The 1803 Louisiana Purchase: The Start of the American Midwest

The Louisiana Purchase was the purchase of a vast area of land by the United States from Napoleonic France in 1803. While France only occupied a small amount of the territory, it comprised vast swathes of what is now the American Midwest. William Floyd Junior explains the history of the territory and how the US came to acquire it.

The Louisiana Purchase on a modern map. Source: William Morris, available here.

The first administration of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1805) basically turned on one event, the purchase of the Louisiana Territory and control of the Mississippi River. It was the river, which occupied the President’s mind along with its free navigation, which would lead to the acquisition of the vast territory of approximately 828,000 square miles. Jefferson first began contemplating his vision about the time of the Revolution. In confronting the problem of Virginia’s frontiers, he thought of his idea as “Empire of Liberty.” In his first inaugural address, Jefferson spoke of the United States as, “a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the hundredth and thousandth generation.”

European Exploration

The story of the Louisiana Territory began as far back as 1519, when a Spanish sea expedition explored the Gulf of Mexico. This would be the first time that Europeans would site the mouth of the Mississippi River. In 1528, there was another Spanish expedition of some three hundred men travelling inland from the coast of Florida. After a torturous expedition, four emaciated survivors would reach a Spanish settlement in Mexico after wondering through southern Louisiana and much of the southwest for eight years.

In 1541, Hernando de Soto, the newly appointed governor of Cuba, organized an expedition of six hundred soldiers for the purpose of exploring the Louisiana territory. De Soto would die the following year of yellow fever. The force would be reduced by hunger, disease, and Native American attacks to about half of its original size, causing it to sail down the Mississippi to safer surroundings.

The first European settlers to move into the Mississippi Valley were French, who would come in from the north instead of the usual southern route. Samuel de Champlain became governor of new France in 1633 and would encourage his countrymen to expand further into the interior.

When King Louis XIV became ruler of France, he moved to shut the Spanish out of North America and curb British expansion. A great Anglo-French rivalry for control of the Mississippi Valley would ensue.

Robert Cavelier, sieur de La Salle, a young adventurer-explorer would name the territory he was exploring, Louisiana after the king. On April 9, 1682, La Salle planted a column and cross-painted it with “the arms of France.” La Salle would also formulate a plan for the colonization of the lower Mississippi Valley. La Salle would be murdered by two of his own men before he could establish settlement at the mouth of the Mississippi River. In the summer of 1684, France made peace with Spain. The peace and LaSalle’s failure led the French government to abandon immediate plans for attacking New Spain by establishing colonies on the lower Mississippi.

In September 1715, after being in power for seventy-two years, Louis XIV died. He would leave France and the empire bankrupt by the cost of years of war around the world. Several years after Louis died, the rivalry between England and France would gain momentum. France would go on to claim the entire Ohio valley. English leaders looked at Louisiana along with Canada as a wall confining their colonies to the Atlantic seaboard. The French continued exploring trying to find a route to the Pacific Ocean. By 1752, they planted the French flag at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. By the early 1790s, a mass migration had started dividing the country.

1800s

By 1800, France would reign supreme in Europe and Napoleon turned his energies to rebuilding his overseas empire. Louisiana and the Floridas were major elements of his grand design centered on Santo Domingo, the richest of the colonies. In the same year, Spain ceded Louisiana to France on October 1, by the Treaty of San Ildefonso. However, Spain refused to part with the Floridas. Napoleon would now mount an expedition to take possession of Louisiana at the port of New Orleans. Jefferson became aware of the retrocession causing a shadow to fall over his administration.

Napoleon planned to build a commercial bloc in the Caribbean Basin that consisted of the strategically important West Indian Islands Martinique and Saint Dominque which would be linked with Louisiana. The French in the Mississippi Valley would be President Jefferson’s first great diplomatic crisis. He had been a long- time friend of France since his days as ambassador in Paris (1784-1789), which made him familiar with French diplomacy and politics.

Although Jefferson had never been west of the Shenandoah Valley, his attitude about the Mississippi Valley and beyond was long-standing. When news that Spain had ceded its rights to Napoleon and France, Jefferson recognized this as a fundamental shift in the strategic situation. It both threatened American security and would block western expansion.

Jefferson’s instructions to Robert Livingston, the newly appointed American ambassador to France were very direct. The fact that France would now control the Louisiana region was a major disaster that “completely reverses all the political relations with the United States and will fill a new epoch in our political course.” It constituted, he believed, the greatest challenge to American independence and national integrity since the American Revolution. Despite prior friendships with France, the moment the French occupied New Orleans, the two nations became enemies.

Monroe mission

Livingston was more than capable, but he was not a Virginian. Jefferson wanted someone in Paris whom he could trust beyond any doubt. In effect, he would order James Monroe, who was at the time Virginia’s governor, to become a special envoy to France. Monroe’s instructions authorized the purchase of New Orleans and as much of the Mississippi Valley as possible. The boundaries of the French acquisition from Spain were not clear, but Jefferson was offering up to ten million dollars.

During the winter and spring of 1803, while the outcome of the Monroe mission was yet to be decided, Jefferson’s management of the prospective crisis was both smart and shrewd. He would see to it that an old French friend, du Pont de Nemours, was provided information about America’s intentions that could be leaked in the corridors of Versailles. 

When the Spanish official governing New Orleans abruptly closed the port to American commerce, Jefferson came under considerable pressure to launch a military expedition to seize both the city and the Floridas, abandoning diplomacy in favor of war with both Spain and France. In spite of Congress authorizing the president to raise eighty thousand volunteers for a military campaign, Jefferson would reject the idea and continue to pursue a peaceful outcome. Time and demography were on America’s side, justifying Jefferson’s patient approach.

Jefferson was also lucky in that Napoleon’s decision was not to just to sell New Orleans but the entire Mississippi Valley and the modern-day American Midwest. In the early morning of April 11, 1803, Napoleon announced to his Finance Minister Barbe-Marbois that, “I renounce Louisiana.” Within hours the French were enquiring if the United States had interest in the entire territory of Louisiana. Napoleon’s abrupt decision was prompted by the resumption of the Anglo-French war. Ambassador Livingston had complained in the past that negotiating with the French was impossible: “There is no people, no Legislature, no counsellors. One man is everything. He seldom asks advice, and never hears it unasked.” This was typical of Napoleon’s all-or-nothing style. The payment that Napoleon would receive would help subsidize his European army. This worked directly to Jefferson’s advantage. Napoleon’s losing of Santo Domingo was another reason why Napoleon was willing to depart with Louisiana.

Agreement

Livingston knew what to do. “The field open to us is infinitely larger than our instructions contemplated,” Livingston would tell Madison, and the chance “must not be missed.” Livingston and Monroe, now in Paris, negotiated a treaty which gave the United States the Louisiana Territory. The area was so big that the borders were not clearly defined by either party, for about fifteen million dollars or three cents an acre.

The news of the signing of the deal that reached Jefferson on July 3, 1803, was official but not direct. The news came in a letter from the two ministers to Rufus King who got the news shortly before leaving London, brought it with him on his return home, and sent it to Madison from New York. The report of the acquisition of territory west of the Mississippi surprised the American people more than it did Jefferson or Madison. They had learned of the prospect a number of weeks earlier and had approved a larger negotiation in a private letter sent to Paris. Nevertheless, Jefferson was still surprised by the scope of the deal.

The news of the Louisiana Purchase was not accepted favorably by everyone. In Boston George Cabot wrote to his friend Rufus King, the leader of New England Federalism, regarding the recent purchase as being advantageous to France. It is like selling us a ship after she is surrounded by a British fleet,” he said. He would also write that France was, “rid of an encumbrance that wounded her pride,” while obtaining money and regaining the friendship of the United States.

As Jefferson was taking in the news, he wrote to Merriwether Lewis concerning his exploration of the newly acquired territory, “In the journey which you are about to undertake for the discovery of the course and source of the Mississipi (sic) and of the most convenient water communication from thence to the Pacific Ocean . . .” This was a letter full of optimism but also realistic. Jefferson had now done all he could to control the largely uncontrollable nature of Lewis’s dangerous mission.

The official documents concerning the deal would reach Washington on July 14 and were not made public. However, a summary of them would be given out and the financial terms made public. The terms included a payment of $11,250,000 to France in six per cent stock, redeemable for fifteen years, and the assumption by the United States of the claims of its citizens against France in the amount of $3,750,000. For a period of twelve years French and Spanish ships and merchandise were to pay no higher duties than American in the parts of the ceded territory. Finally, the inhabitants of Louisiana were to be incorporated with the United States as soon as possible, consistent with the Constitution, and were to be secure in their personal rights in the meantime. The financing was arranged with the Anglo-Dutch Merchant Banks, Barings Brothers and Hopes, which in effect bought Louisiana from France and sold it to the United States, making nearly $3,000,000 from the deal.

Constitutional matters

On January 13, 1803, Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, would write to the President explaining his constitutional position regarding the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. He would sum up his opinion by stating the following:

1st. That the United States as a nation has an inherent right to acquire territory.

2d. That whenever that acquisition is by treaty, the same constituted authorities in whom the treaty-making power is vested have a constitutional right to sanction the acquisition.

3d. That whenever the territory has been acquired, Congress have the power either of admitting into the Union as a new state, or of annexing to a State with the consent of that State, or making regulations for the government of such territory.

Later in January, Jefferson would reply to Gallatin saying, “You are right in my opinion, to Mr. L’s proposition: there is no constitutional difficulty as to the acquisition of territory, and whether where acquired it may be taken into the Union by the Constitution as it now stands, will become a question of expediency. It must be assumed at this point that the administration recognized as constitutional the acquisition of territory by treaty. The point of what should be done with it would not be answered at this point in time. For Jefferson to have suggested any difficulties to Congress at this stage would have been to invite trouble. The Senate would finally approve the treaty by a vote of 24 to 7, sealing the deal.

What do you think of the Louisiana Purchase? Let us know below.

Now read William’s article on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here.

Sources

1.     Merrill D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson & the new nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 745, 746, 747, 748.

2.     Alexander De Conde, This Affair of Louisiana (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976),  4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 20. 

3.     www.loc.gov/collections/louisiana.

4.     Joseph J. Ellis, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), 243, 244, 245, 246.

5.     Jon Meacham, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power (New York: Random House, 2012), 385, 387.

6.     Dumas Malone, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805 (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970), 296, 297, 302, 312, 313.

7.     Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Merriwether Lewis, July 4, 1803, National Archives.

8.     Andrew Roberts, Napoleon: A Life (New York: Penguin Group, 2014), 324. 

Feminine National Personifications: Part 1 - Britannia (the UK) and Bharat Mata (India)

Feminine personifications of nations are common around the world. Some popular examples include Britannia, Bharat Mata, and Marianne. Usually represented as goddesses, mothers, or queens, these entities embody their countries’ unity, liberty, strength, reason, and spiritual essences. As national icons, they impart to their people a strong sense of identity and belonging associated with their lands. In this two-part mini-series, Apeksha Srivastava highlights some changes in their portrayal with time, along with some similarities and differences among them.

In the first part of this mini-series, she looks at changes in the portrayal of Britannia and Bharat Mata with time.

The East offering its riches to Britannia, Roma Spiridone, 1778. Source: British Library, available here.

Britannia

The Submissive

In his article Britannia and John Bull[1], RT Matthews mentioned how the Greeks and Romans associated anthropomorphic deities with their newly conquered lands. Several coins depicting this were made during Roman Emperor Hadrian’s journey through imperial provinces[2]. As the female personification of the recently subjugated island, Britannia can be seen on one of them. She is depicted sitting with her head slightly bowed. Her pose is submissive, with her shield at rest, and her armor cast off.

The Rising Queen

This submissive Britannia disappeared when Rome’s power declined around 400 CE. She reappeared to personify Britain during the reign of Elizabeth I, making her place in maps and emblem books. In 1603, writer Henry Peacham featured Britannia on one of the first English emblem books (Minerva Britannia). She is seen striding confidently towards a ship, which symbolizes Britain’s newly acquired maritime power. The word “Minerva” is a Roman reference to the Greek goddess of war and reason, Athena. English chronicler Michael Drayton, in 1612, portrayed Britannia on his Poly-Olbion. She is seated under a Roman arch decorated with male figures (Aeneas - the founder of Rome, Julius Caesar - the first Roman conqueror of Britain, a medieval king representing the Tudor line, and a 17th-century explorer). She is the image of Britain’s sovereign powers and flourishing economy and has the horn of plenty in her left arm and a scepter in her right hand. A wreath on her head is being placed by two cherubs. Ships in the sea visible in the background are a reference to Britain’s maritime prosperity. In 1660, King Charles II issued a medal and halfpenny-coin with Britannia on the reverse.

