes that the Union workhouses were not operating displays a sense of contempt for the practice. But, on the other hand, we have Scrooge, who is all for the workhouses. Here, Dickens has cleverly integrated both sides of the New Poor Law debate at the time of its operation. The way in which Dickens illuminates the concerns and support of the New Poor Law really highlights the instability of political and social opinion at the time. 

How did it come to be?

The Old Poor Law, established in 1601, was in place for over two centuries. However, by the time the nineteenth century came, poor rates (a local tax to fund poor relief) were exponentially high, there was tension between social classes and many people of wealth saw there to be abuses of the relief system. Thus, in 1832, a Royal Commission was set up to fully investigate the Old Poor Law and its ‘abuses’ and make recommendations for its amendment. The Poor Law Commissioners, along with their Assistant Commissioners sought out evidence throughout the country on how the Old Poor Law operated. However, it is widely accepted by historians that the Commissioners actually sought out evidence to fit their already preconceived ideas. This can be seen through the fact that the questionnaires that they sent out to towns and parishes mainly went to southern rural parishes. These rural parishes saw high levels of outdoor relief, particularly in the form of child allowances, and the topping up of wages to able-bodied workers. These components of the Old Poor Law, according to the Commissioners, warranted the term abuse. They, and many others, conceived the idea that the giving of outdoor relief to able-bodied paupers to be unjust and an abuse of the relief system in place. Ideally, they wanted able-bodied paupers to be relieved inside the workhouse, where they would ‘earn’ their relief. In 1834, two years after the Commission was set up, the famous Report of the Commissioners was published. Its thousands of pages consisted of the ‘evidence’ that they had collected and included the proposal of the New Poor Law.

What where the key components?

One of the biggest administrative changes that came from the New Poor Laws establishment was the reorganization of parishes into Poor Law Unions. This new formation of boundaries within counties was essential to the running of the New Poor Law, due to the fact that there was to be a well-regulated workhouse within each Union. Each Union was to have their own set of overseers, named the Board of Guardians. These Boards were to be made up of paid officials who would then maintain the workhouses, grant relief and administer relief to those in need. In terms of workhouses, they were made to keep paupers separated in terms of gender and age – this included separating children from their parents.[3] This was based on the Malthusian and Benthamite principles that were popular at the time, particularly amongst those in government. In fact, these ideas had a great influence on the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and the Report they published.

What do you think about the New Poor Law? Should it have been implemented? Let us know below.

[1] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 1. 

[2] Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (USA: Delmarva Publications, 2015 Reprint), p. 7.

[3] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), P. 38. 

Pope Leo XIII: The Pope who Drank Cocaine Wine

There has been a long and varied line of Popes throughout history. But have you heard about the Pope who drank cocaine wine? Sam Kelly explains.

Mariani wine as drank by Pope Leo XIII.

To people who are not devout Catholics, the history of the Popes might seem dull and uninteresting. But it is filled with bizarre and fascinating characters, starting with the first pope, St. Peter, who was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy of dying in the same way as Jesus. And who can forget colorful characters like Pope Stephen VI, who dug up his predecessor’s corpse, put it on trial, found it guilty, hacked off its fingers, and threw it in the Tiber River? Or Pope John XII, who murdered several people in cold blood, gambled with church offerings, and was killed by a man who found him in bed with his wife? Or Pope Urban VI, who complained he didn’t hear enough screaming when the cardinals who conspired against him were being tortured? Or Pope Alexander VI of the notorious Borgia crime family, who bribed his way into the job, engaged in a litany of corruption including nepotism, murder and orgies, went on to father nine illegitimate children, and whose corpse was left unattended for so long that it became so bloated and swollen it couldn’t fit into its coffin?

There have been plenty of good Popes, too, and one of these was Pope Leo XIII. One of the longest-serving Popes, he remained the head of the Catholic Church until he died at age 93. He was a forward-thinking intellectual whose goal was to reinvigorate the Church, at a time when many Europeans felt it had become irrelevant to their lives because it was stuck in the past. Leo sought to emphasize that religion was compatible with modern life. He spoke passionately about workers having a right to fair wages, safe working conditions, and the importance of labor unions. He was a skilled international diplomat who succeeded in improving relations with a host of countries including Russia, Germany, France and the United States, and he wholeheartedly embraced science and technology. He was the first Pope whose voice was recorded on audio, and the first to be filmed by a prototype movie camera (which he blessed while it was filming him).  

The Most Productive Pope of All Time

But what he is best known for is how insanely productive he was. He wrote more encyclicals than any other Pope in history. An encyclical is a letter from the Pope to all of the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, but more importantly, it is the way the Pope announces his official view on important topics. Encyclicals are deep, thoughtful and expansive, which means they tend to be lengthy. Since the beginning of time, there have been 300 papal encyclicals, and Leo XIII wrote 88 of them. That’s right, this one man wrote 30% of all encyclicals. He wrote on topics big and small – huge concepts such as liberty, marriage and immigration, but he also wrote 11 encyclicals focused wholly on the subject of rosaries. Scholars have always been amazed by his prodigious output, and bear in mind he was an extremely old man, serving as Pope well into his 80s and 90s. Yet he remained a tireless workhorse. Where did he find the energy?

It was probably the cocaine.

Popes have always loved wine. Forward-thinker that he was, Leo XIII brought something new to the mix. He drank wine laced with cocaine. This was not some home-brewed mix he created himself; it was an actual product you could buy in stores – a magical elixir known as Vin Mariani. For Leo, its primary appeal was the energy it gave him. It had a powerful kick that kept the Pope perpetually in the mood to philosophize and pontificate, which is probably what allowed him to write those 88 encyclicals in 25 years.

Leo absolutely loved the stuff and wasn’t shy about saying so. He proclaimed to everyone that he carried the salubrious libation with him at all times in a personal hip flask – “to fortify himself when prayer was insufficient.” Yes, he actually said those words. This being the 19th century, cocaine was neither illegal nor stigmatized. It was viewed with wonder and awe by the European medical establishment. Vin Mariani was seen not only as a health tonic, but as a prestigious and sophisticated beverage on par with a fine vintage wine.  

Many Famous Drinkers of Cocaine Wine

Many famous people were Vin Mariani drinkers. Thomas Edison said it helped him stay awake longer. Ulysses S. Grant drank it while writing his memoirs. Emile Zola wrote testimonials that were reprinted in Vin Mariani advertisements. Even Queen Victoria was a big fan.

Pope Leo loved Mariani-brand cocaine wine so much that he decided he must meet and properly honor the man who invented it. He summoned Angelo Mariani to Rome and presented him with an official Vatican gold medal to congratulate him for his remarkable achievement in the field of cocaine vintnery.

At this point, you are probably thinking I have gone too far. A pope who loved cocaine is a funny idea, and maybe there are some dubious rumors scattered around the Internet that Pope Leo enjoyed the taste of cocaine wine, but there’s no actual proof he did so, right? And he certainly didn’t hand out a gold medal to his drug dealer, did he? After all, it’s not like he appeared in a full-page advertisement touting the benefits of cocaine wine…

No, I’m lying, he totally did.

Angelo Mariani printed up posters advertising the gold medal he received from the Pope. The poster features a huge smiling image of Pope Leo, and next to his picture there is text which reads: “His Holiness the Pope writes that he has fully appreciated the beneficial effects of this Tonic Wine, and has forwarded to Mr. Mariani as a token of his gratitude a gold medal bearing his august effigy.” That’s right, the Pope himself knowingly appeared in a full-page advertisement for cocaine wine.  

Things were simpler back then. 

Now read Sam’s article on Queen Victoria and the First Opium War here.

