The Mexican War of Independence: Chaos and Confusion - Part 1

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at the Mexican War of Independence. Here he looks at the Jesuit roots of revolution and Hidalgo and Allende.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later years is here. Then, you can read about the Abdications of Bayonne here.

A painting of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.

The Eve of the Revolution

New Spain on the eve of the Abdications of Bayonne in 1808 was a place of tension. The constant warfare in Europe meant that New Spain, as the wealthiest colony of Spain, was used as a source of money for Napoleon’s war machine. The Godoy government had been dedicated to extracting as much wealth as possible from the colonies. The people groaned under the financial burden.

Money was not the only cause of discontent. The example of the United States to the north was one of a free (slaves were ignored) federal republic that had thrown off their colonial masters and the king who ruled over them. Ideas from the French Revolution, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, were highly influential on the literate classes. The economic arguments of free enterprise and the removal of colonial trade barriers were wrapped into the political language of the Enlightenment of the brotherhood of man and the liberation of the soul.

A further cause of resentment was the social caste system in place in New Spain. Slavery existed in Mexico, but it was not exclusively African slavery, as in the United States. Many of the natives, or indios, descendants of the Aztecs, Maya, and others, were enslaved, either in law or custom, through the encomienda system. This system, in place since the conquests by Cortes, bound the indios to labor to a man granted the right to own that labor, an encomendero. There were African slaves as well, just not in the numbers seen to the north. Above the slaves were mestizos, or mixed Spanish and indio, but they faced many legal and cultural barriers to success. Above them were the criollos. These were people who did not have any Native or African ancestry, but because they were born in New Spain, they faced certain legal disabilities, and in practice were second-class citizens. At the top of the pyramid were the peninsulares, people who were born in Spain. Not only did the peninsulares have more legal rights than everyone else, but they also owned and controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth in New Spain. This added a large degree of economic resentment to the existing racial resentment.

Choices to be Made

In 1808, the news of the installation of Joseph Bonaparte as King of Spain hit New Spain like a thunderbolt. Although there had been tensions between France and Spain, no one had expected something like this to happen. To whom was loyalty owed, to Spain? To the king? Who was the king, Carlos, or Joseph, or maybe it was the Infante, Ferdinand? These questions had to be answered. The person who had the responsibility for all decisions in New Spain was supposed to be the viceroy, José de Iturrigaray.

Iturrigaray had been viceroy in New Spain since 1803. He claimed to be a loyal servant of Carlos IV. The problem for him was, he was the viceroy for Carlos, and was Carlos still the king after the mess of Bayonne? What about Ferdinand, the heir and future king, was he legitimate? He was not appointed by Joseph Bonaparte, but many within the Spanish civil service did recognize Joseph and welcomed the Napoleonic reforms being enacted, including the ending of the Inquisition. Further, Iturrigaray was an appointee of Godoy, the ridiculously corrupt Spanish Prime Minister who was hated by nearly everyone in the Spanish domains. He knew that the Juntas would never accept him, as they were revolting against the existing Spanish government as much as against the French and King Joseph.

Thrown into the mix were those who saw this as a golden opportunity to attain, if not independence from Spain, then at least significant local autonomy. This group was primarily led by criollos who resented the privileges of the peninsulares and identified their country as New Spain. Many in this group believed that New Spain could remain loyal to the Spanish crown but be independent of Spain and the Spanish government. The situation was further complicated by the creation of the revolutionary Juntas in Spain in response to the invasion. The leaders in Spain were attempting to extend their authority over the colonies as well. If the Spanish leaders were able to solidify the loyalty of the colonies, that would eliminate any chance of New Spain achieving autonomy or independence.

When official delegations from two different Juntas, one from Oviedo, and one from Seville, arrived in the colony, it was the perfect excuse for Iturrigaray to delay. He announced that he would make no final decision on whom to support until September. In the interim, he had agreed to the formation of a Congress for the colony, ostensibly to learn the desires of the people.