The Colonizer

Eventually, Britannia started marking her presence on statues, paintings, monuments, stamps, and printed works, often commissioned by the government authorities. One such painting, The East Offering Its Riches To Britannia, was made by Roma Spiridione in 1778 on the British East India Company headquarters ceiling in London. Britannia is shown sitting on a rock with a lion near her as a guardian. She is humbly receiving a tribute of pearls/jewels from a dark figure (India). A kneeling woman (China) is offering her a porcelain vase, and a tea chest is lying close by. The camel and elephant on the right side of the painting symbolize the East, especially India. This work presents Britannia at a much higher stature. An interesting point to note here is that the East actually never offered anything to Britain; the latter plundered it. This painting is an interesting example of whitewashing and turning history to one’s advantage[3]. Another example of self-glorification is the painting Retribution by Edward Armitage. It depicted the soldier-massacre in Cawnpore during the Indian Rebellion in 1857. After the rebellion, a British woman and her child are shown on the ground as casualties. Britannia is furious to see her children in this condition. As revenge, she is about to kill the Bengal Tiger, the symbol of the Sepoys, with her sword[4]. It, again, portrays only one side of the story.

Made by Walter Crane, the Imperial Federation Map, published in 1886 for a London weekly newspaper, showed Britannia as the “rising world-power”. She is seated on a globe upheld by Atlas and is gazing down at the people of her empire (denoting parts of the world under British control marked in pink). Another map published in the same year shows her in the middle, with different scenes from the Empire being illustrated[5].

The Celebrity

Britannia also survived the changes in society with time. By the mid-18th-century, people started enjoying written parodies about her. Apart from entertainment, these satires emerged as ways to influence public opinion. Furthermore, caricature-illustrators elevated her to higher moral planes.

In humor magazines (like Punch), Britannia was depicted as the defender of the British Empire, who crusaded for noble causes. She also personified the virtues of the English middle-class like women should be at home for happiness in marriage. Some other cartoons emphasized her vulnerability. In another work, she is seen making preparations for the Great Party[6], holding a candle in her hand, her shield and trident put aside. We can also observe the dishes/spoons on the floor. 

The patriotic song Rule Britannia demonstrated Britannia’s true establishment as a national icon[7]. She became the symbol of Great Britain’s political presence, evolving with time. During the 1990s, the term Cool Britannia (a humorous version), was used to describe contemporary Britain, showing approval of pop groups, artists, and fashion[8].

Bharat Mata

The Goddess

India has worshipped the earth in a female form (Dharti-Mata/Bhu-Devi) since ancient times. According to some scholars, the origins of Bharat Mata (Mother India) can be traced back to this idea. She, as the national personification, was created out of the desire to be free from the British dominion[9]. After gaining popularity from KC Bandyopadhyay's play Bharat Mata (1873), she emerged as a goddess in Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay’s poem Vande Mataram in 1875. She was visually evoked in 1905 through Abanindranath Tagore’s painting[10].

The Symbol of Independence & Nationalism

Sumathi Ramaswamy’s book, The Goddess and The Nation[11], traced Bharat Mata’s origins to Bengal in 1904 (Mother-Bengal/Bangamata). Over the next few decades, artists added new features to her depiction such as the tricolor flag, lions (guardians/vahana), the territory-map she represented, and her weapons (like trident or spinning wheel signifying the Swadeshi Movement to boycott British-made products). In one of her articles, Ramaswamy also mentioned how Aurobindo Ghosh advised his student to become patriotic, “... It is not a map, but the portrait of Bharat Mata ... worship her with the nine-fold bhakti [devotion].” Some works depict Bharat Mata blessing freedom fighters for their sacrifice. In an election hoarding, she is seen as the nation-map, crying, and carrying Indira Gandhi’s lifeless body[12].

Associated with fury and rage, Kali is said to have emerged from goddess Durga. She apparently struck fear in some British people. Ramaswamy argued that Bharat Mata emerged as an intermediate: having fury for the oppressors and maternal love for her children. She rose as the glorious mother/goddess associated with the map of India to effectively elicit strong feelings of nationalism in people.

Shobha Singh’s painting (1947) showed Bharat Mata clad in the Indian tricolor. She has a trident in her hand and a halo around her head. The roaring lion by her side is kicking the British crown into the abyss. K.K. Rajaram’s painting (1962) depicted the Indo-China War setting. Bharat Mata is near the Ashoka Pillar. Carrying the Indian flag and a sword, she is leading four roaring lions and soldiers against the Chinese-dragon on the Himalayan borders[13].

The Unifier of Diversity

After independence, Bharat Mata was sometimes utilized for political ends. In 2011, Anna Hazare highlighted her in his campaign India Against Corruption, emphasizing that she belongs to all India and not just a particular religion. Sri Aurobindo, in 1920, had already written that “if we hope to have a vision of the mother by ... establishing Hindu nationalism ... we would be deprived of the full expression of our nationhood”[14]. In this context, Ramaswamy described an image of Bharat Mata riding through the street with houses of religious worship in the background (church, mosque, and perhaps, Gurdwara), promoting the idea of religious harmony (inclusive-Hinduism).

The Progressive

Bharat Mata survived the evolutions in popular taste. She has been represented in posters, calendars, and films. In one of his sketches, cartoonist Shankar showed Nehru as a cherub, drawing a cover (“Planning”) over the nude female form of the nation. A second cartoon depicted a “new version of Bharat Mata” who is protecting the poor from the corrupt politicians and resembles Lady Justice[15]. Another sketch portrayed her horrified at the incident of the tricolor flag being carried to support a rape accused. Such works underline the social changes in India with time in the form of different physical and emotional states of Bharat Mata.

The first Bharat Mata temple in Varanasi (1936) houses a giant marble relief map of India with its rivers, mountains, and sacred places. Another temple in Haridwar (1983) dedicated its ground floor to Mother India, represented as a map and a marble image. The map contains a network of lights indicating pilgrim places that link the entire nation[16]. Such examples beautifully depict the associations of Bharat Mata with the sacred geography of India.

Read on: In the second part here, Apeksha discusses Marianne of France and some similarities and differences among these national personifications.

Apeksha Srivastava completed her Master’s degree from the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. She is currently an aspiring writer and a second-year Ph.D. candidate at this institute. This article is based on an assignment she submitted for the course, Perspectives on Indian Civilization. 

References

1. Britannia and John Bull: From Birth to Maturity. Roy T. Matthews. The Historian. Vol. 62, No. 4 (SUMMER 2000), pp. 799-820 (22 pages). Published By: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

2. Britannia and Melita: Pseudomorphic Sisters. Derk Kinnane-Roelofsma. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Vol. 59 (1996), pp. 130-147 (18 pages). Published by: The Warburg Institute.

3. The Hidden Wound. Nick Robins. The Corporation That Changed the World: How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational, 1-18. London: Pluto Press, 2012.

4. Britannia as the embodiment of Great Britain. Aline Gay, Fanny Guilbaud, and Damien Lenoir, Université Bordeaux-Montaigne, France. Essay written for Professor Béatrice Laurent’s seminar, 'Myths and Icons'.

5. Walter Crane and the Imperial Federation Map Showing the Extent of the British Empire (1886). Pippa Biltcliffe. Imago Mundi. Vol. 57, No. 1 (2005), pp. 63-69 (9 pages). Published by: Imago Mundi, Ltd.

6. Britannia's Great Party. 1851. Wood engraving. Punch (7 June 1856): 81. [http://www.victorianweb.org/periodicals/punch/95.html]

7. Britons will never be slaves! Britannia and liberty as a construct of British national identity in James Thomson and Thomas Arne’s song Rule Britannia and Thomas Rowlandson’s engraving, The Contrast, 1792, British Liberty, French Liberty, Which is best? Peter Johnston. The University of Oxford, Department for Continuing Education. Date created: Tuesday, April 18, 2017.

8. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cool-britannia

9. Mother India: The Role of the Maternal Figure in Establishing Legal Subjectivity. Kanika Sharma. 2017. Law and Critique, 29(1), 1–29.

10. https://scroll.in/article/805990/far-from-being-eternal-bharat-mata-is-only-a-little-more-than-100-years-old

11. The Goddess and the Nation: Mapping Mother India. By Sumathi Ramaswamy. Duke University Press, 2010. 379pp.

12. Maps, Mother/Goddesses, and Martyrdom in Modern India. Sumathi Ramaswamy. 2008. The Journal of Asian Studies, 67(03).

13. Icon-ising national identity: France and India in comparative perspective. Subrata K. Mitra and Lion König. National Identities, 15(4), 357–377.

14. The Life and Times of Bharat Mata: Nationalism as Invented Religion. Sadan Jha. 2006. Manushi.

15. https://timescontent.com/syndication-photos/reprint/just-like-that/454566/buy.jsp

16. India: A Sacred Geography. Diana L. Eck. 2011. Harmony Books.

The Burnside Carbine: The Gun that Led to the End of the US Civil War?

Guns have played a key role in military battles for centuries, and the technology around them has continually evolved. Here, Erick Redington looks at the importance of the Burnside carbine gun in the US Civil War.

The burnside carbine. Source: Smithsonian Institution, available here.

In the years leading to the US Civil War, the industrial revolution was making itself felt in the field of military technology. During the Mexican War of 1846-1848, the standard infantry weapon in the United States was the smoothbore musket, while the standard cavalry weapon was the smoothbore carbine, a shorter version of the musket. There were multiple issues with these weapons. A smoothbore musket has no rifling and has limited range and accuracy. The firing mechanism, using loose black powder, was messy, and prone to fouling. The biggest problem was rate of fire. As a muzzle loader, a trained soldier could fire about three shots a minute. These issues combined to drive the desire for a new weapon. 

Just as there were many problems with the standard smoothbore musket, there were issues with early breech loading rifles as well. First among these was the creation of a seal in the breech to prevent the escape of gas. Another was the cartridge used. Precise machining and mechanical issues were present as well. 

The first practical breech loading rifled musket was developed by Major Patrick Ferguson of the British Army during the American Revolution. This weapon solved several issues, such as gas leakage from the breech and allowed for quicker loading, resulting in five or six shots a minute. Despite these positives, the weapon was also expensive to make and required precise craftsmanship. The British Army of the time was willing to outfit small numbers of men with the Ferguson Rifle, but the Brown Bess remained the standard for decades.[1]

Solving the issue

With the development of industrialized mass production and interchangeable parts, the technological ability to solve the issues inherent in breech loading weapons emerged. Precision tooling gave manufacturers the ability to rifle on a mass scale. Samuel Colt began mass producing firearms. Veterans began trying their hands at new inventions. One of those was Ambrose Burnside.

Ambrose Burnside has a reputation amongst historians and Civil War buffs. He is generally seen as an amiable fool at best, and an incompetent at worst.[2] These are grossly inaccurate generalizations.[3] Burnside had a very incisive mind with good attention to detail. During his service in the American Southwest after the war, he was exposed to the Hall Breechloader. This weapon had many of the improvements of a rifled breech loader but had severe issues with gas leakage at the joint of the breech and the barrel. When he decided to turn his attention to the issue of weaponry, he had a very creative solution. Burnside designed his own cartridge that was conical shaped with the bulge in the middle. This conical casing created a seal at just the point where the issues with gas leakage occurred. As Burnside was serving in the cavalry at the time, he developed his firearm as a carbine. The final product was a .54 caliber rifled carbine.[4]

In 1853, Burnside applied to the army ordinance bureau to have a prototype of his carbine design made and was granted permission. When the prototype was made, he resigned from the army and created an arms manufacturing company to market, produce, and sell his new weapon. In 1857, the army was trying to replace the Hall Carbine, and was soliciting entrants for a competition to choose a new carbine. Burnside entered the competition, and his carbine was approved. This was the first breechloader adopted by the army that utilized a metallic cartridge. The army placed an order with Burnside.[5]

US Civil War

During the Civil War, over 50,000 Burnside Carbines were ordered by the Union Army, however most of these would be delivered only in the last year of the war. At the start of the war, the Union would arm its cavalry with any weapon it could get its hands on, mostly smoothbore muzzle loaders. The Union cavalry would be repeatedly thrashed by Confederate cavalry through the first years of the war. A weapon that provided a clear advantage in firepower and rate of fire would have been a force multiplier for the North.[6]

Two questions present themselves, first: If the United States approved a breech loading carbine prior to the war, why did they not adapt the design to a full-sized rifle for the infantry? Second: If Burnside’s Carbine was approved before the war, why was it not mass produced and ready at the start of the war?  The answers to these questions were complicated. First, the army leadership at the start of the Civil War was old and set in its ways. This is especially true of the head of the Army Ordinance Bureau, General John Ripley. At the start of the war, General Ripley insisted on issuing smoothbore weapons instead of rifled due to costs. The government had large stocks of smoothbores and it was more cost effective. He also opposed breech loading and repeating rifles. The higher rate of fire of these weapons would only encourage soldiers to use more ammunition and create carelessness in aiming. The consequences of these decisions were a war that lasted years longer and cost tens or hundreds of thousands of more casualties.[7]

After the Civil War

The difference between breech loading rifles and muzzle loading rifles can be seen in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. The two armies were reasonably evenly matched in manpower, but the superior firepower of the Prussians led to their decisive victory. The fabled needle-gun showed the way to the future of military small arms. It also showed the importance of a military that was willing to innovate and utilize the latest technology in pursuit of victory.

 Much like many other aspects of the career of Ambrose Burnside, this was a case of good ideas and intentions, but poor development and execution. If the ossified army leadership had tried to implement the innovations of Burnside's Carbine on a mass scale prior to the war, the Civil War could have been significantly shortened, saving lives and perhaps the reputation of Ambrose Burnside.

What do you think of the role of the Burnside carbine? Let us know below.