References

Drew Kann, “Eight of the Worst Popes in Church History,” CNN.com, April 15, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/europe/catholic-church-most-controversial-popes/index.html

Ishaan Tharoor, “7 Wicked Popes, and the Terrible Things They Did,” The Washington Post, September 24, 2015,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/24/7-wicked-popes-and-the-terrible-things-they-did/

“Leo XIII,” Britannica, updated February 26, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leo-XIII

James Hamblin, “Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda,” The Atlantic, January 31, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-out-of-soda/272694/

Wyatt Redd, “Vin Mariani – The Cocaine-Laced Wine Loved by Popes, Thomas Edison, and Ulysses S. Grant,”Allthatsinteresting.com, January 31, 2018, https://allthatsinteresting.com/vin-mariani

Queen Victoria and the First Opium War

Queen Victoria ascended to the throne of the British Empire in 1837. Shortly after, she was at war with China in the First Opium War (1839-1842). Here, Sam Kelly explains the background to the war, the war itself, and the curious drug-taking habits of the Queen and mid-nineteenth century Britain.

Lin Zexu and the destruction of opium.

Who is the most notorious drug kingpin of all time? Most people would say Pablo Escobar, or perhaps El Chapo. But they would be wrong. More than a hundred years before these men were born, there was a powerful woman who controlled a drug empire so vast and so unimaginably lucrative that it made Escobar and El Chapo look like low-level street dealers. Unlike modern drug lords, she didn’t have to live in a remote jungle compound surrounded by thugs toting machine guns because no one was coming after her. She didn’t have to conceal her ill-gotten gains from the tax collectors because the proceeds from her drug operation were funding the entire country. And she didn’t have to worry about being gunned down in the street or locked away in prison because every single person who was empowered to punish drug crimes was already on her payroll. Her name was Queen Victoria and she was running the British Empire.

Her meteoric rise as a drug lord began innocently enough. It happened because British people loved drinking tea. The average London household was spending 5% of its annual income on Chinese tea, which was not a problem as long as Britain could trade something to China in exchange for all the tea. Unfortunately, Britain didn’t have much that the Chinese wanted. China saw British manufactured goods as inferior and unnecessary. Having nothing to trade, Britain was forced to pay for tea with the currency of the realm, which was silver. Britain was almost literally pouring silver into China’s imperial treasury and racking up massive trade deficits in the process. China was getting rich, and Britain grew resentful. The British Empire was determined to find something, anything, that Chinese people craved.

They found opium. It ticked off all the boxes. It grew natively in India, which the British Empire controlled. It was an amazingly effective painkiller, which meant the Chinese were willing to pay outrageously high prices for it. And most importantly, it was obscenely addictive. People who used opium got hooked almost immediately, which allowed Britain to increase the price as demand grew.

Thanks to opium, the trade imbalance was reversed almost overnight. China was forced to return all of the silver the British had spent on tea, plus a great deal more. Now it was China, not Britain, that was racking up ruinous trade deficits. And millions of Chinese citizens were being transformed into hopeless opium addicts.

China Fights Back

China tried to put a stop to it. It declared opium illegal and banned it throughout the country. However, the British Empire wasn’t ready to give up its lucrative drug operation. If they could not sell opium legally, they would hire drug mules and third parties, pay off corrupt officials, or just plain smuggle it in, whatever it took to keep the money coming in. They even offered free samples of opium to Chinese citizens in a craven attempt to get as many people addicted as possible. From their point of view, it wasn’t personal; it was business, and business was extremely good. Opium sales were now responsible for some 15% - 20% of the British Empire’s annual revenue.  

The Chinese Emperor was determined to wipe out the opium scourge by any means necessary. His viceroy, a man named Lin Zexu, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria, explaining what she was doing was immoral. Opium was illegal in England and punished with the utmost strictness and severity, yet she was flooding China with opium and deliberately getting people hooked. The Queen never saw the letter and when she did not respond to his letter, Lin Wexu decided it was time to take aggressive action. He seized a massive shipment of British opium and ordered his soldiers to trample it under their feet and then dump it into the South China Sea. This time, the Queen responded.

Something you need to understand: Queen Victoria was only 18 years old when she ascended to the throne in 1837. She was new in the job – and under the impression that, as queen, she could do whatever she wanted. So when the Chinese government dumped 2.5 million pounds of British opium into the sea, she reacted like any all-powerful young imperial leader would. She declared war on China in 1839.

It is known as the First Opium War (1839-1842). There was a Second Opium War a few years later (1856-60). British forces laid waste to the Chinese army and slaughtered tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. The Emperor had no choice but to capitulate and sign a one-sided peace treaty that surrendered Hong Kong to the British, opened additional ports for British opium to flood into the country, and granted British citizens who were living in China immunity to Chinese laws. It was an unprecedented blow to the nation’s sovereignty. The esteemed empire of China had been defeated and humbled by a young ruler. China was now perceived as weak by the rest of world, making it ripe for invasion and subjugation by Western powers, Russia, and Japan. And so began China’s tragic “century of humiliation.”  

Queen Victoria Was a Drug User

But why? Why did Queen Victoria choose to bring ruin and shame upon one of the world’s most ancient civilizations simply to preserve her illegal drug smuggling operation? Partly it was due to being given too much power at too young of an age. And partly it was due to the nationalistic impulse to regard British wealth and happiness as more important than the lives of Asian peoples halfway around the world. But it certainly didn’t help matters that she was on drugs. Yes, that is correct. Her Majesty the Queen was not only selling drugs, she was using them.

She used opium every day. Unlike the Chinese citizens who became addicted, she did not smoke it in a pipe. In Britain, the more fashionable way to ingest opium was to drink it in the form of laudanum, comprised of 90% alcohol and 10% opium. Laudanum was available over the counter without a prescription. Doctors recommended it to mothers for their teething children. Queen Victoria drank a glass every night to help her sleep.

Her other drug of choice was cocaine. It was not illegal at the time. Cocaine was brand new on the scene and regarded as a wonder drug. European explorers had witnessed indigenous peoples living on the slopes of the Andes Mountains, who chewed coca leaves regularly and had amazing stamina and were strong and hardy, despite being physically small. European scientists reached the conclusion the same active ingredient from coca leaves would have even greater salutary effects on Europeans who, in their not-so-scientific and racist opinion, were inherently healthier, stronger and more intelligent than their South American counterparts.

Queen Victoria was a particular fan of cocaine chewing gum. It came highly recommended for soothing aches and pains from tooth and gum disease, plus it supplied the chewer with boundless amounts of energy, and for reasons that were unexplainable at the time, it tremendously boosted one’s feeling of self-confidence – just the ticket for a young inexperienced Queen who desired to project a strong assertive image. It was extremely popular with British elites. In fact, Victoria is reported to have shared cocaine chewing gum with a young Winston Churchill. Back in those days, no one knew about the downside of cocaine use. Doctors and scientists genuinely believed it was good for you.

Which brings me to the final twist in this story: Because she believed cocaine was good for you, Queen Victoria refused to sell it to the Chinese. She was happy to sell them all of the opium in the world, despite its devastating effects, but they could not touch her cocaine.

What do you think of Queen Victoria and the First Opium War? Let us know below.

References

Stephen R. Platt, Imperial Twilight: The Opium War and the End of China’s Last Golden Age. Knopf 2018.

Tom de Castella, “100 Years of the War on Drugs,” BBC News Magazine, January 24, 2012, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-16681673

Matt Schiavenza, “How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese History,” The Atlantic, October 25, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/10/how-humiliation-drove-modern-chinese-history/280878/

Ellen Castelow, “Opium in Victorian Britain,” Historic UK, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/

“Did This Beloved Queen of Britain Use Drugs,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/did-this-beloved-queen-of-britain-use-drugs/

“The Opium War and Foreign Encroachment,” Asia for Educators, Columbia University, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm

19th Century War Tourism: After the 1815 Battle of Waterloo

Some people visit the battlefields of the world as tourists; however, such war tourism has a long history. Here, Erica Olson explains how battlefield tourism took place after the 1815 Battle of Waterloo – and how items for sale even included soldiers’ teeth.

Waterloo by Denis Dighton. British 10th Hussars of Vivian's Brigade attacking mixed French troops.

Many history lovers are familiar with Napoleon's Hundred Days leading up to Waterloo and the events of the battle itself, but what happened after is less well known. The battlefield was far from the hallowed mass grave we may expect. An astonishing number of people from various nations, especially England, treated Waterloo as a tourist attraction, treading over the bodies of dead soldiers.