Some were worried that Iturrigaray was thinking about declaring himself the leader of an independent New Spain, perhaps even as its king. To prevent this from occurring, a group of elites from New Spain organized and plotted to overthrow the viceroy. On September 15, 1808, just four months after the abdications of Bayonne, the conspirators removed Iturrigaray. Although the removal of the viceroy had been the action of a broad spectrum of elites, it seemed no one was happy with the situation. The new viceroy, Pedro de Garibay, was named by the Audencia, not for his ability or charisma, but because he was the highest-ranking officer in New Spain at the time. The pro-independence group wanted a definite break with Spain. The conservatives did not like how the coup played out, as the king was the only person who had the authority to appoint a new viceroy.

The overthrow of the viceroy was a watershed moment for one more reason that would only become clearer in the future. The revolutionary history of what would become Mexico started with a conspiracy overthrowing the legitimate government of the country. The lesson was not lost on those groups who would later compete for power: if you are not happy with the current government, just overthrow it. The English colonists revolted against taxes that barely impacted them. The peoples of Colombia and La Plata would revolt at far less provocation. Yet, the people of Mexico did nothing in the face of, what was essentially, a coup d’état. There was no mass uprising, nor did the independence-minded Creoles raise a voice. The prestige of the government of the colony suffered a blow that it would not recover from. This lesson learned in the cradle would be the curse of Mexico for generations.

The Jesuit Roots of Revolution

It would be odd to expect the main impetus for revolution to come from members of the clergy. Yet, in New Spain, the initial driving force for revolution came from priests. In an era with little formalized education, especially in far-flung reaches of the empire, families, especially creole families, which had a child who showed intellectual promise would send that child to receive an education with the church. It was within the lower orders of the church in New Spain that many of the enlightenment ideals from Europe found a receptive audience. These men were literate yet surrounded by illiteracy and what they saw as backwardness caused by oppression.

Many of the schools in New Spain by the mid-18th century were run by members of the Jesuit order. To the people of their areas, these priests offered spiritual comfort as well as education. Usually, the most learned people in their areas, the Jesuits would set up schools to spread their religion, but also to support and uplift the people, as they saw it. To the Spanish authorities, they were an organization with loyalties to the Pope, not to the king. In the era of the Bourbon reforms, when the Spanish government was attempting to centralize and gain a firmer grip on the empire, having this group of priests teaching the lower classes who knows what, as well as controlling a large amount of wealth and land in the empire, the Jesuits represented an existential threat (or a convenient scapegoat and source of wealth). In 1767, King Carlos III ordered the expulsion of the Jesuit order from the Spanish Empire.

Hidalgo

One such young man who received his early education from the Jesuits was Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. Hidalgo came from a wealthy family in Michoacán that sent him to the Colegio de San Francisco Javier. It was here that first learned of the philosophers of the enlightenment. When the Jesuits were expelled from the empire, he transferred to the Colegio de San Nicolás, later moving on to the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico, earning his degree and entering the priesthood. While conducting his studies, he also learned philosophy and French, allowing him to read the Enlightenment philosophers in the original language.

After becoming a priest, he became a teacher himself. Hidalgo, however, could not just ignore his beliefs in the enlightenment and against some of, what he saw, as the more obscuritan elements of Catholic theology. As a member of the faculty of the Colegio de San Nicolás Obispo, he was also the school’s treasurer. The church leaders did not want to bring attention to his heretical and liberal teachings, so in removing him, they cited financial irregularities and shipped him off to several small parishes. It was while ministering to these small, rural parishes that Hidalgo’s resentments toward the church hierarchy and the corrupt viceregal government in Mexico City bloomed.

Finally settling in the small town of Dolores, Hidalgo began the work of educating the people of the region. Unlike many in the leadership of the colony, Hidalgo did not care about social caste and would take everyone equally, including indios, who up until that time, were kept uneducated as a matter of policy. Hidalgo, always a believer in self-improvement, attempted to teach the native how to improve their lot. Instead of being subsistence farmers, Hidalgo believed that they should grow cash crops, earning more money. He attempted to teach the indios how to grow olives and grapes for wine. By improving their crops and their methods, the indios could be lifted out of poverty, and with the education and literacy he gave them, they could become prosperous.