[1] Ward, Christopher. The War of the Revolution. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2011. p. 740.

[2] I could cite hundreds, if not thousands of books here.

[3] United States. War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington :[s.n.], 1894. https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records.

[4] Books, Time-Life. Arms and Equipment of the Union. Time Life Medical, 1999, p. 58

[5] Bodinson, Holt. General Burnside’s Little Carbine. Guns Magazine, 2011. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/General+Burnside%27s+little+carbine%3A+this+odd+breechloader+saw...-a0268787627.

[6] United States. War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington :[s.n.], 1894. https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records.

[7] Scales, Robert H. “Gun Trouble.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, December 29, 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/.

The Rise of Spiritualism in 19th Century America

Spiritualism was a religious movement that gained momentum in America during the mid-1800s. The movement essentially held that people could communicate with people have died – and enabled people to do that through mediums. Angie Grandstaff explains.

The Fox sisters.

Spiritualists didn’t build churches or have preachers. They believed we could communicate with those who have died. Spiritualists would hold meetings in homes or community buildings where lectures would be given or séances would be conducted so people could speak to their dead loved ones. There were demonstrations by mediums and other sensitive individuals who would bring forth the dead, who would communicate via knocks on the walls or floors.   

Spiritualism may conjure up many skeptical thoughts for us today, but this was a real movement that millions of people wholeheartedly believed and participated in. Spiritualism has been considered a religion, a fad, a hoax but whatever our thoughts it was a national phenomenon during the mid-1800s.

Why Spiritualism?

Why did Spiritualism become such a phenomenon during the mid-1800s? First, we need to look at the two previous centuries. The 16th and 17th centuries in America were dominated by a very puritanical form of Christianity. Anyone who practiced anything like Spiritualism during that time would have been risking their life. It is estimated that thousands of people were executed for witchcraft in Europe and America during those centuries. Life was very rural, harsh, and rigid and people were held to very strict mores. It was a matter of life or death.

America was drastically changing in the mid-1800s. There was more industrialization and urbanization, which meant cities were growing and work was evolving. Inventions and science were transforming how people looked at the world around them. Immigrants were bringing in new religious practices and beliefs into American towns. There was literature and scientific discoveries that challenged religious beliefs and the Bible. America was on the verge of a Civil War and tensions were high. People were looking for assurance because life seemed uncertain.

Another big factor for the rise of Spiritualism was that people were not as comforted by traditional Christian beliefs when loved ones died. The death of children especially led parents to seek comfort in other places besides their community church. Spiritualism offered grieving people solace while coping with their loss. All these factors helped create an opening for Spiritualism to rise.

Ghostly Images

Invention and science were factors in the popularity of Spiritualism in the mid-1800s. Some even saw Spiritualism as a scientific religion. The invention of photography played into Spiritualism beautifully. This brand-new technology fascinated and terrified at the same time. Photography allowed us to see the unseen or what we are unable to see from our perspective. Photographs taken from hot air balloons gave people their first aerial images of towns and cities. Civil War photographs showed death and destruction on a scale that few had ever seen.

There were plenty of photographs that were produced during this time that made it look like spirits were revealed through this scientific process of capturing images on paper. William H. Mumler was a well-known spirit photographer during the mid-1800s. He produced portraits that had ghostly images in the background or near the person being photographed. Former First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln was one of Mumler’s clients. She visited him after her husband’s murder. His photograph of her had an image of Abraham Lincoln behind her with his hands on her shoulders. Whether this was a scam or not, it gave many comfort to think their dead loved ones were near even if they couldn’t see them. These pictures were published in newspapers and Spiritualism benefited despite critics and proof that some of these pictures were manipulated. 

The Impact of the Civil War

Prior to the Civil War, when a loved one died the family handled the process at home. The dying would be surrounded by family and friends. Wakes and funerals were held in homes allowing people the chance to grieve together. The Civil War changed that for thousands of families.  It is estimated that 750,000 men died in the Civil War - hundreds of thousands of families who were unable to be with their loved ones when they passed. They never saw the body. They had no closure. Death on this scale hadn’t happened before. This great loss and immense sorrow of so many families contributed to the rise and appeal of Spiritualism. Spiritualism gave someone a chance to speak to their loved one or hear from a medium that their loved one was at peace. This was a great comfort to grieving people.   

The Fox Sisters

Many historians attribute the birth of Spiritualism in America to the Fox Sisters. Maggie and Kate Fox lived in New York. In 1848, when they were 14 and 11 years old, they relayed some strange experiences to their parents. The two sisters heard knocks on furniture and walls while in their bedrooms at night. The girls demonstrated this for their parents and neighbors. They would ask questions and noises would come in response. Everyone was mystified by these young girls’ abilities to speak to the dead. Their fame and demonstrations catapulted Spiritualism into a phenomenon. Maggie and Kate were joined by their older sister Leah and they spent their lives working as mediums. They were invited to do demonstrations and hold séances where they communicated with the dead.

The sisters had a falling out as adults, which led to Maggie coming forward to claim it was all a hoax. She revealed the very first spirit communications in their New York bedroom was a prank. They used an apple on a string to produce the spirit noises. She said at their public demonstrations, they would use their own knuckles, joints and toes. A year later, Maggie recanted all of this, but her reputation was damaged beyond repair. Despite the way things ended for the Fox Sisters, their contribution to the Spiritualist movement was profound and undeniable. Their work as mediums led many others to take up the profession as well, which led to the growth and popularity of Spiritualism around the country.

Emma Hardinge Britten

The Fox Sisters may have been the beginning of Spiritualism in America, but Emma Hardinge Britten was the religion’s biggest advocate. Emma was born in England in 1823. From a young age, she demonstrated talent as a singer, musician and actress. Her first trip to America was for a role on Broadway in New York City where she met Spiritualist, Horace Day. This changed the trajectory of Emma’s life. She became a Spiritualist and began work as a medium and trance lecturer. One of her most famous spirit communications was with a deceased sailor who had died when his ship had sunk a few weeks earlier. Emma knew details about the ship and the sinking that only someone with firsthand knowledge would know.

During her life, she traveled extensively in America, Britain, Australia and New Zealand to promote Spiritualism and she used her many talents to do so. She wrote books on Spiritualism and was considered the leading historian on the subject. Her writings included guides on how to conduct a séance and how to investigate mediums for fraud. Emma was a born entertainer and used these skills during her demonstrations, lectures and séances. She also used her platform as a Spiritualist to share her views on slavery, the plight of the poor and women’s rights. Her work and her philosophy created the foundation for modern Spiritualism.    

Séances in Victorian America  

Séances were a big part of Spiritualism. Television and the big screen have given us many images of séances. People sitting around a table in a darkened room, maybe holding hands while spooky noises fill the air and tables levitate. This is much like what happened during a séance in Victorian America. The many factors that led to the rise of Spiritualism in America made the public believe in the abilities of mediums and the legitimacy of séances. People truly wanted to believe we could connect with the spirit world. Unfortunately, many unscrupulous people used séances to con people out of money during the mid and late 1800s. Many mediums were exposed for their fraud, but it didn’t stop the popularity of séances.

The reason that so many mediums could conduct fraudulent séances was mainly because there was no electric light at this time. Rooms would be lit by oil lamps or candles. So, the scene is perfectly set for trickery in rooms with low light or even darkness. Participants might even be encouraged to keep their eyes closed. They would be told not to touch the medium or any spirit summoned because it could kill the medium. There would be noises, a spirit manifested into the room or tapping on shoulders. Many mediums had accomplices to help them create ghostly noises and manifestations. Some mediums used specially constructed cabinets that could produce music or allow their accomplices to come and go during the séance. Oil of phosphorus would be used to make things glow in the dark. Victorian séances were a source of entertainment for some, hope or proof of scientific advancement for others. Once electric light and handheld lights were available, those who conducted fraudulent séances needed to look for other ways to entertain their attendees.

Spiritualism became less popular in the 20th century and there are many skeptics and con artists surrounding this movement and religion. But there is no denying its lasting impact. Mediums, clairvoyants and séances are still popular today. Everything from haunted houses to Ouija boards to the psychic hotline can be attributed to the rise of Spiritualism in the 19th century. Even in 21st century America, people still desire to be comforted during grief and to connect with and understand those things we can’t see.  

What do you think of these amazing women? Let us know below.

You can read Angie’s article on 5 Amazing Female Businesses in 19th Century America here.

Angie Grandstaff is a writer who loves to write about history, books, and self-development.

References

Manseau, P. (2018). The Apparitionists: A Tale of Phantoms, Fraud, Photography, and the Man Who Captured Lincoln’s Ghost. Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Nartonis, D. K. (2010, June 1). The Rise of 19th‐century American Spiritualism, 1854–1873. Wiley Online Library.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01515.x.

Gramson, H. (2013, March 6). The Science of Seance: The Scientific Theory of the Spiritualist Movement in Victorian America. https://www.pacificu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Hannah%20Gramson.pdf

Howe, L.A. (2015, November 13). Spirited Pioneer: The Life of Emma Hardinge Britten. FIU Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3474&context=etd

Walton, G. (2017, February 1). The Victorian Seance. https://www.geriwalton.com/the-victorian-seance/

How the Triple Entente Formed in World War I: Part 2 – The Stormy 1870s

World War I is of course one of the most important wars in modern history, and of the key geo-political aspects of the war was the formation of the Triple Entente between Britain, France, and Russia. These Great Powers with overlapping interests were not necessarily natural allies in World War One, but the nature of international affairs in the preceding decades pushed them together.

Here, Bilal Junejo continues a series looking at how the Triple Entente was formed by considering what happened in the 1870s. In particular, Otto von Bismarck’s approach to diplomacy, Frances’s search for an alliance, the role of Russia, and how the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 led to the Congress of Berlin - and many implications.

Read part one in the series on the origins of Germany here.

The taking of the Grivitsa redoubt by Russia during the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War.

Otto von Bismarck’s was “a being high-uplifted above the common run”.[1] His were a mind and genius that would not rest upon the laurels of mere conquest, but rather continue to exert themselves till their ready devotion of much cogitation to the morrow’s actions had revealed the most magisterial means of fortifying excellence freshly achieved with princely permanence — to the total exclusion of anything even remotely akin to misplaced complacency and consequent reverie. Aware with becoming keenness of how the precious is inherently precarious, he was determined that the singular tenacity which had marked his erection of the new German Empire should now be rivaled, if not surpassed, only by that which would inform his preservation thereof. It was the ambivalent fortune of the Second Reich that its formidable founder also served for an unbroken spell of nineteen years as its first Chancellor; for whilst he achieved much in the course of that fateful period, he also bequeathed to his successors a legacy for whose onerous preservation they were equipped to exude neither the ability nor the vision. To this day, it remains near impossible to say what conduced more to the eventual undoing of Hohenzollern Prussia and her dominions — that Bismarck should have been Chancellor before Wilhelm II, or that Wilhelm II should have been Kaiser after Bismarck.

Bismarck’s first and foremost priority in the wake of victory over France was to ensure that she — the humiliated neighbor whose lasting enmity he had so easily and rashly earned — should not meet with success in the endeavor upon which she was certain to embark for the purpose of securing an ally to wage a war of revenge. The shock of Sedan[2] had been a sobering lesson in the pitfalls of pride, and its digestion was not rendered any easier by the facility with which a jubilant Prussia proclaimed the terms of surrender and humiliation at Frankfurt[3] for their incorporation in the annals of the world. Gone were the days when all her neighbors would tremble at the mere thought of the Sun King, and all Europe would scatter at the merest sight of Napoleon Bonaparte. Now was she reduced to a shadow of her former self, vanquished and retiring, destined to forever grapple with memories that served as a constant and invidious reminder of all that had been, but was no more. It was nothing less than a desire for revenge that could animate her spirit henceforth, and nothing else that could chart the course of her future exertions. Newly deprived of the power she had for so long been accustomed to wield in the face of these upstarts from across the Rhine, she would redress this unbecoming inferiority to the nascent Reich with the succor of another’s superiority to, or at least equality with, her malicious and meticulous foe.

This resolution had, amidst all the hope it happily renewed and vigor that it justly roused, commended itself to the people of France despite the burden of a hurdle that, in the circumstances, was part and parcel of it. Since the Franco-Prussian War had been but a bilateral confrontation, it was obvious to all — and to none more so than France herself — that a war waged for mere vengeance would be the pursuit of Paris alone, as no other European power had at the time cause for even contemplating conflict with Germany, let alone actually doing to her what she had just done to France. The French had, therefore, to look for a Power with whom they could, at the very least, share interests, if not passions. To put it in words a trifle blunter, that Power need not view the destruction of Germany as an end in itself, so long as it could be counted upon to regard a considerable weakening of German power to be the means of achieving some other end, even if that end was one which France would not necessarily feel inclined to share. The French were looking for what might be called negative unity, which is unity stemming from bonds that are forged to surmount a common obstacle, rather than to secure a common end.