English writer John Scott (1784-1821), traveling only three months after Waterloo, was in a unique position to comment upon the chaotic movement of people throughout Europe at the end of the Napoleonic wars. His 1815 account, Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo, gives us a glimpse into the booming new tourism industry.

According to Scott, English travel to Europe exploded immediately after Waterloo. When asked to sign the guest list for a hotel in Bruges, Scott saw “a host of my countryfolks [sic], of each sex, and every age, profession, residence, and condition, all on the swarm for Brussels.” Some had listed the more precise destination, Field of battle, near Waterloo. Scott was excited to see a list full of familiar English middle-class names such as Johnson, Roberts, Davis, and Jackson, names which “will remain in the archives of the police at Bruges, as the memorials of a most extraordinary time.” What Scott observed was quite a new phenomenon, one that arose after the end of Napoleon’s campaigns: war tourism, on a massive scale.

While tourists recorded “picking objects up” at Waterloo, they probably bought most of their souvenirs from locals, who would have stripped the battlefield of everything valuable within hours [2]. Pistols, swords, and musket balls were especially popular. One notable tourist, Sir Walter Scott, brought back a plethora of such items.

“Waterloo ivory”

A more sinister trade emerged as well. By the early 1800s, Europeans were consuming massive amounts of sugar courtesy of the transatlantic slave trade [3]. Many people had rotting or missing teeth, leading them to seek out individual replacements or full sets of dentures. Historically, dentures were made of elephant, walrus, or hippopotamus ivory, but ivory rotted even more quickly than human teeth. So after Waterloo, scavengers set out for the battlefield armed with pliers, ready to pry out teeth from the mouths of dead soldiers.

Some of the newly arrived English tourists got in on the game. Back in England, the trade in teeth was lucrative, with dentists boasting that they sold genuine “Waterloo ivory”, guaranteed to have come from young, healthy soldiers [4]. Waterloo was the mother lode: more teeth than anyone knew what to do with, just like the mountains of bones, which were ground into the soil as fertilizer – some of the bones were even transported across the Channel to increase the bounty of English fields.

The author of Paris Revisited, John Scott, was surely aware of these morbid activities, as he walked the battlefield himself, yet they didn't dampen his enthusiasm for war tourism. He proudly visited the towns of Flanders, “the great prize-fighting stage of Europe.” As he passed through Bruges, Liege, Malines, Juliers, Tournay, Mons, and Jemappe, he thought of “ famous campaigns, …able military maneuvers, great battles, important treaties, alliances, discords, and devastations” [1]. Death on a grand scale didn't bother him in the least. In his fantasy of war, everyone was heroic and battles belonged in glorious history books.

Scott depicts the mood in Brussels after Waterloo as one of great merriment, where the wounded soldiers coming in for treatment and the tourists coming to see the battlefield “seemed all animated by the influence of a vast holiday.” The joy of being an English war tourist lay in seeing soldiers, just recently come from “the heart of the battle, black with gun-powder and sweat…bleeding, groaning, and dying,” now “out in a pleasurable promenade.” Now that the terror of Napoleon was gone, the British could rejoice. Scott reports that when he went to buy a hat, a British doctor standing nearby told him, “Hats are of no use now but to throw up in the air when we shout!” The influx of tourists were free to view battle as a spectator sport as they turned their eyes away from death and despair. What better place than Waterloo to celebrate?

What do you think of battlefield tourism? Let us know below.

Bibliography

1. Scott, John. Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1816.

2. Plotz, Sophie. “Waterloo: Battlefield Tourism.” National Museums Scotland. Last modified September 20, 2015. https://blog.nms.ac.uk/2015/09/20/waterloo-battlefield-tourism/.

3. Kerley, Paul. “The dentures made from the teeth of dead soldiers at Waterloo.” BBC News Magazine. Last modified June 15, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33085031

4. “Waterloo Teeth.” Age of Revolution. Accessed February 11, 2021. https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/waterloo-teeth-1815-2/

The Battle for the Border States in the American Civil War

In the American Civil War, the border states were those between Union and Confederate territory - Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia. They were key for both Unionist and Confederate war aims. By controlling them, it would make victory that much more possible. Victor Gamma explains how these states took sides in the US Civil War.

The 1862 Battle of Perryville between Unionists and Confederates in Kentucky. Picture from Harper’s Weekly.

“I hope to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky.” The quote illustrates more than Lincoln’s legendary wit. It also underlines the vital importance of the border states during the American Civil War. By late May 1861 all the states that would form the Confederacy had severed their ties with the union. But the curious fact remained that not every slave state seceded. The states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia, although slaveholding, did not see fit to join their rebellious sisters to the South. That did not mean, however, that these states solidly supported Lincoln. Divided loyalties, in fact, plagued each of them. It was anybody's guess whether they would cast their lot for North or South. 

Why were the border states so important? For the South, with the yawning gap between their war-making capacity and that of the North, it was critical to add the strength of the border states to their pitifully weak resources. The white population of the border states equaled almost half as much as the entire Confederacy. For the North, their loss would make the already daunting task of subduing the South insurmountable. The region contained enormous mineral and agricultural resources as well as vital communication and transportation links. These last were especially critical to the Union effort. The Ohio River, for example, ran along the northern boundary of Kentucky and West Virginia. This waterway alone would be essential for supplies and communications in the coming conflict. Its loss would have been a fatal blow to Northern efforts. Additionally, in terms of geography, the border states occupied too central a position to ignore.

Lincoln knew he had to tread carefully; none of the border states supported him in the election of 1860. Abolitionists were pressuring him to end slavery without delay, but Lincoln had a different set of priorities; make sure you can win the war first and then free the slaves. And to win the war he needed the border states.  Slavery was still an important part of the border state economy. Kentucky counted more slave owners than Mississippi, for example. The Lincoln administration decided early, though, to apply both political and military measures to reduce inter-state conflicts and suppress disloyalty, even if these measures came under attack as assaults on civil liberties. 

Maryland

The first place his policy was tested was in Maryland. Due to its location surrounding the nation's capital, control of Maryland was a number one priority for Lincoln. Its loss would force the government to abandon Washington - a possibly fatal blow to Union prestige. Hostility toward Lincoln’s efforts to suppress the southern rebellion and outright secessionism was strong in the state. A violent outbreak by southern sympathizers demonstrated this fact early on. On April 19, 1861 troops from northern states began passing through Baltimore on their way to Washington. A riot broke out between pro-southern residents and the 6th Massachusetts Regiment. In the resulting ruckus, several citizens and soldiers were killed or injured. These would be the first casualties of the Civil War except for the accidental deaths at Fort Sumter's surrender. Was this "Coercion" by a “Black Republican" Massachusetts regiment? Secessionists thought so and burned bridges and other places to stop more troop arrivals. Lincoln countered with a military buildup along the railroads. Martial law was declared and the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. Some of the more violent and outspoken secessionists were imprisoned. Supreme court Chief Justice Roger Taney demanded the release of the political prisoners and ruled the suspension of the writ unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored him. Lincoln’s firm response worked; secession fever subsided. At length, Maryland Governor Hicks issued a call in May to support the government’s requisition for troops, with the provision that they be assigned for duty in the state. Growing union sentiment showed itself when all six of Maryland’s seats in Congress went to unionists. Despite quite a number of Marylanders heading South to fight for the Stars and Bars, the state stayed firmly in the union.          