A French ally

But what Power would that be? A glance at the map of Europe in 1871, in conjunction with the barest modicum of geopolitical sense, would and did suffice to yield the ambivalent answer. Since Germany lay in the center of the Continent, and to the immediate east of France, it made sense to have an ally who would be both willing and able to engage Germany on any front so long as it was not her western, where a resolute French were already baying for blood. A simultaneous engagement on two fronts would automatically halve German strength before each adversary. But which front would that be? It was not as if there were a lot of options from which to make a leisurely choice. To the south of Germany lay the sprawling dominions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whose Habsburg rulers had already dissolved their sour memories of Sadowa[4] in the tonic of Bismarck’s blandishments, which somehow never ceased to work wonders for the health of his diplomacy. To the north lay the serene Baltic, and around it a host of Scandinavian mediocrities. The only front that remained was the eastern, where possible salvation for the pusillanimous successors of Bonaparte lay in the arms and armies of the Tsar of Russia. Here was finally a Power not only ideally situated on Germany’s border, but also believed to be possessed of military strength sufficient, should its possessors be commensurately provoked, to arouse both German alarm and French approbation. Since actual confrontation had not yet taken place, perceptions mattered more than did reality, and it was more important for diplomatic purposes what Germany and France believed to be the magnitude of Russian strength, rather than what it actually was — “an imposing phantom”[5], as subsequent events would prove beyond dispute and not long after.

But these were happenings yet to come. At the beginning of the 1870s, with the purported pursuing of Russia — and the attendant, if rather erroneous, surmise that hers was a friendship to court and an enmity to shun — the talk of many a chancellery in Europe, both France and Germany, albeit each in her own way, could be expected to do the needful. But how was Russia herself inclined to act just then? On whose side, if on anyone’s, did she wish to be? What were her ambitions, and what were her fears?

Russia enters the picture

It so happened that at the very moment when France would have almost prostrated herself before Russia for the sake of settling scores with her parvenu neighbor, the Tsar Alexander II, who reigned and ruled from 1855 to 1881, showed himself ready to evince not even the slightest interest in reciprocating the sycophantic sentiments of a nation that, in concert with Great Britain, had humiliated his own in the Crimea only a decade and a half prior to when the author of the Ems Telegram would resolve that similar scathe should be meted out to the would-be myrmidons of Marianne as well. Unsurprising Russian neutrality during the Franco-Prussian War had been one of the principal factors that contributed to the decisive victory achieved by Bismarck in the crucial winter of 1870-71. The Treaty of Paris (1856), by dint of which both France and Great Britain had dealt a united and decisive blow to the Tsar’s overweening pretensions (principally by stipulating Russian demilitarization of the Black Sea), now proved sufficient to ensure that for the fairly immediate future, poor France, whilst still reeling from the shame of Frankfurt, would have to grapple with the strictures inherent in the new diplomatic order of Europe on her own. Even though the Treaty of Paris had been in the main an Anglo-French enterprise, the price that, in retrospect, it came to exact from the French was disproportionately greater, for it was Bismarck’s tacit acquiescence in Russian remilitarization of the Black Sea (in 1870) that Russia would repay in the form of benevolent neutrality during the Franco-Prussian War.

A telling account of the consequences that, in 1865, had been made inevitable by the diplomatic folly exhibited with abandon in lovely Lutetia was furnished, to the immeasurable fortune of posterity, by the arresting wits of the eminent English philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-73). Reflecting in the manner of a thoughtful contemporary, even as the third Napoleon fell like the first, on what had come to pass, both by way of gain and loss, Mill was moved to observe that in the matter of making international treaties:

“Nations should be willing to abide by two rules. They should abstain from imposing conditions which, on any just and reasonable view of human affairs, cannot be expected to be kept. And they should conclude their treaties as commercial treaties are usually concluded — only for a term of years.

If these principles are sound, it remains to be considered how they are to be applied to past treaties, which, though containing stipulations which, to be legitimate, must be temporary, have been concluded without such limitation, and are afterwards violated, or, as by Russia at present, repudiated, on the assumption of a right superior to the faith of engagements.

It is the misfortune of such stipulations, even if as temporary arrangements they might have been justifiable, that if concluded for permanency they are seldom to be got rid of without some lawless act on the part of the nation bound by them. If a lawless act, then, has been committed in the present instance, it does not entitle those who imposed the conditions to consider the lawlessness only, and to dismiss the more important consideration, whether, even if it was wrong to throw off the obligation, it would not be still more wrong to persist in enforcing it. If, though not fit to be perpetual, it has been imposed in perpetuity, the question when it becomes right to throw it off is but a question of time. No time having been fixed, Russia fixed her own time, and naturally chose the most convenient. She had no reason to believe that the release she sought would be voluntarily granted on any conditions which she would accept; and she chose an opportunity which, if not seized, might have been long before it occurred again, when the other contracting parties were in a more than usually disadvantageous position for going to war.”[6]

It is even more as a lawyer than as an amateur historian that I declare — though the stature of one as great as Mill hath scarce any need of my declaration to rest assured of its greatness — the ready accord of my own reason with the celebrated counsel of that perspicacious man. Even when it comes to the conclusion of a simple contract, be it for purposes commercial or otherwise, the law recognizes the possibility of there arising, without the fault of either contracting party, the frustration of their contract. This is the unforeseen termination of a contract as the result of a supervening event that either renders its performance impossible or illegal or prevents its main purpose from being achieved.[7]

This is precisely why no commercial contract worth its name is ever concluded for an indefinite period. A contract, which is but an exchange of promises, is born in, and because of, certain conditions prevailing at the time that it is made. Since the promises whose execution, in the course of time, the contract envisages owe their very raison d’être to those conditions, it would make little, if any, sense to prolong the duration of the contract beyond the period for which those conditions can reasonably be expected to last. Obligations that outlive the conditions in which they were assumed invariably bode ill for the future welfare of the parties that undertook them in the first place. The selfsame considerations apply, and as exactly, in the case of international treaties.

Bismarck’s diplomacy

Bismarck had no need of a jurist’s manual to teach him these fundamental truths of human life on our motley planet. Instinctively aware of how to extract the most whilst offering the least, he was about to embark on a series of daring diplomatic maneuvers that would pay solemn, if silent, homage to the exhortations of his erudite contemporary, and yield rich dividends into the bargain. Convinced of his opportunity to engage Russia on Germany’s side, he was determined not to surrender that opportunity to France, and it is the ultimate testament to his diplomatic genius that this is precisely the state of affairs that he, despite many a contretemps, was able to sustain continuously until the very moment of his unceremonious dismissal from the chancellorship by a wayward Wilhelm II in 1890.

Bismarck’s first major move was to secure the diplomatic arrangement that history remembers by the rather pompous name of Dreikaiserbund (which is German for the Three Emperors’ League). Based upon agreements concluded in May and June 1873 — following a preliminary meeting of the German Emperor, Austro-Hungarian Emperor and Russian Tsar in Berlin in September 1872 — it, despite its significance as indicated by the propinquity it bore to the war just fought with France, was little more than a vague understanding that emphasized the importance of monarchical solidarity in the face of subversive movements (this was an era of burgeoning nationalism in Europe and around the world).[8] In substance, it was at least better than the “sublime mysticism and nonsense”[9] of the Holy Alliance, which had cherished as its sole aim the sustained perpetuation of moribund regimes; but it proved far less durable than the somewhat similar Triple Entente that it anticipated, and the advent of which it precipitated by its own eventual dissolution.

The dissolution was in spite of Bismarck. He had been wise not to seek a formal treaty where none would have been forthcoming, but the absence of definite obligations also meant that far greater room for diplomatic maneuver existed for each member of the Dreikaiserbund than was desirable for the health and longevity of it. With the Tsar eagerly fanning the flames of Panslavism in the Balkans — to the joy of many a Slav braving the yoke of Hapsburg and Ottoman imperialism and yearning for liberation, but to the calculated wrath of both Vienna and the Sublime Porte — in the hope of distracting domestic attention from real issues at home to alleged dangers abroad, it was all the Iron Chancellor could do to bring Austria and Russia together at the same table, without the added burden of committing each to the definite restraints inherent in a formal treaty or alliance. For a time, Russia acquiesced in the workings of this tripartite arrangement, not only because it knew that Germany alone (who had a major interest in the preservation of her only dependable friend in Europe) possessed the power to induce Austria to adopt a less confrontational attitude against Russia in the Balkans, but also because this would help her to convince France that her diplomatic options were not limited (and thus assist her in procuring more favorable terms in the case of an eventual alliance with her erstwhile foe). Most unfortunately, however, for even this incipient goodwill from St Petersburg, events in the Balkans soon decided against the rebarbative continuation of such an affable arrangement.

Bulgarian conflict

In 1875, conflict broke out in Bulgaria. Subjected to the Porte’s alien rule for the past five hundred years, Bulgaria had not been slow to appreciate the rise of nationalism in the farrago of nineteenth century Europe and the competing ambitions of her many peoples, any more than she had been in recognizing a growing opportunity to wrest independence from her oppressors in times that were only growing more favorable by the day. The Porte had been equally quick of perception, and judging that prevention was better than cure, took the bold step of sowing the discord between moderate and extremist that has ever furnished the principal prop and pillar of the policy entitled divide et impera. In this case, in the year 1870, the step was taken in the form of an edict that authorized the establishment of a Bulgarian Excharcate (i.e. a separate branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church).[10] The wily Porte had probably calculated that such a move could be counted upon to flatter the clergy, appease the moderates, and isolate the extremists — all to the advantage, however ephemeral, of a regime that was decaying, and which could not hope to survive the resolution of those internal Slavonic squabbles that were as internecine as they were endemic in the Balkan peninsula.

On this occasion, however, the Sultan’s turned out to be an egregious miscalculation. The new Excharcate, so far from offering any gratitude to the Sultan by rallying their people behind the Ottoman throne, chose instead to view the Porte’s latest concession as a sign of not magnanimity but abject weakness; and it decided not altogether implausibly that the time had come to try conclusions with the imperious House of Osman. The reasoning that underlay the timing of this Bulgarian unrest stemmed from a realization that Russia, the sanctimonious champion of independence for the South Slavs, would in the wake of her recent denunciation of the Treaty of Paris be in an unusually favorable position to assist the Bulgar nation in its quest for the categoric expulsion of Ottoman rule from Bulgarian soil. It was, therefore, for five years that matters smoldered and men seethed, till the advent of that day when Russia, armed by what it thought was the sanction of an amorphous and taciturn Dreikaiserbund, ventured to bestow its definite approbation of the Bulgar cause on the Bulgar people, unflinching in its determination to efface that record of shame to which she herself had made many an unwitting contribution since the time of the Holy Alliance.

Russia enters the fray

Affronted beyond measure by what it saw as the brazen ingratitude of the Bulgars and the unwarrantable presumption of their Russian sponsors, the ruthless forces of the Porte resolved to call the latter’s bluff by unleashing such a wave of savagery and destruction on the former as could not fail to elicit a response from the Tsar and his truculent court, who were already awaiting a suitable pretext for intervention from the frigid banks of the Neva. Fired with the enthusiasm to champion and secure for the Bulgars those very rights that she had never exhibited the slightest sorrow in denying to the Slavs rotting in her own Polish backyard, Russia entered the Balkan fray without a qualm and proceeded with the serene confidence of a somnambulist to vindicate Santayana’s solemn warning, albeit not given in as many words by any at the time, that “those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Russia should have remembered that ever since the time of the “loud-sounding nothing” that had been the Holy Alliance, and of which she had been the principal proponent, hers had not been a position from which she could hope to threaten or thrash the Porte without bringing down upon her skull the redoubtable bludgeon of the Royal Navy. But as has almost always been the case with people who do not know the limits of their ambitions, the Tsar and his advisers spurned the toil of logic, and sought in its stead the meretricious gratification that is the certain and ruinous promise of frivolous braggadocio and inflated estimations of one’s own prowess and possibilities. Whilst their mettlesome forces did eventually manage to arrive at the very gates of Constantinople, and from there compel the Sultan to append his signature to a shameful document of capitulation, they had reckoned without the opposition of those who were more ably placed than was the decrepit empire of the Ottomans to check this alarming aggrandizement in Russian fortune on the shores of those very waters that flowed without choice into the vital maritime routes of international trade, the lynchpin of which had lain in the Suez Canal since its opening to all traffic on 17 November 1869. It would be pertinent to remember that in the very year when the Bulgars finally embarked upon their crusade to reclaim the freedom they had lost of yore, Great Britain — principally at the instigation of her justly renowned Tory statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, whose second and final premiership had spanned with a remarkable prescience the fateful years from 1874 to 1880 — acquired a holding interest at 40% of the Suez Canal Company’s equity (making her the single largest shareholder), under the auspices of a loan to the tune of four million pounds sterling rendered by the astute acumen of Lord Rothschild and his illustrious bank. Since Disraeli was still in office at the time the ominous cloud of Russian ambition was beginning to darken the horizon at Suez, he was determined that no manner of artifice or bluster emanating from the halls of that “icy Muscovite” and “overgrown barbarian of the East” should be allowed to wreck what had to up to that point in time been the most signal achievement of his formidable premiership.