West Virginia

The next border state to fall to the North was West Virginia, at that time not a separate state. In 1861 those living west of the Shenandoah Valley and north of the Kanawha River brought long-standing statehood sentiment into full force with a Convention at Wheeling on May 13, 1861. Ultimately, a wait-and-see approach was taken as delegates watched to see how Virginia voted on the proposed Ordinance of Secession coming up on May 23. When Virginia duly voted to exit the union a second convention was called, which made the momentous decision to separate from eastern Virginia. In the meantime, Union forces moved in to secure the region. Strategically, the North could not afford to lose West Virginia anymore than it could Maryland. Two major railroads intersected there. It would also be difficult to control the critically strategic Shenandoah Valley without it. The main objective of the initial Union move was the Baltimore & Ohio junction at Grafton. On June 21 General George McClellan arrived. His victories allowed Wheeling to adopt a statehood ordinance. In August Richmond gave General Robert E. Lee took overall command of forces in West Virginia. Lee had more troops, but failed due to several reasons: General William S. Rosecrans’ leadership, rain, sickness and difficult terrain. Rosecrans ended up driving rebels from West Virginia. Firm Union control allowed a statehood referendum. By late 1861, West Virginia was lost to the Confederacy for good. The region joined the union officially as West Virginia on June 20, 1863 as the 35th state.

Kentucky

Lincoln’s attitude toward Kentucky was expressed in a letter of September 1861 in which he declared, “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game.” Kentucky declared that it would stay out of the conflict entirely by enacting a Declaration of Neutrality, promulgated on May 16, 1861. 'Neutrality' was actually secession because it declared the state sovereign to do what it wanted to. In fact, Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin had already defied Washington by refusing Lincoln’s call for troops to put down the secession movement. Lincoln, though, eager to avoid alienating Kentucky, carried out a policy to the effect that if Kentucky "made no demonstration of force against the U.S. he would do nothing to molest her." He allowed trade to continue. Despite the fact that many supplies headed south to aid the Confederacy, Lincoln’s policy paid off. Legislative elections went pro-Union and finally military activity along borders forced Kentucky to take sides by September. Nonetheless, Kentucky became the last state to be admitted to the Confederacy on December 11, 1861, adding a 13th star to the Confederate battle flag. Pro secessionist Kentuckians established a shadow government, which was ineffective in projecting any real power in the state. The battle for Kentucky, though, was just beginning.

Missouri

In the case of Missouri, strong-willed leaders helped to polarize the state more than it needed to be; on behalf of the South, Governor Claiborne Jackson, and for that of the North, Frances Blair and Generals Nathaniel Lyon and John C. Fremont. After a brief period of neutrality, the actions of these men triggered a struggle that would last for the entire war. After failing to bring the state into the Confederacy legally, Jackson worked secretly to take over the state with a coup. The alert Lyon thwarted him, eventually capturing the state capital of Jefferson City. The Union-controlled state government then duly ousted Jackson from office and he fled to Arkansas in exile. Yet, despite the persistence of Union political control, Jackson called a pro-southern legislature into session at Neosho near the Arkansas border. 

Pro-Union men could cause difficulties for Lincoln as well, though. Fremont was a political general but his years in the topographical corps gave him a military reputation. Thus it was that the famed “Pathfinder” was appointed to major general of Union troops in Missouri soon after Fort Sumter. Meanwhile, Confederate General Sterling Price moved into the south west of Missouri that summer. Fremont sent Lyon to meet him. Lyon divided his force and sent a flanking column to the south of the Confederate camp. The resulting Battle of Wilson's Creek on August 10 was a rebel victory. Price followed this up with the capture of Lexington on September 20. This led to an increase of guerrilla activity which would plague the state throughout the Civil War. To reverse the tide Fremont took a bold step: he took over the state government, declared martial law, included the death penalty for guerrillas, confiscated property and freed the slaves of any Confederates active in the state. The alarmed Lincoln ordered Fremont to modify this order. Fremont refused. Instead, Fremont, with 38,000 men, went on the offensive. Price retreated towards the southwest. Despite this success Lincoln revoked Fremont's emancipation order and removed him to the Virginia Theater where he could keep his eye on him. Meantime, the Missouri secessionists passed an ordinance of secession on October 28, 1861 and Missouri was accepted as the 12th state of the Confederacy. Military events, however, especially the Battle of Pea Ridge in March 1862, prevented the Confederate government of Missouri from exercising much authority. Pro-Union men controlled the state for the remainder of the war.

Back to Kentucky

By the summer of 1862 Union control included all of Kentucky, most of Tennessee, and a portion of northern Alabama. Confederate Generals Braxton Bragg and Kirby Smith invaded Kentucky in the hope of turning the tide in the West, gaining recruits and persuading Kentucky to join the Confederacy. Bragg and Kirby Smith would potentially have a combined force of 50,000 men. Bragg was confident that their numbers would be swelled by Kentucky volunteers. A stirring broadside was printed and distributed which read, “KENTUCKIANS! The time for hesitation has passed! You have now to fight, either for the Yankees, who will press you into their service, or YOUR HOMES! YOUR FIRESIDES! Your property and your liberty.”  As his forces moved north, though, few men joined the Confederates. They were waiting for Bragg to show that he could win. Unfortunately for the South, Bragg did not have enough resources to overcome Union resistance and occupy the state. His move into Kentucky was more a large-scale raid. Smith took the state capital of Frankfort and waited for Bragg. On October 4, a Confederate Governor for Kentucky was inaugurated, a move designed to sway fence sitters. The supreme test for the southern cause, however, was on the field of battle. Outflanking Don Carlos Buell’s forces in Tennessee, Bragg and Smith had moved far into the state, but they failed to win a decisive victory which could have persuaded Kentuckians to side with the South. Although winning a tactical victory at the Battle of Perryville, Bragg, over Smith’s forceful protests, decided to withdraw instead of linking the two forces and pressing the offensive towards Louisville. Bragg’s retreat spelled the end of Confederate hopes for Kentucky, which remained firmly in Union hands for the rest of the war.

In retrospect

Despite initial high hopes, each of the border states was irretrievably lost to the South by the middle of the war. The reasons are several. First, decisive action by key unionists, such as Nathaniel Lyon in Missouri, helped to halt secessionist schemes.  Additionally, the Lincoln administration’s wise policy, which combined firmness with sensitivity to the political realities in the states, allowed events to work in their favor. Lack of Confederate military success was another factor. Many did not want to back a “losing horse.” The fact was, by the summer of 1862 the South was clearly losing territory to Federal troops, especially in the West. The erosion of the slave-interest was another factor. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 put slavery in the border states in an awkward predicament, surrounded by free territory, into which their remaining slaves often escaped. West Virginia, Maryland and Missouri had all abolished slavery by war’s end. And so it can be seen that as the war went on, Confederate war aims steadily eroded, and with them, support from the border states. Finally, union support was generally stronger than secessionism in these states. The numbers speak for themselves: a total of 275,000 enlisted for the North as opposed to 71,000 for the South.

What do you think of the battle for the border states in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Victor’s series on whether it was right to topple President William McKinley’s statue here.

References 

McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

Amy Murrell Taylor, “The Border States,” National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-border -states.htm

“To Lose Kentucky is to Lose the Whole Game,” Americans Teaching History, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/to-lose-kentucky-is-to-lose-the-whole-game/

Garry Adelman and Mary Bays Woodside, “A House Divided: Civil War Kentucky,” Hallowed Ground Magazine, April 16, 2010, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/house-divided-civil-war-kentucky

“A State of Convenience; The Creation of West Virginia, West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History 2021. http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood05.html and http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood07.html

19th Century Chinese-American Exclusion

The Chinese-American population started to grow significantly in the western United States from the mid-19th century following the California gold rush. However, over time this led to a backlash against Chinese-Americans, especially when the economic situation worsened. James Hernandez explains.

An image depicting Chinese gold miners in California.

The 1840s fostered a promising era of growth both in population and economic success as the American west began to rapidly develop and become a destination for those seeking new ventures in agriculture and industry. By 1849, San Francisco had established itself as a prime economic center and as a main port of entry for Chinese immigrants seeking to escape instability in China. Rather than being composed of families, the wave of Chinese immigrants mostly consisted of men seeking jobs and a chance to strike gold in the California hinterlands following the Sierra County gold strike in 1848. Chinese style restaurants, small businesses, apartments, and other services soon became a part of western urban identity as “Chinatowns” were founded in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. By 1852 San Francisco’s Chinese community had rapidly grown; approximately 20,000 immigrants resided in the area in comparison to only about 450 in 1850. The unprecedented growth in population reflected a stark shift in the area’s demography but also the beginning of resistance towards Chinese influence on western America.