When such were the considerations to uphold at a time of great diplomatic uncertainty, it was not to be expected that an apprehensive government in London would find much to allay their fears of Russian intentions in the treaty that announced to the world not only the cessation of hostilities between Turkey and Russia, but also the imminent end of all that Great Britain had been so sedulous to uphold by way of solution to the Eastern Question for the past eighty years. The Treaty of San Stefano, concluded on 3 March 1878 and upon the ashes of Ottoman pride, had pledged the signatories to honor the creation of a large autonomous state of Bulgaria that would include present-day Macedonia and also cherish an outlet to the Aegean Sea. It had also enlarged the size of both Serbia and Montenegro, confirmed the independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania, furnished Russia with sizeable gains in the Caucasus, and provided for the payment of a large indemnity by Turkey to the victors.

British considerations

With the new state of Bulgaria thus poised to become a Russian satellite that would secure to her patron easy access by land to the Aegean (and thence the Mediterranean), and the slow but steady disintegration of the empire that had for near six centuries held sway over the junction of three continents, Great Britain could discern no cause for assurance in the uncomfortable realization that an eventual elimination of the Ottoman presence at Constantinople and in its environs could make no contribution in the region to either British security or Russian maturity. There was no reason to suppose that an assertive Russia, already buoyed by fresh triumphs, would in any way prove as submissive to British demands as the effete Ottoman Empire had thus far proven to be.

And Great Britain was not alone in the entertainment of her apprehensions. The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, which was itself gradually buckling under the pressure of that clamor for self-determination being made by her own Slavonic population that could only receive fresh impetus in the event of Russia’s ascendancy in the Balkans and Asia Minor, was already beginning to nurture serious reservations regarding the Dreikaiserbund into which she had entered so willingly at the behest of Bismarck. If Germany was not going to restrain Russia from furthering the portentous cause of Panslavism in the Balkans, even when Great Britain was willing to challenge her all on her own, then there could be no reason why Austria should foolishly continue to remain a party to that useless agreement called the Dreikaiserbund. And Austrian withdrawal would spell the end of Bismarck’s bargaining leverage over Russia, whose own on the other hand would increase dramatically over Germany, who could never cease to feel the searing glare of French hatred on her back.

The Dreikaiserbund had arrived at a decisive precipice. It was the moment to decide whether, being adjudged redundant, it would be pushed to certain death; or whether, deemed imperative, it would be retained still by dint of adequate compromise. Since no signatory required the Bund as direly as did the Germany of Bismarck, that sagacious statesman prudently chose the latter course.

Congress of Berlin

It was to this end that he opened the Congress of Berlin in June 1878 (a mere three months after San Stefano). Continuing into July, the Congress, to which delegates from all the major countries of Europe brought the succor of their good offices, was not likely, despite the best endeavors of Bismarck, to cut much, if any, ice with Russia — for two important reasons.

First, the Congress had been convened for the express purpose of revising the pledges of San Stefano, which was the apple of a myopic Russian eye. The only reason the Tsar even agreed to send his representative to the Congress was that he expected Bismarck, who was both an ostensible ally and the host, to argue the case for Russia in the face of implacable British and Austrian opposition. But the Congress was also as much Bismarck’s opportunity as it was the Tsar’s hope. As host, he could create the clever impression of being the “honest broker” between Russia and Great Britain, and as such, leave it to the former to address the claims of the latter in what was supposed to be an impartial forum. If what Great Britain sought by way of settlement was already in accord with Germany’s interests, then all Bismarck had to do was to make Russia confess to her ambitious designs in the Balkans before the Congress, give suitable air to the British answer, and then maintain he would uphold the unanimous, or at least majority, decision rendered by the Congress. With Russia in no position to confront Great Britain on the seas alone, Bismarck would achieve the desired result without in any obvious way betraying the spirit of the Dreikaiserbund.

The second reason that the Congress was more or less predestined to go against Russia was the fact that of all the important countries who sent their delegates there, Great Britain was the only one who sent not only her Foreign Secretary, but also Prime Minister! Benjamin Disraeli had chosen to attend in person because he did not want his Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury, to achieve the primary credit for the fruits of the Congress’s deliberations. The fact that Disraeli prioritized the Congress so highly shows not only how catastrophic it would have been for Great Britain not to achieve her objectives, but also how certain Disraeli was of achieving what he had so long sought for his country. Upon returning home, he would triumphantly announce that he had returned from Berlin with “peace with honor” (a phrase that would later be borrowed by another Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, upon his return from Germany exactly sixty years later, but with far less commendable consequences).

Coming, as it did, so soon in the wake of the triumph that had been the Treaty of San Stefano, the Congress unsurprisingly proved to be an unmitigated disaster for Russia. Its principal accomplishments were that an autonomous principality of Bulgaria was created; a province of Eastern Roumelia, nominally Turkish but with a Christian Governor was established south of Bulgaria, with the result that British fear of Russian access to the Aegean via Bulgaria was satisfactorily addressed, especially since the Christian Governor could be counted upon to pacify the Christian population of what was nominally still a Turkish province; the independence of Serbia and Montenegro, in accordance with San Stefano, was confirmed, with both states receiving territorial compensation; the independence of Romania was also confirmed, the Romanians obtaining northern Dobruja in return for ceding Bessarabia to Russia; Russia was confirmed in possession of the Caucasus; Austria-Hungary received the right to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novi-Bazar; and Great Britain received the right to occupy the strategically important island of Cyprus. Although Eastern Roumelia eventually united with Bulgaria, the main lines of the settlement lasted for thirty years.[11]

Implications

This was the end of the Dreikaiserbund — at least, until 1881, when the Tsar was assassinated, and his successor, Alexander III, negotiated a much more formal and precise Dreikaiserbund Alliance with both Germany and Austria. But even then, Russia could never forget the humiliating lessons of the Congress, her nationalist press having memorably remarked at the time how it had been nothing but “a coalition of Europe against Russia under the leadership of Prince Bismarck”.[12]

Bismarck did not forget the sobering experience of having to mediate between Vienna and St Petersburg at an international forum either. Shortly after the Congress, he entered into a formal but secret alliance with Austria, the Dual Alliance of 1879, in which he solemnly pledged to assist Austria if she were ever to be attacked by Russia in future. The decade that had started off with Bismarck seeking to cement a triumvirate of sorts of the three great eastern autocracies had ended in the alienation of one, and the advent of a formal alliance between the other two against the third.

In the next part, we shall review the exertions of Bismarck during the 1880s. We shall look at how he managed to sustain his relations with both Russia and Austria even after, and in spite of, the unpleasant developments that had taken place towards the end of the 1870s. It was a feat of pure skill and ardor that can be easily neither forgotten nor emulated.

What do you think were the impacts of the 1870s? Let us know below.

[1] Said originally of Arthur Balfour by Winston Churchill, in the latter’s famous book Great Contemporaries (first published by Thornton Butterworth Ltd in 1937)

[2] The Battle of Sedan (1-2 September 1870), which marked the surrender and capture of the French Emperor, Napoleon III

[3] The Treaty of Frankfurt (10 May 1871), which formally ended the Franco-Prussian War

[4] The Battle of Sadowa (3 July 1866)

[5] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (Simon and Schuster Paperbacks 1994) 140

[6] Quoted in The Times, on 2 January 1939, page 15

[7] Definition of ‘frustration of a contract’ in the Oxford Dictionary of Law

[8] A. W. Palmer, A Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945 (Penguin 1964) 110

[9] A description rendered by Lord Castlereagh, British Foreign Secretary 1812-22. Ibidem, 155

[10] A. W. Palmer, A Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945 (Penguin 1964) 60-61

[11] Ibidem, 46

[12] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (Simon and Schuster Paperbacks 1994) 157

Chief Flying Hawk – A Great Native American in Troubling Times

Flying Hawk was an important Native American as white settlers moved across the western US in the latter half of the 19thcentury. He met 10 US presidents and later became part of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West troupe. Alec Marsh explains.

Alec’s new book, Ghosts of the West, is now available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Chief Flying Hawk, Oglala Lakota.

He fought at Custer’s Last Stand and counted the warrior Crazy Horse as a close friend, as well as his cousin. He met ten US Presidents and ranked Teddy Roosevelt above them all. He was present at the death of Sitting Bull in 1890 and attended the massacre of Wounded Knee. He then travelled the world as a star of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West troupe.

And before dying at 77 in 1931, Chief Flying Hawk also acted as translator for the writer John Neihardt, thereby helping him to create a seminal work in Native American culture, Black Elk Speaks. More than this, Flying Hawk also produced his own history of America, finally published in 1946, ‘so that the young people would know the truth. The white man’s books about it did not tell the truth’.

So if you haven’t already, I believe it is high time you acquainted yourself with the Native American chief, Flying Hawk, a renaissance man who was a leader, an educator and warrior in equal measure. The son of Chief Black Fox of the Oglala Lakota – a leader who lived for decades with an arrow lodged in the back of his sky before dying in his eighties, Flying Hawk was born in 1854 at a time when the Sioux’s traditional way of life was still largely unaffected by white men.

The buffalo herds upon which the Sioux’s civilization depended still roamed abundantly across the great plains of the West. And when European-Americans did come, they came to trade – not to necessarily to live, or to dominate. That, however, was all about to change.

But as a result Flying Hawk grew up in a way that would have been familiar to those who had gone before him: learning the art of warfare by fighting skirmishes against rival tribes – the Crow and Piegan. He took part in his first battle aged ten, against soldiers protecting a wagon train. ‘I do not know how many we killed of the soldiers, but they killed four of us,’ he would say later. ‘After that we had a good many battles, but I did not take any scalps for a good while. I cannot tell how many I killed when a young man.’

Red Cloud’s war

More fighting was to follow. Just two years later, in 1866, armed conflict broke out between the Sioux and the US, over the latter’s decision to build forts along the Bozeman Trail, a road through the Powder River country in modern day Wyoming and Montana – land belonging to the Sioux and a prime hunting ground. What followed – known as Red Cloud’s War – was a two year guerrilla conflict in which the Native Americans, led by another Oglala Lakota chief Red Cloud, were able to outwit and outmaneuver their better-armed opponents. In December 1866, Crazy Horse, who would come to world’s attention for his part in defeating Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn ten years later, commanded a small party of warriors to lure out a large body of soldiers from one of the forts – leading them into a deadly ambush. The Fetterman Fight or Massacre, left 81 men under the command of Captain William J Fetterman dead and was the biggest military defeat suffered by the United States at the hands of the Plains Indians until Custer’s Last Stand in 1876. Red Cloud’s war concluded in victory for Sioux with a peace treaty signed 1868 at Fort Laramie in eastern Wyoming. It is still recognized as an international treaty in law today.

Moreover its an international treaty which the United States breached in 1876 with the invasion of the Black Hills, the Sioux’s last great hunting ground, following the discovery of gold there in 1874.

The Sioux, now led by Sitting Bull, Flying Hawk’s uncle, and Crazy Horse, fought back: and so began the Great Sioux War of 1876-77. Red Cloud, whom Flying Hawk described as ‘the Red Man’s George Washington’, had been to Washington and New York after the peace of 1868 and now knew what the Native Americans were up against. He did not join the call to arms in 1876. Flying Hawk was there every step of the way.

Custer’s last stand

The defining moment of this war was the Battle of Little Bighorn in June 1876, where Flying Hawk fought alongside Crazy Horse, the architect of the victory. In his graphic account of the battle he described how it began with the US cavalry firing on their village, and how the Native Americans quickly had the soldiers on the back foot. ‘When we got them surrounded the fight was over in one hour,’ Flying Hawk recalled. ‘There was so much dust we could not see much, but the Indians rode around and yelled the war-whoop and shot into the soldiers as fast as they could until they were all dead. One soldier was running away to the east but Crazy Horse saw him and jumped on his pony and went after him. He got him about half a mile from the place where the other soldiers were lying dead.’ 

He added: ‘It was a big fight; the soldiers got what they deserved this time. No good soldiers would shoot into the Indian’s tepee where there were women and children. These soldiers did, and we fought for our women and children. White men would do the same.’

Despite the victory the chiefs quickly realized that the game was up: Washington put the Sioux reservations under the authority of General Sherman and all Native Americans were henceforth to be treated as prisoners of war. Those that were off their reservation would be treated as hostiles. Rather than submit to this, Sitting Bull led his band to Canada; Crazy Horse was killed in a scuffle after handing himself over at Fort Robinson in Nebraska. ‘He was honored by his own people and respected by his enemies,’ said Flying Hawk. ‘Though they hunted and persecuted him, they murdered him because they could not conquer him.’ The murder of Crazy Horse proved to the harbinger of the treatment that Sitting Bull would receive 13 years later on his return from Canada.

By this point the Great Sioux Reservation had been broken into five reserves occupying perhaps half the original land promised to them, having been appropriated for white settlers by the US government. In 1890 the Ghost Dance, a religious movement swept across the hungry and cold Sioux people, prompting fears of an uprising among the authorities. Once again Flying Hawk was close to the action: his brother Kicking Bear, a holy man and chief, was a leading figure of the movement, and Flying Hawk was among the first to witness the results of the massacre at Wounded Knee, when soldiers of the Seventh Cavalry machine-gunned more than 200 mainly Sioux women and children camped in the winter snow outside the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. Flying Hawk described seeing the bodies of women and children lying under a blanket of snow – and asserted that the attack was retaliation for the ‘Custer affair’ 13 years before.

Extermination of the buffalo

By now the way of life that he had grown up with was gone – including the last great herds of the buffalo, wiped out by the mid-1880s. The whites, Flying Hawk claimed, ‘could not fight them fairly and win’.

And then, having lived through all of this calamity and change, in the years that followed, Flying Hawk turned to show business. Following in the footsteps of Sitting Bull and Red Cloud, he joined Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show in 1898 and while it is said he initially chafed at being asked to perform the displays of the battles he had taken part in, he soon made peace with the life on the stage. Not only was there was money in it, but the shows celebrated performers like him; it also allowed them to communicate something of their way of life to the outside world. Flying Hawk spent the next three decades ‘Wild Westing’, as it was known, touring the US and Europe with Colonel William Cody’s show and later joining the Miller Brothers 101 Ranch show and Sells Floto circus. He finally retired from touring in 1930, the year before he died. That was also year he acted as an interpreter for the writer and ethnographer John G. Neihardt in his interviews with the Oglala medicine man Black Elk, which remains a powerful and important testimony to this day.

Flying Hawk also toured schools speaking about Native American history, which became part of his effort to tell the story of his people from the Native American perspective. This he achieved most comprehensively through a series of interviews with his friend Major Israel McCreight, becoming Firewater and Forked Tongues – A Sioux Chief Interprets US History, published in 1946 under McCreight’s name. When each age was finished, McCreight would read it to Flying Hawk who would apply his thumbprint approving the pages individually.

In a foreword to Firewater, Ohitika, or Benjamin Brave, ‘a member of the Sioux tribe’, who tells us that his grandfather fought at the Little Bighorn, says this of Flying Hawk: ‘Perhaps no other Indian of his day was better qualified to furnish reliable data covering the period of the great Sioux war, beginning with the ruthless exploitation by rum-sellers, prospectors and adventurers, of their homes and hunting grounds pledged to them forever by sacred treaty with the Government, and ending in the deplorable massacre of Wounded Knee.’ Quite possibly.

Certainly Flying Hawk was at the center of the action, and somehow lived to tell the bloody tale, which he did. He also inspired those he met and remained unequivocal about what he witnessed. ‘Nowhere in the history of mankind is there to be found a parallel,’ Flying Hawk said, ‘nothing so cruel, un-American and wholly inhuman. Cortez in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru carried on their wars of extermination in the name of religion... But the white man had no justification for this ruthless campaigns against the red race.’

The cover of Alec’s new book. Imaged provided by and included with the permission of Headline Accent.

You can read Alec’s new book, Ghosts of the West, here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

It is published by Headline Accent.

The Modern Greek State: 1863–1897 – Bankruptcy & Defeat

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 1863 to 1897 and looks at the instability that Greece and the wider region felt over the period before bankruptcy and military defeat came for Greece in the 1890s. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

You can read part 1 on 1827-1862 here.

A photo of influential Greek politician Charilaos Trikoupis.

Acemoglu and Robinson describe why the establishment of a virtuous cycle of inclusive political and economic institutions is a prerequisite for the prosperity of nations. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) In the previous article though, it was shown that in the first thirty years after its independence, the Modern Greek State did little to suppress the remaining tradition of the extractive institutions of the Ottoman occupation. (Papageorgiou, 2021) It tried to speed up after that by doing too much too fast in a turbulent political scenery. The result was bankruptcy in 1893 and military defeat in 1897.   

Introduction

After the deposition of King Otto I in 1862, the search for a new king of the Greeks begun. Several candidates were considered including the nephew of the Tsar Nikolao and Alfred, the second born son of the English Queen Victoria. British foreign policy was especially interested in avoiding another champion of the Great Idea, namely, the liberation of all Greeks under Ottoman rule by all means, including war. Finally, it was Prince William of Denmark who ascended to the throne under the regal name of George I. To increase its influence, Great Britain ‘offered’ George the Ionian Islands under the condition that they would be rendered demilitarized. This infuriated the locals, but a compromise restricting neutrality to the islands of Corfu and Paxous, facing mainland Epirus still under Ottoman occupation, allowed for the integration of the islands to Greece in 1864. This was the first expansion of Modern Greece. The Ionian Islands added 1,813 square miles to the Greek territories and increased the population by 236,000, among which were significant intellectuals and politicians. A key figure during the negotiations for the integration of the new territories was the debutante 32-year-old politician Charilaos Trikoupis. (Divani, 2010)   

Charilaos Trikoupis

Trikoupis was a shining example of the Greek political oligarchy. (Kostis, 2018) His father Spyridon and uncle A. Mavrokordatos were former prime ministers. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) This is a ‘tradition’ that lasts to this day. The current prime minister of Greece is also the son of a former prime minister. Other members of the Mitsotakis family serve(d) as ministers, members of parliament and mayors of Athens. The father Georgios, the son Andreas and the grandson, also Georgios, of the Papandreou family have all also served as prime ministers in the period from the Second World War to the beginning of the 21st century. The last prime minister of the Papandreou family succeeded Konstantinos Karamanlis who is the nephew of another former prime minister with the same name. So much for the inclusiveness of Greek political institutions.  

Following his service at the Consulate in London and the negotiations for the Ionian Islands, Trikoupis was elected Member of Parliament in 1865. His appointment as minister of foreign affairs in 1866 coincided with another crisis of the early years of modern Greece, the Cretan Revolution. Trikoupis believed that Greece was unable to undertake any military initiative on its own. On the contrary, Athens ought to look for allies in the Balkans and beyond and coordinate its diplomatic and military actions with them. (Klapsis, 2019)  Politically, this is a particularly turbulent period though. Between 1863 and 1875 twenty-two governments were formed. (Malesis, 2018) The system of government after 1864 was Crowned Democracy with the power for the appointment of the government resting in the hands of the king. The latter did not necessarily consider the balance of power in parliament, and it was not unlikely that minority governments were appointed. Thus, coordination for internal and external affairs was lost.   

The gap was filled by National Associations, similar to the Society of Friends (Filiki Eteria) that prepared the War of Independence. They had a diversified membership including university professors, journalists, bankers, politicians and officers of the army pervaded with the Great Idea. (Malesis, 2018) These associations substituted the official state in the conduct of foreign policy. They supplied the Cretan rebels with material resources and organized the dispatch of volunteers so the island. This infuriated the Ottomans as well as the European Powers, although the Greek State officially did not approve of the Associations’ actions after the debacle of 1854, during the Crimean War. At the same time though no action was undertaken to restrain the Associations in fear of the political cost. (Klapsis, 2019)

Trikoupis was describing the National Associations as ‘the fungus of national policy’ and believed that all resources of the nation should be subject to the national center. Foreign policy was to be mandated by the government and not by ‘irresponsible clubs’, he said. (Malesis, 2018)  Thus, as minister of foreign affairs, Trikoupis contributed significantly to the signing of the Greek state’s first alliance treaty with Serbia against the Ottomans (Vöslau, August 1867). (Kostis, 2018)Nevertheless, the king was skeptical, opting for a more moderate approach and refused, at first, to ratify the treaty. (Klapsis, 2019) Furthermore, a few months later George I married the Grand duchess Olga of Russia. This enraged Trikoupis. The Ionian Islands were given as a dowry to the king upon his ascendance to the throne, but now the British and the French had absolutely no reason to endow with Crete the Tsar’s niece. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) By the time the Cretan crisis was settled in 1869 at the Paris Conference, with no gains for Greece, Trikoupis had long resigned his post (December 1867).

1870s

By 1872 Trikoupis was the leader of the ‘Modernist Party’ pursuing political stability. His most famous action to this end is the publication of the article ‘Tis ptaiei?’ (Whose fault, is it?), accusing the king of a lack of respect for the terms of parliament and holding him responsible for the country’s political situation. The king succumbed to the pressure and in August 1875 declared that the principle of declared confidence of Parliament would govern the appointment of the government from that point on. This did not help much though as between 1875 and Trikoupis’ retirement in 1895 another 21 governments were formed. (Kostis, 2018)     

Thus, the quirky foreign policy continued after 1875 during another Balkan crisis initiated by the revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This expanded to Bulgaria in May 1876. Serbia and Montenegro considered that the circumstances were favorable and went to war against the Ottoman Empire in June. Nevertheless, the Ottomans suppressed the revolt and defeated the joint forces of Serbia and Montenegro. Russia intervened and an armistice was signed in November. A conference was held in Constantinople in December, where the Great Powers envisaged increased autonomy for Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria. The crisis was not resolved though because the Ottoman government rejected the decisions of the conference.

The intransigent stance of the sultan caused yet another Russo-Turkish war in the spring of 1877. After all, Russia’s intervention in the first place was the result of a secret treaty with Austria–Hungary in July 1876, which, in the case of Serbian victory that year, provided for significant territorial gains not only for the cosignatories, but also for Serbia, Montenegro, the independent Bulgaria and Greece. The latter was to receive Epirus, Thessaly and Crete. Eventually, the content of the treaty became known to Greece, and this caused significant excitement to the public. (Klapsis, 2019)

Greece’s response was similar to that of 1866–69. The realistic policy of neutrality was opposed by the pro-war and anti-ottoman stance of the public forged by the activity of National Associations. The compromise reached by the universal government of the elderly admiral K. Kanaris included military preparation, instigation of revolts in the Ottoman territories and the development of diplomatic initiatives. (Malesis, 2018) In fear of the political cost, the successor of K. Kanaris, A. Koumoundouros, decided to invade Thessaly in early 1878 under the pretense of the protection of the Greek populations in the area. This came to the dismay of both Great Britain, which demanded Greek neutrality, and Russia, which signed an armistice with the Ottomans two days before the Greek invasion and was hoping that this would have come much sooner.

To make things worse, the Treaty of St Stefano in March 1878 between the Russians and the defeated Ottoman Empire attempted to set in motion the plans for the creation of Great Bulgaria and provided for significant gains for Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and Bosnia–Herzegovina. This would significantly increase Russia’s influence in the Balkans and Greece was to face significant competition in the face of the pan-Slavic movement.

1880s

Luckily, the other Great Powers reacted to the Russian plans and the Treaty of St Stefano was revised in Berlin in the summer of 1878. Despite its disorientated policy, Greece was to negotiate with the Ottoman Empire for the settlement of their borders in Thessaly and Epirus. The Powers intervened once more to overcome the obstructionist tactics of the Ottomans, which delayed the settlement for another two years. Finally, in July 1881 most of Thessaly but only a small part of Epirus around the city of Arta was ceded to Greece. Crete remained under Ottoman rule and Great Britain, for its diplomatic services to the sultan, acquired the right of ‘temporary’ administration of another very important island for Greece, that of Cyprus. (Klapsis, 2019)

At about this time Trikoupis formed, as prime minister, the first ‘long term’ government of Greece from March 1882 to April 1885. This was followed by another one from May 1886 to October 1890. By that time (1882) clientelism weakened the state institutions (Hazony, 2018). In response, Trikoupis expanded the election districts to break the bonds between politicians and their supporters. He also took measures to discourage the participation of army officers in the elections. Stricter rules for hiring and promoting public servants aimed for an increased effectiveness of public administration. 

The most striking feature of Trikoupis’ government though was his extensive program of public works. This included the construction of roads and railways, bridges and ports, the Isthmus of Corinth and land reclamation. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis and the Public Works, 2001) These were prerequisites for the development of the economy and allowed for a rapid deployment of the army. 

Trikoupis took special care of the latter with measures for better training, the reorganization of the officers’ schools and the utilization of the reservists. He also carried out an extensive rearmament program including the construction of several new battleships. (Malesis, 2018) In short, Trikoupis aimed for efficient representation at international level based on a well-administered state of justice, with an efficient economy and strong armed forces. (Klapsis, 2019)

It was very risky. Trikoupis relied on external and internal borrowing to go through with his reform. From 1879 to 1890 Greece took out external loans amounting to 630 million drachmas plus 65 million from internal loans. Although Greece had settled the loans that led to the bankruptcy of 1843, the new ones were agreed under very unfavorable terms with only 72% of the nominal value collected at the end. (Eleftheratos, 2020)   

It was crucial that the economy would grow fast enough to allow for consistent loan servicing. But Greece remained an agricultural country and after the recovery of the French vineyards from phylloxera in 1890, currant exports, which after 1860 accounted for 50–60 % of the total value of Greek exports, decreased dramatically. (Eleftheratos, 2020) The exploitation of the fertile lands of Thessaly also did not bring much for the peasants. Wealthy expatriates bought the large manors from the Ottomans and the feudal system of the empire remained in place. This prepared the way for the peasants’ revolts at the beginning of the 20th century. (Divani, 2010) Trikoupis did not actually get the help he was hoping for from the expatriates’ investments. Although many of them developed philanthropic activity in the country, some were also involved in financial scandals, e.g. that of the Lavrio silver mines, with devastating effects for the general public. (Eleftheratos, 2020) The growing financial problems led to an unprecedented immigration wave, mainly to the USA. (Klapsis, 2019) So much for the inclusiveness of the Greek financial institutions.   