Board of Health investigations

San Francisco public officials and health inspectors began to fear the obscene living conditions found in the Chinese community as they worried white citizens would become victims of the alleged health hazards within the area. A report conducted by the San Francisco Board of Health described the community with, “Each cellar [was] ankle-deep with loathsome slush, with ceilings dripping with percolations of other nastiness above, [and] with walls slimy with the clamminess of Asiatic diseases.” Crime also became a rampant issue within the community as the area became densely populated and poverty ran deep. The San Francisco Real Estate Circular documented that, “Their women are all suffering slaves and prostitutes, for which possession murderous feuds and high-handed cruelty are constantly occurring. To compare the Chinese with even the lowest white laborers is, therefore, absurd.”

Five government-sponsored health investigations led by the Board of Health took place between 1854 and 1885. These investigations were viewed as solutions to improve the “nuisance” illustrated as Chinatown; but each report depicted a “dense” and “enclosed” living environment and continued to fuel the popular rumor of a potential epidemic. Due to the inadequate living conditions found in the community, San Francisco Public Health Officials later attributed the smallpox breakouts between 1868 and 1887 to Chinese immigrants. The harsh accusations against Chinese communities in San Francisco essentially depicted a larger conflict within the context of nativism that lead to the isolation and racial discrimination of the Chinese population.

Many Chinese workers began to seek other employment opportunities as the California Gold Rush came to an end but were limited to harsh labor as Chinese immigrants were excluded from San Francisco public schools in 1859. Laborers soon found refuge working for railroad companies, most notably the First Transcontinental Railroad, but were faced with unfair working conditions and were forced to pay for food, tools, and other accommodations while white workers were fully supplied without further compensation. In an attempt to further discourage immigration and to lower job competition, the Chinese Police Tax of 1862 was passed in California and placed a $2.50 tax on every documented Chinese immigrant living in the state. AlthoughLin Sing V. Washburn soon overturned the tax as it was found “unconstitutional”, this wasn’t the first time Chinese immigrants were subject to unreasonable taxation as they previously faced a capitation tax of $50 for every Chinese immigrant in California in 1855 (overturned in 1857) and other licensing fees and taxes to work in the mining industry that weren’t abolished until 1870.

Violence

The Panic of 1873 circumstantially led to the formation of anti-Chinese groups in California as the nation faced its first “Great Depression”. The crisis was believed to be caused by a crash in major railroad companies-who happened to be major employers of Chinese immigrants. The San Francisco Workingmen’s Party, fronted by Irish immigrant Denis Kearney, began to lead many violent protests and riots aimed towards harming Chinese communities. Kearney began the party’s “Chinese must go!” campaign and threatened the city to implement job systems that would blatantly exclude Chinese workers from employment with the promise of further violence if demands were not met. On July 24, 1877, over 20 Chinese laundries, a plumbing business, and a Chinese Methodist Mission, were destroyed as hundreds flooded the streets of San Francisco to participate in the brutal riot inspired by Kearny’s Workingmen’s Party. Over $100,000 was tolled in property damage to the Chinese community, and four lives were lost. 

As Anti-Chinese sentiment rapidly grew during the late 1870s, President Rutherford B. Hayes called for a revision of the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 which formerly recognized diplomatic and trade relations between China and the US and eased immigration regulations. The revision, the Angell Treaty of 1880, acknowledged and protected US power to restrict Chinese immigration of laborers while allowing Chinese professionals to still settle in the country. Despite the new revision’s attempt to also provide security to Chinese-American rights, the changes were subsequently reversed as the treaty shed light on America’s struggle to control immigration; resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and even more scrutiny against the population. 

Introduced by California representative Horace Page, who previously introduced the Page Act of 1875 which barred the entry of Chinese women in an effort to end Chinese prostitution, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only law in the United States that completely prohibited immigration of a specific nationality. The new law halted all Chinese labor immigration for 10 years, formed new restrictions and requirements such as certifications to re-enter the US, and denied naturalization. The law was later renewed by the Geary Act of 1892 and was finally made permanent in 1902 until finally being abolished in 1943.

Chinese exclusion in context

While 19th century Chinese Exclusion laid the foundation for heavier immigration laws during and after World War I, it is no secret that the United States has since struggled to unite the country under a cohesive immigration policy that provides a secure path to naturalization for immigrants in congruency with citizens who express concern for the nation’s security and economic well-being. The continuity of the issue ultimately gives notion to the idea that the US has never been able to formulate a successful immigration policy. So does this mean the nation is hopeless in its current struggle with immigration? Possibly, but if there is anything to be learned from Chinese Exclusion, it is that the clash between nativism and egalitarianism will unfortunately prevail past any form of federal immigration policy and is a problem that seeps farther than the issue of immigration. One thing for certain is that a majority of Americans will never fully comprehend the nation’s long and unsparing history with failed immigration policies and in this case in particular, the perseverance of Chinese-Americans.

Now you can read James’ article on the importance of the 1957 Civil Rights Act here.

Amazing Women in the American Civil War

The role of women in the US Civil War has historically been understated. But, from nurses to spies and even those who disguised themselves as men to join the army, women played key roles. Ashley Goss explains.

Frances Clayton, a woman who disguised herself as a man to fight for the Union Army in the US Civil War.

There’s this misconception that the American Civil War was a man’s fight when in reality hundreds of women worked on the front lines of the war as healthcare providers, in espionage and the fight itself. Most men of the era wrote about women helping from the home front and many movies portray plantation women during the war. However, women did far more than just send food and clothing to the front lines. Not only did women have an active role in the Civil War, their efforts had a lasting impact on America as a whole. Nurses like Clara Barton and Ada W. Bacot traveled miles away from home to care for wounded soldiers. Spies like Harriet Tubman and Elizabeth Van Lew snuck behind enemy lines to smuggle information and even people back home. Most astonishingly, women like Frances Clayton, Sarah Edmonds, Marian McKenzie and hundreds more disguised themselves as men and fought on the front lines. However, not many discuss or even know about these brave women and the influence their service had on the Women’s Suffrage movement. Nurses, spies and soldiers changed the course of the Civil War and the ideas of womanhood.

The Cult of Domesticity

During the 1800s many Americans believed in the Cult of Domesticity. The Cult of Domesticity was essentially a guideline to how women should behave, and in turn, traits that men should avoid. Women were expected to follow four cardinal virtues; piety, purity, submission and domesticity. ‘True women’ were delicate, soft and weak, did not engage in strenuous physical activity, and were the center of the family and home.  Femininity also required a woman to seek a masculine working man while rejecting the values that work entailed, and the reverse was true for men. If any ‘respectable’ woman went against these rules, they were usually shunned and criticized. According to Catherine Beecher:

“Woman is to win everything by peace and love; by making herself so much respected, esteemed and loved… But the moment woman begins to feel the promptings of ambition, or the thirst for power, her aegis of defense is gone. All the sacred protection of religion, all the generous promptings of chivalry, all the poetry of romantic gallantry, depend upon woman’s retaining her place as dependent and defenseless, and making no claims, and maintaining no right but what are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love” (Grimke, 2020).

However, with the Civil War the idea of women staying in the home and being dependent on a husband started to change. Women were meant to be the moral center of the home and take care of their families. As more and more men were sent to the front, these barriers began to stretch outwards. The definition of home became debatable; moving from the house to the community, to the county, and eventually the country. Women started off by sending clothing and raising money for supplies. Plenty of women helped at home but many found that they needed to do more to help their men.

Nurses

Nurses played a vital role in assisting the army and helping them to continue the fight. Before the Civil War only men were allowed to be professional practicing nurses. Women were expected to be nurturing but not trained to handle a life-or-death situation, and certainly not paid for it. When the war started an adequate medical force was not a high priority for southern politicians because they thought the war would only last six months. As the war continued though and both sides needed more men to fight, women were integrated into nursing programs around the country. Most female nurses were treated more like housekeepers by the doctors and male nurses and not professionals, instead preparing food and keeping the soldiers’ company. According to Dorothea Dix a “respectable nurse” was over thirty, plain looking and refrained from wearing jewelry and hoop skirts (D’Antonio, 2002). However, as the body count kept rising these women started being treated as professional nurses and less like housekeepers. Even though it was jarring, women were ready for the challenge. After working hard for their new found independence and station it was hard for many women to return to their old submissive ways.

One woman who left home to become a nurse is Ada W. Bacot. Ada was an upper-class woman from South Carolina whose father was a plantation owner and a slaveholder. At the outbreak of the war all of Ada’s brothers saw some capacity of military service and her second husband was killed in a skirmish in Dandridge, Tennessee. When her first husband and two daughters died, all she wanted to do was serve her country. She applied for both a local and out of state nursing program but when she never received an offer, she went ahead to Virginia anyway to help at the South Carolina Association Hospital there. Like many nurses she found the hospital to be unhygienic and her role was very restricted. Ada’s job originally consisted of food preparation, laundry and reading the Bible to the men. However, as the wounded piled up and she became more acquainted with gruesome injuries, her role as a nurse was taken more seriously. She was now able to help more with injuries and had more of a say in the cleanliness of the hospital and her confidence grew along with her workload. In Ada’s own words, “tis gratification to be able to do anything for the poor men, they are so grateful. One man begged me to sit awhile with him he was so lonely” (Bacot, 1990). Now even though her drive to become a nurse had no feminist intent behind it, and she even believed in the Cult of Domesticity, by the end of the war Ada was financially independent, owned her own plantation and ran it herself. Even someone who fit most of the criteria for a ‘true woman’, Ada did not want to be dependent on or owe anyone anything.

Spies

Female spies also played a key role in the Civil War, helping with strategy, armory and even freeing slaves. Women were actually preferred over men in the first few years of the war because they were not searched as thoroughly as men. Those who crossed enemy lines hid arms, medicine, and other crucial material in hoop skirts, parasols, and corsets. Messages would also be written on buttons, silk, tissue and commonplace letters in imperceptible ink. Many female spies have been credited with helping in crucial battles. At the First Battle of Bull Run, Rose Greenhow channeled important information on timing, troop strength, and last-minute strategic decisions to Confederate generals. Belle Boyd became famous after she rushed across the battlefield to give Stonewall Jackson information on the Union troops he was about to attack. This job also required constant shifts in identity, and clearly required leaving home, and these women represented a slow rejection of any traditionally established set of values for women. In taking on the roles of men, these women challenged gender norms in the mid-nineteenth century.

One woman who volunteered her services to the war was Elizabeth Van Lew. Shortly after marrying, her mother Eliza, her father John moved them from Philadelphia to Richmond, Virginia and they integrated into Richmond’s high society. Despite her father owning about a dozen slaves, Elizabeth had a Quaker education in Philadelphia, so she was a staunch abolitionist and Unionist. After her father’s death Elizabeth and Eliza freed all of his slaves and even sold land to some of them cheaply. When the war broke out both Elizabeth and Eliza sided with the Union but made sure that those around them believed otherwise. They were able to convince General John Winder to allow them to help the Union soldiers in Libby Prison under the guise of female benevolence. They used this position to pass messages to and from prisoners and even helped some to escape. Eventually Elizabeth had several confidantes working inside and outside the prison to help with prison breaks and used her wealth and family mansion to hide and take care of escapees. In December of 1863 General Benjamin Butler heard about Elizabeth’s work and recruited her as a spy for the Union Army. By the end of the war Elizabeth amassed her own spy network of twelve people, employing both White and Black spies. During reconstruction President Ulysses S. Grant appointed Elizabeth the Postmaster General of Richmond. As Postmaster she used the office to promote women’s suffrage. However, many were not okay with a woman in political office, so as soon as Grant was out of office Elizabeth was replaced. She died in Richmond on September 25, 1900 at the age of ninety-two. Unfortunately, by the end of her life, Elizabeth “had spent much of her family’s fortune on behalf of Union soldiers and civilians, and ruined her family name in the eyes of her Richmond neighbors” by acting as a spy for the Union (Varon, 2005). Also, as good as she was, Elizabeth hated being labeled as a spy because it had negative connotations. In a letter to a friend she said, “I do not know how they can call me a spy serving my own country within its recognized borders…[for] my loyalty am I to be branded as a spy-by my own country, for which I was willing to lay down my life? Is that honorable or honest?” (Varon, 2005).

Disguised as men

The last and most radical group were women who disguised themselves as men to fight alongside their husbands and brothers. Many women in the North and South wanted to help in the war effort but felt their gender limited them; several stating “if only I was a man” in letters and diaries (Clinton, 1993). Some took the initiative to change that limiting factor by cutting off their hair, changing their name and enlisting. There are records of at least 250 women who served in the Union and Confederate armies, most of their names being lost to history. It was relatively easy to fool a regiment; many of the recruits were very young so it was common to see soldiers with no facial hair and a high-pitched voice. The uniform was also so oversized it easily hid a woman’s curves. Just like the men, these women also lived-in germ-infested camps, languished in appalling prisons, and died miserable but honorable deaths for their country. Both sides were aware that women were joining and although they did not really condone it, it was also hard to regulate. One Union soldier after the Battle of Reachtree Creek wrote to his wife about a wounded female rebel and said, “I hope our women will never be so foolish as to go to war or get to fighting” (Dunn, 1864). He must have been disappointed later.

One woman who not only served in the army in disguise but also served as a nurse and a spy to some degree was Sarah Edmonds. She was born Sarah Emma Edmondson but after suffering years of abuse from her father Sarah ran away and changed her last name to Edmonds. She was still worried her father might find her though, so to keep that from happening and to find a job she disguised herself as a man and changed her name to Franklin Thompson, getting a job as a Bible salesman in Hartford, Connecticut. When the war broke out Sarah was living in Michigan and being an ardent Unionist, she enlisted as a three-year recruit to the Second Michigan Infantry in 1861. She participated in the Seven Days Battle, the Battle of Williamsburg, the Second Battle of Bull Run, the Battle of Antietam, and the Battle of Fredericksburg. In fact, at the Battle of Fredericksburg she served as orderly to General Orlando M. Poe. During the battle she spent at least twelve uninterrupted hours riding back and forth under fire delivering messages between headquarters and the front. Throughout her service she acted as a foot soldier, a nurse, an orderly, a mail carrier and, according to her memoirs, a spy. She accepted every task with exceptional courage. Even twenty years later General Poe claimed that no one in the regiment had suspected that Thompson might have been a woman. In the spring of 1863 she contracted malaria and, out of fear of being discovered if she sought medical attention, she deserted. When the war ended, she wrote her memoirs, Nurse and Spy in the Union Army, and donated the profits to various soldiers’ aid groups. Although she never gave the name of her alias out of fear of being prosecuted for deserting. Finally, in 1884, she became the first woman to be awarded a military pension.

Conclusion

Many of these women’s stories go untold even though their work not only helped the war effort but the Woman’s Suffrage Movement as well. Before the Civil War a woman’s place was in the private sphere (home), and a man’s was in the public sphere. However, these women tested the boundaries of the ‘private sphere’ by asserting that their influence on the home extended to where ever their family was, so if their men needed them then they should follow. These stories helped showcase what women were capable of. Clara Barton claimed that their efforts advanced the social position of women by fifty years. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony also used female front-line service as an example for why women should be equal to men who served alongside them. Ada Bacot, the most traditionally feminine of these women, even sent a letter to Stanton saying, “I am a property holder and tax payer [who] ought of right to vote and wish[es] to do so” (Varon, 2005). With their service and sacrifice these women didn’t just help their men but took the first steps toward the fight for Women’s Rights.

What do you think about the role of women in the US Civil War? Let us know below.

Now read about the role of women in the Confederacy in the US Civil War here.

Bibliography

Bacot, Ada W. Diary of Ada W. Bacot, 1860-1863. Edited by Jean V Berlin, Readex Film Products, 1990.