 Thus, the amount of public expenditure going to the service of public debt grew from 9% in the period 1871-1878 to 53% in the years 1887-1892.  Considering that military spending remained high during this period (100 million of the 460 million drachmas of foreign loans that reached Greece were spent on military equipment), it comes as no surprise that from 1887, 70% of the new loans were used to serve the older ones. Taxation was another measure used by Trikoupis to support his program at the cost of his popularity among the people. (Eleftheratos, 2020)

It was the disagreement for taking out yet another loan, for the service of older ones, between king George and Trikoupis that led to the latter’s resignation in 1890. He became prime minister two more times after that (out of seven times in total between 1875 and 1895) but could not prevent state bankruptcy in December 1893. Interestingly, when comparing with recent experience, at the time of the bankruptcy the public debt was 200% of the GDP, somewhat higher than the 182% that led to Greece’s ‘rescue’ by the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF in 2010.[1] (Eleftheratos, 2020) Trikoupis suffered a devastating defeat at the elections of 1895, when he was not elected member of the parliament, retired and died the next year. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016)

From bankruptcy to defeat 

Trikoupis’ archrival was Theodoros Deligiannis. The two alternated in the prime minister’s office, inaugurating bipartisanship in Greece. Deligiannis was often described as anti-Trikoupis aiming to systematically cancel the latter’s work (e.g., the expansion of the election districts, the discouragement of army officers to enter politics and the rules for hiring and promoting public servants) and for this he is blamed by some authors as the main culprit for the bankruptcy of 1893. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) One should keep in mind though that Trikoupis’ governments ruled four times as long as those of Deligiannis and that it was he that took out seven colossal loans. (Eleftheratos, 2020)

There can be no doubt though that Deligiannis’ foreign policy was catastrophic. Back in 1885, when he succeeded Trikoupis for a brief period of one year, he had to handle another Balkan crisis. That was the annexation of Eastern Roumelia by Bulgaria. Under public pressure and with parliamentary support, Deligiannis mobilized the army, but for months he was taking no military initiative, apart from some skirmishes in Thessaly because of some hotheaded army officers. At the same time the Great Powers demanded that Greece demobilize its army and abstain from any war effort. Deligiannis’ indecisiveness finally led to another naval blockade by Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy and Russia and his resignation in 1886. (Malesis, 2018)

By 1895, when he was again prime minister, it was Crete’s turn to rise once more. Greece had regained confidence after holding the first Olympic Games of the new era in 1896 and the pattern was once more the same: public pressure under the propaganda of a National Association (Ethiniki Etaireia) for military action, demands for self-restraint from the Great Powers and the government trying to balance in between. To that end, Deligiannis sent the fleet and an army detachment to the island hoping for another naval blockade that would help him save face on the internal front and avoiding, at the same time, war with the Ottoman Empire. (Klapsis, 2019) Things did not go that way though. The Powers asked for a withdrawal of the armed forces of both the Greeks and the Ottomans and opted for an autonomous Crete under the rule of the Sultan. The Ottomans accepted. Deligiannis attempted a catastrophic maneuver: he withdrew the fleet, but not the army suggesting this way that Greece preferred the union with Crete. At the same time guerrillas were sent into Thessaly under the command of officers of the army. (Malesis, 2018) This gave the Ottomans the opportunity they were looking for. In April 1897 they declared war on Greece and having overwhelming numerical superiority the Ottoman army had retaken most of Thessaly within days, stopping only thanks to the intervention of the Powers. In a sign of weakness, Greece was not invited to the peace negotiations of the Powers with the Ottomans and luckily it had to make only small territorial concessions. On the other hand, war reparations to the amount of four million Turkish lira were imposed and to make sure that Greece would honor its obligations to the lenders the Powers set up an international committee to oversee the fiscal policy. (Klapsis, 2019) The International Financial Committee remained in Greece for 81 years - until 1978.

Conclusion

A critical juncture is a major event or confluence of factors disrupting the existing economic or political balance in society. It is a double-edged sword that can cause a sharp turn in the trajectory of a nation. On the one hand it can open the way for breaking the cycle of extractive institutions and enable more inclusive ones to emerge. Or it can intensify the emergence of extractive institutions. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) The 19th century included several such junctures for Greece. Revolution, independence, expansion to the Ionian Island, Thessaly and part of Epirus. Political and economic developments though did not allow for the emergence of inclusive institutions.  

Exclusive institutions do not rule out growth. And indeed, Greece was (inevitably) slowly growing. Cities were developing and the distribution of GDP in different economic sectors was changing. Whereas in 1861, 74% of the economically active population were employed by the primary sector, by 1881 the figure dropped to 69.9% with the secondary sector employing 11.8% and the tertiary sector 18.3%. (Kostis, 2018) The expansion of the road and railway network and the rest of the public works would be Trikoupis’ legacy for the future. However, growth under extractive institutions has moderate results, as it does not allow for creative destruction through innovation. It is therefore not sustainable. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013)

Social and political ills discussed previously (Papageorgiou, 2021) were not cured by the end of the 19th century. To this we can add, new ones like the establishment of para-statal organizations playing a significant role in political developments and officers’ mentality that they constitute a special group increasingly autonomous from the political leadership and with support from the palace. (Malesis, 2018)

What do you think of these years in the Modern Greek State? Let us know below.

[1] The word ‘rescue’ is in brackets because of the conflicting views regarding the necessity and effectiveness of the implemented policies whose analysis is beyond the scope of this work. 

Bibliography

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books ltd.

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

Eleftheratos, D. (2020). An Oblique Look at History, 200 Years of Modern Greek Laughter and Cry. Athens: Topos (in Greek).

Hazony, Y. (2018). The Virtue of Nationalism. Basic Books: New York.

Klapsis, A. (2019). Politics and Diplomacy of the Greek National Completion 1821-1923. Athens: Pedio (in Greek).

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

Malesis, D. (2018). '... let the Revolution Begin' Great Idea & the Army in the 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek).

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, May 16). History Is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/5/16/the-modern-greek-state-1827-1862-a-bad-start#.YLe-yqFRVPY

Tricha, L. (2001). Charilaos Trikoupis and the Public Works. Athens: Kapon (bilingual in Greek and French) .

Tricha, L. (2016). Charilaos Trikoupis. Athens: Polis (in Greek).

The Early Life of Confederate General Robert E. Lee

If asked about Robert E. Lee, most people would answer that he was the most famous Confederate general in the Civil War - but here William Floyd Junior looks at Lee’s life before the Civil War. It includes his early education, his time at the United States Military Academy, both as a student and later as superintendent, his long career as an army engineer, the Mexican-American War, and his time in the regular U.S. Army.

Robert E. Lee at age 31 in 1838. He was then a Lieutenant of Engineers in the US Army.

Early life

Robert’s father was the famous, “Light Horse Harry Lee,” of Revolutionary War fame and a close friend of George Washington. He served in the Continental Congress and was governor of Virginia. In April of 1782, Harry married Matilda Lee, a second cousin. When Matilda’s father died, he left the family home, Stratford, to Matilda, her sister, and mother. Matilda’s mother and sister would move away leaving their shares of the property to Harry. Harry would begin to sell off parcels of Stratford’s property to cover his debts. After Matilda’s death, Harry would marry Ann Hill Carter. In the following years, Harry would be jailed twice for not paying his debts.

When Harry returned home, Ann insisted that they move to Alexandria, where they could be among friends and family and the children could receive a proper education. In Alexandria, Harry would continue to write his memoirs while trying to play the role of military hero. In the summer of 1813, he left on a ship for Barbados. In early March 1818, Harry left Nassau for the southern United States in an effort to return to his family. Harry would pass away on March 25, 1818, at Cumberland Island Georgia.

The person who did the most to teach Robert the ways of a gentleman was his mother. She would send one son to Harvard, one into the Navy, and another to the United States Military Academy. Robert’s early years were pleasant enough despite his mother’s failing health and the family’s limited income. With the absence of his siblings, Robert became the man of the house, taking care of all the family’s business and looking after his mother.

West Point

Robert’s earliest education began with his mother, before attending Eastern View, a family school maintained by the Carter family. Robert would then attend the Alexandria Academy where he would be introduced to Latin, the Classics, and become an excellent student in mathematics. After finishing at the Alexandria Academy, it was decided that Robert would attend West Point, a major factor being financial. Tuition at the United States Military Academy was free but after graduating the student had to commit to one year in the regular Army.

In 1825, the United States Military Academy at West Point was a school whose primary emphasis was on engineering. Robert, of course, met all the necessary requirements. Appointments to the Academy were made by the President from nominations made by the Secretary of War. Robert would be one of six candidates accepted from Virginia.

After a series of test at the school, Robert officially became a cadet (Freshman/Plebe) on June 28. The day at West Point officially began at 5:30 A.M. and ended at 10:00 P.M. The day was filled with classes and military activities. At the end of his first year, Robert was ranked third in his class without any demerits and promoted to staff sergeant, an unusually high rank for a plebe. In his second year, he would be appointed an “assistant professor of mathematics,” in which he tutored fellow cadets, being paid $10.00 a month. 

In his third year, Robert began scientific studies. He would not be taking a mathematics course but would continue his tutoring duties. Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, and Physics became his major courses of study. He would also take a variety of military studies classes. Lee, along with all other cadets would take compulsory dance classes. In addition, he would be chosen Corps Adjutant. During the summer of 1828, Robert would spend most of his time with his mother, whose health was becoming progressively worse. She would pass away on July 26, 1829, with Robert at her side.

On September 1, Robert began his final year at the Academy. He continued with military studies and added courses in Chemistry, Geology, Ethics, Rhetoric, and Practical Economy. It made for a very long day as in past years. He would pass all of his final exams and graduate second in his class. He would ask to be assigned to the Engineer Corps.

Early career

Brevet 2nd Lieutenant Lee would soon receive his first orders. He was to report to Major Samuel Babcock at Cockspur Island, Georgia by the middle of November. Cockspur was a God forsaken spot where Lee would help prepare the site for the building of a new fort. Lee would spend a good amount of time in water up to his armpits. By January of 1830, Lee had taken over the majority of the work.

In the summer of 1830, Lee would spend part of his time in Northern Virginia, returning to Cockspur on November 10. He would find the ditches filled and the wharf destroyed. He would immediately begin repairs. There would also be a new commanding officer, Lieutenant J.K.F. Mansfield. With Mansfield on the job, Lee became a luxury that the Corps could not afford.

Lee would soon receive orders to report for duty at Old Point Comfort, Virginia, located on the tip of the Virginia peninsula, which was the location of Fort Monroe. Lee would take charge of building Fort Wool, a short distance offshore from Fort Monroe on a manmade island. Lee’s primary task at Fort Wool was the supervision of the placement of loadstone, which he found incredibly tedious.

Lee was stationed at Fort Monroe from 1831 to 1834, directing some of the last phases of construction of Fortress Monroe. Lee’s work would become much more demanding with the absence of the Superintending Engineer, becoming involved in practically all phases of construction.

During his time at Fort Monroe, Robert would marry Mary Custis at Arlington. They would soon travel to the fort and set up housekeeping. The couple’s first child was born on September 16, 1832. The baby boy would be named George Washington Custis Lee.

In November 1834, Lee went to work as assistant to the chief of the Engineering Department (Corps) in Washington. Lee was meticulous and paid attention to every detail. However, after four months in Washington, Lee asked to be reassigned. By the summer of 1835, he would be surveying the boundary between Ohio and Michigan led by his friend, Andrew Talcott. 

The work was not expected to take more than a month but turned out to take the entire summer. The work involved a number of complicated mathematical calculations and take Lee as far as the Great Lakes. Lee would arrive back in Washington in early October to find his wife very sick. Lee became worn down by Mary’s illness and the shear tedium of work. A slow but temporary improvement in Mary’s health and the beauty of Arlington helped to cheer Lee up.

Major challenge

Lee’s next assignment, and probably the most challenging of his career, was the taming of a portion of the Mississippi River, the major transportation route in the Midwest, and St. Louis the major hub and transportation center. However, the route of the river did not remain constant, gradually changing over time. In one case the river would change in such a way that could leave St. Louis landlocked.

By the end of June 1837 Lee would be on his way to his new assignment at St. Louis. Lee’s plan for saving the St. Louis harbor would be to throw the full current of the Mississippi on to the western (Missouri) side. In turn the current would wash away the built-up sand. Lee’s plan was to work with the river, not against it, and allow the Mississippi to do most of the work.

Lee’s hard work would pay off, with the stronger force of water pounding against the head of Duncan’s Island, its sand and silt began washing away. By the end of the construction season, some 700 feet of the island had disappeared. In addition, the channel across the bar between Bloody Island and Duncan’s Island had been deepened by seven feet.

Work on the Mississippi at St. Louis would come to an end and Lee would return to Arlington in December 1839 and was eventually reassigned to the Chief Engineer’s office in Washington.

Lee’s next assignment would be to upgrade the forts, which protected New York City. This work would be all encompassing for Lee, performing all of the administrative duties and supervising construction. At the end of this assignment, Lee would travel to West Point to consult on the new cadet barracks and serve on the Board of Examiners.

Mexican-American War

With the start of the Mexican-American War, Lee would be chosen to serve on the staff of commanding general Winfield Scott. Lee’s first assignment in this position would be to scout locations for the placement of artillery for the attack on the city of Vera Cruz. After the American victory at Vera Cruz, Scott’s forces would move inland but would soon be confronted by Santa Anna’s army on the national road. Again, the reconnaissance of the engineers, including Lee, would play a vital role in Scott’s attack. For his part Lee would be promoted to Brevet Major.