Clinton, Catherine, and Nina Silber. Divided Houses: Gender and the Civil War. Oxford University Press, 1993.

D'Antonio, Patricia. “Nurses in War.” The Lancet. The Lancet Publishing Group, December 2002. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(02)11798-3.pdf.

Grimke, A., 2020. Grimke's Appeal. [online] Utc.iath.virginia.edu. Available at: <http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/abolitn/abesaegb4t.html> [Accessed 20 April 2020].

Long, Day by Day, 542; James L. Dunn to his wife, 22 July 1864, Correspondence of James L. Dunn (accession 8301), ALUVA; Judson Austin to his wife, 21 July 1864, Papers of Nina L. Ness (Judson L. Austin Letters), BHLUM.

Varon, Elizabeth R. Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew, a Union Agent in the Heart of the Confederacy. Oxford University Press, 2005.

The Unitarians and the Reduction in the Church’s Influence in America

Since America’s independence, the Christian church has often become less involved in delivering services for society and the government more so. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses the Unitarian Church, the decline in the Christian church’s role in education, and the growth of the state.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, an influential 19th and 20th century Unitarian.

American culture started where it was founded. It began in the heart of the North American colonist at the run-up to the American Revolution. Of course, over time, that changed. And as with any cultural change comes a stark political and religious divide. Historian Peter S. Field mentions that the "advent of a democratic political culture in the early American republic entailed the occasion of the first debates on the relationship between intellectuals and democracy in the United States.” Such was particularly the case in the 1830s in Brahmin Boston where, as Perry Miller once observed, "there could hardly be found a group of young Americans more numb to the notion that there were any stirring implications in the word democracy.”

Unitarian Church

Miller was right too. Americans in the 1830s were, for the most part, generally neutral in the way that American culture was beginning to shape out. There were ups and downs. With a new nation typically comes unlimited options on what direction to take the country regarding politics and culture. Mr. Field clarifies for us that the Unitarian Church is misleading church. It is a secular church body, and not a true Christian church. To understand how the religious fracture opened up a ‘Trojan horse’ for American thought, you must understand that "while the Bible is an important text for some Unitarian Universalists, many seek guidance from other sacred books and religious traditions." According to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), "Unitarian Universalists generally agree that human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining the spiritual truth." If you join a Unitarian church, you will meet people from many different belief systems including secular humanists, agnostics, Christians, Catholics and so forth. Unitarians believe in moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity of Jesus. Their theology is thus opposed to the trinity of other Christian denominations.

The Unitarian Church is then a more secular body that was formed in the 19th century ‘vacuum’ created when God was beginning to become separated in public schools, different from traditional teaching. Unitarian Congregationalism is another name for their secular "church body." Transcendentalism is the name to those who are engaged in practicing spirituality who felt "too intellectual" and "in control" of their fate to admit their personal destiny is actually guided by a single higher power. “Transcendentalism proved to be almost a byword for an otherworldly, inchoate intellectual community that only marginally traveled beyond the parochial confines of eastern Massachusetts. Whether the logical outgrowth of Unitarian Congregationalism or its dedicated nemesis, Transcendentalism seemed altogether too intellectual, too elitist, and too apolitical to be of any great relevance to the unfolding social and political drama of the Jacksonian era.”[1]

Hairline fracture

There was a hairline fracture that split the thinking of American traditionalists and progressive intellectuals. The Unitarian Church was the catalyst, following transcendentalism in close second. Traditionalists (such as the clergy and church) began to slowly stop providing leadership in public schools and universities (prior to this it was a purely Christian education). Harvard (originally a Christian church) was taken over by Unitarians and as the quality of public education began to change (and at times decline), Horace Mann (the "father of progressive education") would convince the state of Massachusetts that the best way for education to grow would be to have the government take control, instead of non-governmental groups (like families and churches).

What followed afterwards was the move to “self-culture,” a human thought process of “me, myself, and I” which closely follows materialism. To break open a political divide for control and power, there must be a catalyst to enable this cultural shift. Thus, secular humanism was born. “By self-culture, [...] personal striving for the intellectual and spiritual complement to material pursuits... to convey their [American individual] belief in the virtually limitless human capacity for development of their spiritual faculties through the study of culture.” [2] It is this idea that begins to remove the personal importance of having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ - that is, Christianity.

As traditional American doctrines were neglected, the competing ideology of socialism took off. Karl Marx never had much influence in American society - until the country backslid from Christian principles and dabbled in greed. Thus, monopolies would form and grow. Wealth was accumulated, instead of employing the extra wealth to meet the needs of the poor and society. Self-culture (or individual interest), as Field would put it, began to replace the common good of the community.

The Trojan Horse

Marshall Foster writes that “in the loft restaurant above Peck’s restaurant at 140 Fulton Street in lower Manhattan, a group of young men met to plan the overthrow of the predominately Christian world-view that still pervaded America. At this first meeting five men were present: Upton Sinclair, 27, a writer and a socialist; Jack London, writer; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister; J.G. Phelps Stokes, husband of a socialist leader; and Clarence Darrow, a lawyer.

Their organization was called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Their purpose was to ‘promote an intelligent interest in socialism among college men and women.’ These men were ready to become the exponents of an idea passed on to them by an obscure writer named Karl Marx—a man who was supported by a wealthy industrialist who, inexplicably, believed in his theory of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Although a small group in the beginning, these adherents of socialism more than succeeded in their task.

“By using the proven method of gradualism, taken from the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, these men and others who joined with them slowly infiltrated” the public schools in America. By 1912 there were chapters in 44 colleges. By 1917 there were 61 chapters of student study groups of the League of Industrial Democracy. “At that time John Dewey, the godfather of progressive education, was the vice-president of the league. By 1941 Dewey had become president and Reinhold Niebuhr, the liberal socialist theologian, was the treasurer.”[3]

Conclusion

The beginning of the end of traditional America had become entrenched. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell says that “the loss Christian tradition, character, and responsibility led to the failure of many banks in the early 1900s. To remedy this situation, power was granted to a centralized Federal Reserve Board in 1913. But this unbiblical economic structure and lack of character produced many more problems. Within 20 years, the Stock Market had crashed, and America was in the midst of the Great Depression.”[4] With the propagation of socialism, people were ready for Roosevelt's “New Deal,” such as Social Security and other welfare agencies, which ultimately set up the state as provider rather than God. The rest is history.

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Dr. Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. Dr. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life, 253. 1989.

[2] Field, Peter S. 2001. ""the Transformation of Genius into Practical Power": Relph Waldo Emerson and the Public Lecture." Journal of the Early Republic 21 (3) (Fall): 467-493.

[3] Foster, Marshall, and Mary-Elaine Swanson. The American Covenant: The Untold Story, xvii. Mayflower Inst, 1983.

[4] Ibid., Dr. Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. Dr. McDowell, 250-251.

Robert Todd Lincoln and the Curse of the Presidential Assassination

Robert Todd Lincoln (1843-1926) was the son of Abraham Lincoln and an influential figure in his time. He was also near the scene at the time of three US presidential assassinations spanning over 35 years. Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

A young Robert Todd Lincoln.

There are some figures in history that transcend their time, even if we are sometimes largely ignorant of why it is that we remember them. Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, Einstein and Hitler are all names that echo down the ages, for good or ill, and who even the most history-phobic of us will recognize.

To be the child of one of these would not have been an easy place to occupy, and Robert Todd Lincoln bore the weight of that position for most of his life. He is remembered as an ‘unsympathetic bore[i]’, tainted by his relationship with his successful father and his mentally ill mother[ii]. Yet Robert carried another burden: if such a thing as a curse exists, then Robert was encumbered by one of the worst – the curse of the presidential assassination.

Abraham Lincoln: April 15, 1865

Robert’s first encounter with a presidential assassination was that of his own father, Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States. It was an event touched by coincidence and regret, and one which had a profound effect on his eldest son.