The Mexican Army soon realized they were in a bad position and would retreat to Mexico City. The engineers would again play an important role in the taking of the city. This would lead to the Mexican surrender on May 25, 1848. Lee would leave Mexico the following June.

Lee would soon be back at Arlington spending as much time as possible with his family and would begin work at the Chief Engineer’s Office in Washington. Lee would be commissioned a colonel on August 24. Around this same time, he would receive his next assignment, the building of the foundation for a fort to protect Baltimore from an attack by water.

The work at Baltimore required almost hourly supervision on Lee’s part. In late July Lee would develop a fever, which was most likely malaria. He would leave the site, with General Totten’s permission, until his health improved. Towards the end of summer, Lee would be part of an inspection tour of other facilities but would soon ask to be relieved due to his ongoing illness.

Back to West Point

Lee would not return to Baltimore until the end of August. Work under Lee’s supervision continued but on May 28 he received a letter that would change everything. The orders stated that he would assume the position of Superintendent at West Point the following September. This was a job he really did not want but would reluctantly accept it. On August 23 he left for West Point and assumed his assigned duties.

At the time of his arrival, there was an aggressive building program underway which fit right in with Lee’s vast experience. Congress had approved funds for a riding hall, the expansion of the cadet hospital, cavalry stables, and officer’s quarters. These projects were begun under Lee’s tenure, but the majority of the construction was done in 1855.

In March 1855, Lee would become part of the regular army, again a position he had not sought out. The change from staff to line did not include a pay raise. Transfer also meant a complete break from the Corps of Engineers and, once again, long periods of time away from his family. On March 31, 1855, Lee relinquished command at West Point.

Little did Lee know that the most difficult part of his life was still in front of him.

What do you think of Robert E. Lee’s early life? Let us know below.

Now read William’s article on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here, and Walter H. Taylor, Robert E. Lee’s indispensable man, here.

Why Could you be Sent to an ‘Insane Asylum’ in 19th Century America?

‘Insane asylums’ were the 19th century forerunners of today’s psychiatric hospitals, but people were sent to them for sometimes quite different reasons to today. Here, Casey Hakenson looks at some disturbing cases of why and how people, including women, African Americans, and Native Americans, were sent to ‘insane asylums’ in 19th century America.

Elizabeth Packard, who was sent to the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane in 1860.

Before the 19th century, the only options to institutionalize a person with mental illness were jails and almshouses, where the conditions were often disturbing and dehumanizing. So, in the 19th century, ‘insane asylums’ came along. These institutions were created by reformers to be positive places where ‘lunatics’ could be cured, and ‘idiots’ taught. Yet, almost immediately, people began to be confined to these homes for some of the most benign symptoms. As these ‘homes’ rose in popularity throughout the 1800s, the number of people committed continued to rise as fewer and fewer patients were ever able to leave.

Elizabeth Packard

Let’s begin with one of the most famous instances of imprisonment. Elizabeth Packard was married to a Calvinist minister named Theophilus. Everything seemed to be going well until Elizabeth became interested in popular religious beliefs, such as Swedenborgianism, perfectionism, and spiritualism. These differences resulted in explosive arguments that culminated in her standing up in church while he was preaching and announcing she would be attending services elsewhere. Theophilus began to question his wife’s sanity (or at least claim he did) and had a doctor, J.W. Brown, visit their home disguised as a sewing machine salesman to diagnose Elizabeth. Brown concluded Elizabeth was insane because of her hostility towards her husband and her unorthodox beliefs. Elizabeth Packard spent three years at the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane (from 1860-1863) until her oldest son turned 21 years old and was able to release her. 

The truth of the matter was that in the 19th century, it was often quite easy for a man to institutionalize his wife or daughter. In some U.S. states, the man did not have to present any proof; he only needed the consent of the superintendent of the asylum. Many women were locked up for such erroneous reasons as over-education, PMS, being unmarried, or displaying what was considered over-sexual behavior such as masturbating.

One example of this was Alice Christina Abbot, committed to Taunton State Hospital in Massachusetts in 1867 for allegedly poisoning her stepfather. A bit of background: 17-year-old Alice had recently accused her stepfather of sexual abuse, an allegation that the courts dismissed. The defenses’ primary evidence against her? She didn’t seem upset that her stepfather was dead. (Hmmm. I wonder why…)

African Americans and Native Americans

Yet, of course, women weren’t the only group that were institutionalized for pseudo-scientific reasons. When the U.S. Civil War ended, there was an uptick in the institutionalization of African Americans, who many claimed would delve into insanity caused by their new freedom. African American people, like women and other disenfranchised groups, could be committed for basically any reason. A white employer or community member could claim an African American person was insane, and the accused had little resource to defend themselves in court. In fact, at Central Hospital in Virginia, an all-African American mental asylum, there were no records of anyone willingly institutionalizing themselves. Making matters even worse for the inmates, some doctors claimed that African American people needed to do hard labor to stay mentally sane. For example, at Central, they were put to work on the asylum’s large farm and performing domestic chores. (Sounds like a certain something that had just been outlawed…) And, like many who were confined to these hospitals, a large percentage died from illnesses contracted from overcrowding. 

Native Americans were prone to a similar fate since they were often diagnosed and committed by the white reservation agents who were put in place by the government - men who usually had little to no medical training. Native Americans, too, could be confined for an array of offenses, such as refusing their government’s assimilation tactics, or in one man’s case, a 1913 accusation of ‘horse-stealing mania.’ Native Americans, like other asylum patients, were often treated to conditions akin to torture, sterilized, experimented on, and usually died in these places of ‘healing’. 

A few more examples from a ‘reasons for admission’ list from Weston Hospital in Lewis County, West Virginia were:

-Bad Company

-Bad Habits

-Business Nerves

-Crime

-Death of Sons in the War

-Deranged Masturbation

-Desertion by Husband

-Disappointment 

-Domestic Trouble

-Doubt about Mother’s Ancestry

-Feebleness of Intellect 

-Female Disease

-Hard Study

-Imaginary Female Trouble

-Laziness

-Medicine to Prevent Conception

-Menstrual Deranged

-Novel Reading

-Parents were Cousins

-Political or Religious Excitement 

-Suppressed Masturbation

So, what could you get institutionalized for in the not-so-distant past? Anything, really. 

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

References

Brice, Anne. “How the U.S. Government Created an ‘Insane Asylum’ to Imprison Native Americans.” Berkeley News, 19 Nov. 2020, https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/11/19/ using-disability-to-imprison-native-americans/. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

Charleston, L.J. “Outrageous Ways to be Admitted to an Insane Asylum in the 19th Century.” News.com.au, 18 Aug. 2019, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true- stories/outrageous-ways-to-be-admitted-to-an-insane-asylum-in-the-19th-century/news-story/e590c54e3469606d1b2330a52c3d8f6b. Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“Elizabeth Packard: Advocate for the Rights of Married Women.” History of American Women, https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2013/01/elizabeth-packard.html.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“How Victorian Women were Oppressed through the Use of Psychiatry.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/netflix-2017/how-victorian-women-were- oppressed-through-the-use-of-psychiatry/1607/. Accessed 1 July 2021.

“Packard, Elizabeth (1816-1897).” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/packard-elizabeth-1816-1897.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

Peterson, Britt. “A Virginia Mental Institution for Black Patients, Opened After the Civil War, Yields a Trove of Disturbing Records.” The Washington Post, 29 March 2021,  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/black-asylum-files-reveal-racism/2021/03/26/ebfb2eda-6d78-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html. Accessed 1  July 2021. 

 Tabler, Dave. “125 Reasons You’ll Get Sent to the Lunatic Asylum.” AppalachianHistory.net, 4 December 2008, https://www.appalachianhistory.net/2008/12/125-reasons- youll-get-sent-to-lunatic.html. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

“The Growth of the Asylum.” Historic England, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1832-1914/the-growth-of-the-asylum/. Accessed  1 July 2021. 

Four of the Most Eccentric Scottish Dukes of Hamilton

The Dukedom of Hamilton, one of the most important peerages in Scotland, was created in 1643, and as of 2021, we are on the 16th Duke of Hamilton. Here, Ilana Barnett looks at the lives of four of the most eccentric dukes.

Hamilton Palace around 1880.

The Dukedom of Hamilton is one of the highest peerages of Scotland, second only to the Duke of Rothesay, a title held by the eldest son of the Sovereign. As the Hereditary Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse (the seat of the Scottish Parliament) and the Hereditary Bearer of the Crown of Scotland, they fulfill important national and ceremonial roles. 

As with all powerful and prominent families, many of its members led what you could call colorful lives. None more so than the 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th dukes who more than contributed to the reputation and notoriety of one of the premier families of Scotland.

The Dueling Duke

The 4th Duke of Hamilton, James, had a way of courting bad press. He was described as perpetually drunk, selfish, arrogant, a disaster and a wastrel. He was a leader of the Scottish National Party and a vocal opponent of Scotland’s union with England. In November 1712, he was killed in a duel, which shocked polite society - and then the law was changed. 

Hamilton’s adversary was Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, with whom he had been embroiled for 11 years in a bitter legal dispute. Both men had married nieces of the Earl of Macclesfield but on his deathbed, it was reported that the Earl named Mohun as his sole heir. Hamilton disputed the validity of the confession and the credibility of one of the witnesses. Hamilton might have had good reason to doubt Mohun’s word. Mohan was no saint, having already stood trial three times for murder. Finally, emotions became so heated that they decided a duel was needed to settle the matter for once and for all. 

They met in Hyde Park along with their Seconds, George MacCartney and Colonel John Hamilton. In the event Hamilton killed Mohun, who in turn severely wounded Hamilton.  Furious, MacCartney lunged at Hamilton, running him through with his sword. It is very likely that Colonel Hamilton in retaliation fought MacCartney as both men fled to the continent in fear of arrest. The duel had been so bloody that the government was persuaded to ban duels using swords in favor of pistols, which inflicted less horrific injuries. The incident was immortalized by Thackeray in his novel The History of Henry Esmond.

A Curtain Ring Wedding

The 6th Duke of Hamilton’s (another James) claim to notoriety was very different. He enters the history books as a womanizer and debaucher. On February 14, 1752, he finally found a woman he could not have his wicked way with, in the form of the society beauty, Elizabeth Gunning. Elizabeth was penniless but stuck to her principles and saved herself and her reputation from ruin. Her price – marriage. That same night at 12.30, the desperate and lustful James plucked a parson out of bed to perform the marriage, using a bed curtain ring as a wedding ring. Presumably at around 2am, he finally got the girl and she got her duke.

The Hamilton House Dance

Following in family tradition, Douglas, the 8th Duke of Hamilton, was famous for his looks, which he used to good effect as a womanizer. He inherited the title on his brother’s death in 1769. In April 1778, he married Elizabeth Anne Burrell, a match his family disapproved of as unequal. They had no children and were divorced after sixteen years, possibly due to the duke’s numerous affairs (although the duchess was also rumored to bed hop on occasion). Affairs were pretty much the norm amongst the upper classes but there were unwritten codes of conduct, discretion being one. Hamilton, on the other hand, didn’t bother with any pretense of propriety, a trait one of his favorite mistresses, Frances Twysden, wife of the Earl of Eglinton, seemed to share. On one occasion, she brazenly asked her husband’s servant to admit the Duke of Hamilton into her bedchamber. Loyally the servant refused. The dance the “Hamilton House” was named after the duke and duchess with the steps and numerous changes of partners symbolizing their infidelities.

The Proudest Man in England

If you visit the town of Hamilton in South Lanarkshire, make sure you take time to see the Hamilton Mausoleum. The mausoleum, all that remains of the once magnificent palace, which existed on the site, is considered to be one of the finest and most remarkable private tombs in the world. 

The visionary behind its construction was Alexander Douglas Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton. As well as being a Knight of the Garter, Grandmaster of the Freemasons and a British ambassador, he was also a famous dandy. Lord Lemington in his book In The Days of the Dandies wrote “Never was such a magnifico as the 10th Duke”. Extremely proud of his ancestry, he was convinced he was heir to the Scottish crown. His inflated sense of his own importance resulted in him hiring a hermit to adorn the grounds of Hamilton Palace. Increasingly eccentric as he grew older, he was affectionately called ‘El Magnifico’ by the locals as he wandered around the town of Hamilton wearing the Douglas tartan. 

Hamilton died at the age of 84 in London on August 18, 1852, his body mummified and placed in a sarcophagus (the only receptacle he considered worthy of him) and then transported to the mausoleum. He had come by the sarcophagus whilst acting as a buyer for the British Museum in Egypt. The British Museum, uninterested in the purchase of a sarcophagus of a non-royal, allowed Hamilton to keep it. It is not known how they managed to fit his body in the sarcophagus as the duke was eight inches taller than the original occupant - it has been suggested that his legs were rearranged with a sledgehammer and bent under him. Unfortunately, as the mausoleum had no roof, the duke had the ignominy of lying in state with building work going on around him. Probably not the grand exit the duke had envisaged for himself. Eventually his sarcophagus was placed on a black marble slab, resting in a manner as befitted “El Magnifico”.

What do you think of the Dukes of Hamilton? Let us know below.

Ilana writes at The Haunted Palace Blog here.