Robert’s relationship with his father is considered by many historians to have been strained[iii]. As the son of an aspiring politician, Robert rarely saw his father during his childhood and their bond was undoubtedly weaker than the one Abraham had with his other sons. Yet it would be overstating their difficulties to say that Robert was estranged from his father; on the day of the assassination they had spent several hours alone together before the President went to a cabinet meeting.[iv] That evening he and his parents had dined together at the White House and he remembered some years later how his father had asked him to come to the Ford Theatre with them. Not attending was one of his greatest regrets[v]. In a 1921 article based on the recollections of Robert to a friend, he believed that:

“My seat must have been placed in the door alcove…which was covered with a curtain…He [Booth] would have encountered a psychological obstacle.…To open the door and fire at an unsuspecting man is one thing, but to fire after he had found his way blocked is another. I do not believe that he would have attempted it if I had been there.”[vi]

Despite being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, the President was not killed instantly and was carried to a house belonging to William Petersen where he died at 7:22am the next morning with Robert at his bedside. Despite his previous stoic behavior, The Secretary to the Navy noted that he ‘gave way on two occasions to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud…’[vii].

The event affected Robert not only as a son but also as a future government official, and one letter in particular shows how he was still conscious of the danger to the incumbent president 24 years later:

‘I have no doubt that President Arthur will take care of himself; but he is undoubtedly liable to be killed by some crazy person or by a fanatic who would be willing to do the deed for the notoriety which might be gained thereby.’[viii]

In an ironic twist of fate, Abraham Lincoln had previously had a great deal to be grateful to the Booth family for. His killer’s elder brother, the celebrated actor Edwin Booth, had saved Robert from possible injury or even death at New Jersey train station in either 1863 or 1864. Horrified by his brother’s actions, it gave Edwin comfort to know that he had been of some benefit to the Lincoln family and Robert was able to talk about the incident without any bitterness, recalling in 1918 that ‘I never again met Mr. Booth personally, but I have always had most grateful recollection of his prompt action on my behalf’.[ix]

James Garfield: September 19, 1881

Four months into his presidency, James Garfield advertised his intended plan to move to New Jersey for the summer. He would take the train from Washington’s Baltimore and Potomac railroad station on July 2, 1881 and among the members of his cabinet there to see him off would be his Secretary of War, Robert Todd Lincoln.

Up until that point the only President to have been assassinated was Lincoln’s father, so an attempt on the President was considered both a rare and somewhat unlikely event. James Garfield believed that the President should be seen by the people and he therefore took few precautions when in public. He had once written:

‘The letter of Mr. Hudson of Detroit, with your endorsement came duly to hand. I do not think there is any serious danger in the direction to which he refers - though I am receiving, what I suppose to be the usual number of threatening letters on that subject. Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; and it is not best to worry about either.’[x]

Unfortunately, Charles Guiteau had decided that the President’s death was a political necessity. His initial anger at being overlooked for a diplomatic position in Paris (which he had convinced himself was his right due to a speech he had written in support of Garfield during the election) gradually turned to paranoia. He was convinced that Garfield disliked him due to his allegiance to the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party and eventually that Garfield was a traitor and dictator.[xi] He wasn’t subtle in his intentions, going so far as to send the President letters and asking for a tour of the prison where he believed he would be incarcerated after the event.[xii] A letter taken from his pocket read:

‘The President’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will unite the Republican Party and save the Republic…I had no ill-will toward the President. His death was a political necessity.’[xiii]

Robert Lincoln had come to the station to let the President know that he was unable to join him on the trip as originally planned, but what he witnessed must have brought back terrible memories. Reportedly only 40 feet away from the President, he watched Guiteau step out of the shadows, walk up to the President and fire two shots, one to the arm and the other to the back. As with his father’s shooting, he showed some elements of calmness, attending the fallen President, calling for a gunshot wound specialist, Dry Bliss, and putting soldiers onto the streets to ensure calm.[xiv]

As with President Lincoln, Garfield did not die immediately; in fact, it took 80 days for him to succumb, not to the gunshot wound, but to the septicemia caused by his doctors. In September 1881, Robert Todd Lincoln attended a second funeral of an assassinated president.[xv]

William McKinley: September 14, 1901

The Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo was intended to showcase American achievement with the slogan ‘commercial wellbeing and good understanding among the American Republics’[xvi]. President William McKinley, six months into his second term as the 25th President, was attending as part of his American tour. He was a popular president and the speech he gave there on September 5 was attended by a vast audience[xvii]. The next day, he toured Niagara Falls before returning to the fair for a public reception at the Temple of Music. McKinley enjoyed meeting the public and despite Secretary Cortelyou’s reservations, he was determined to attend, putting the reception back onto his schedule every time it was removed. Cortelyourelented but ensured that there would be ample security at the venue: the President’s own protection officer, George Foster, plus two other Secret Service Agents, the Exposition police, four Buffalo detectives and a dozen artillerymen[xviii]. But the precautions were to no avail. The day was hot and the usual precaution that everyone in the line should approach the President empty handed was abandoned, along with the habit that Foster should stand beside the President. By the time Foster realized that the approaching man, with his hand covered by a handkerchief[xix], was a danger, it was too late and at 4:07pm unemployed factory worker turned political anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, shot McKinley twice in the abdomen.

A few hours later Robert Todd Lincoln stepped off of a train at Buffalo station on his way to the Exposition to be greeted by a telegram reading:

“President McKinley was shot down by an anarchist in Buffalo this afternoon. He was hit twice in the abdomen. Condition serious.”[xx]

Lincoln missed the actual moment of the shooting, but he immediately went to see the President and spent some time with him that evening and again two days later. Lincoln believed that the President was remarkably well given what had happened to him, but eight days later on September 14, McKinley died of gangrene. 

The event could only have brought back more memories for Lincoln and he did not disguise his sadness when he wrote to the new President, Theodore Roosevelt:

“I do not congratulate you, for I have seen too much of the seamy side of the Presidential Robe to think of it as an enviable garment.”[xxi]

A Certain Fatality

When Robert Lincoln died in 1926, there had been three presidential assassinations and he had a connection to them all. As historian Todd Arrington has observed, that might not have been unusual for a man involved in politics as Lincoln was[xxii], but, on a personal level, it must have been a painful situation.  

‘There is a certain fatality about presidential functions when I am present,’ Lincoln is supposed to have quipped. Perhaps the more telling quote is the one he gave to the New York Times the day after the shooting of James Garfield in Washington: ‘How many hours of sorrow I have passed in this town.’[xxiii].

 

What do you think of Robert Todd Lincoln? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Samantha Arrowsmith’s article on 7 occasions Europe changed the time here.

[i] Lincoln: A Foreigner’s Quest, Jan Morris, 2001, p128 

[ii] Meet Robert Todd Lincoln, The Estranged Son of the 16th President who had his mother committed, Lauren Zmirich, 2019 

[iii] Lincoln’s Boys: The legacy of an American father and an American family, Robert P Watson and Dale Berger, 2010

[iv] Giant in the Shadows: The life of Robert T Lincoln, Jason Emerson, 2012, p99 

[v] Emerson, p107

[vi] The Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection

[vii] Emerson, p105

[viii] Letter from Robert Lincoln 28 September 1881

[ix] How Edwin Booth Saved Robert Todd Lincoln’s Life, Jason Emerson, 2005

[x] Letter from President Garfield to Sherman, November 1880

[xi] Killing the President: assassinations, attempts and rumored attempts on US Commanders-in-Chief, Willard M Oliver and Nancy E Marion, 2010, p44

[xii] Oliver and Marion, p44

[xiii] The New York Times 3 July 1881

[xiv] ‘A Certain Fatality’ Robert Todd Lincoln and the Presidential Assassinations, Todd Arrington, 2014

[xv] Funeral of President Garfield: Announcement to the Public

[xvi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Exposition

[xvii] You can view the President giving the speech at https://www.loc.gov/item/00694342/  

[xviii] JFK assassination records: Appendix 7: a brief history of presidential protection

[xix] The New York Times 7 September 1901

[xx] Arrington, 2014

[xxi] Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site

[xxii] Arrington, 2014

[xxiii] Arrington, 2014