It was not to be. Spanish law and the colonial authorities forbade the growing of certain crops to prevent competition from arising for Spanish producers. The local authorities came and cut down the groves that Hidalgo had directed to be planted. Knowing the stupidity of this action, Hidalgo’s resentment would only grow.

The Conspiracy Forms

In Querétaro at the same time, a group surrounding Ignacio Allende began forming. Allende was a captain in the royal army but had been mistreated by the viceregal government due to his New Spanish birth. Creoles were looked down on by their peninsulares comrades and had a very difficult (but not impossible) time rising to higher ranks. It proved very easy for Allende to recruit fellow members of the royal army into his conspiracy.

This conspiracy did not start with the goal of independence.  On the contrary, their goal was a New Spain under the crown of Ferdinand VII, just run by creoles. Allende wanted a bloodless coup, just like the one that unseated Iturrigaray. This required more than just lower-ranking officers, though. He knew he needed to reach out to all segments of creole society to gain a broader base of support. Allende just assumed that if he could recruit creole leaders, he would have the support of the mestizos and indios, as they would naturally follow the lead of their creole betters.

This is where Allende and Hidalgo come together. Both men resented what they saw as peninsulares corruption and fecklessness. Hidalgo, however, did not agree with Allende that a revolution should be led by a small clique of creole army officers. He wanted this to be a broad-based movement in which all elements of society had a place and would actively participate.

Any broad-based movement can be difficult to control. With more people brought into the conspiracy, word began to leak out that something was happening in Querétaro. The latest of Spanish governments, now a regency acting in the name of Ferdinand VII on the island of León, dispatched a new viceroy to New Spain, Francisco Venegas. Before he even arrived, however, the government in Mexico City wanted to consolidate its power. The conspiracy had to be broken up.

The Conspiracy Unfolds

The corregidor of Querétaro, Miguel Domínguez, was given the order to arrest Allende, Hidalgo, and the rest of the conspiracy. The problem was that Domínguez was part of the conspiracy. He was also a very indecisive man. With one foot in each camp, Domínguez needed to commit himself, but instead, he panicked. He even locked in the house his own wife, as she was also a member of the conspiracy.

Domínguez’s wife, Josefa Ortiz de Domínguez, would be one of the heroes of this first act of the war of independence. On September 15, 1810, Josefa figured out a way to contact her fellow conspirators and sent a message to Allende, informing him of the arrest order. Allende immediately went to Dolores to inform Hidalgo and formulate a plan.

At 2:00 AM on September 16, Allende arrived at Hidalgo’s house in a panic. He wanted to go underground with his fellow conspirators. Hidalgo, the local parish priest, exiled to a backwater due to being seen as dangerous, saw that the moment had come. His decisiveness instantly gave him leadership in this revolution. Allende’s plan for a bloodless coup was gone. A simple political change of regime would give way to mass social revolution. Hidalgo put on his boots and walked to the church, ordering the bell to be rung. The revolution was on.

What do you think of the start of the Mexican War of Independence? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

A Brief History of Policy Towards Minorities in China

Minority groups in China have frequently found their way into the news cycle in the last several decades and especially in the last few years.  These issues are not new and have their roots in the major changes in the way China organized itself over a century ago.  Despite the massive Han majority, China is not an ethnically homogeneous country and has had to continually address issues of cultural and ethnic diversity.  Integration of ethnic minorities into China has ranged from open embrace to violent resistance for much of the 20th century.  What follows is a quick history of minority policy in China that has led to some of the contemporary issues that make their way into the news cycle.

Jonathan Moody explains.

A Uyghur prince. Source: Tilivay, available here.

The Qing Dynasty

To find the roots of contemporary minority policy, we must travel back to the end of the Qing dynasty.  The Qing stormed their way into power in the 17th century and succeeded in both conquering the Ming Empire and expanding the borders and influence of their empire to encompass the vast majority of East Asia and large sections of Central Asia.  On a map, the Qing Empire is a giant but drawing geographical borders around historic political entities with contemporary map standards can be deceiving and is often more of a reflection of modern ideas of the way states look. The Qing, like their predecessors and many contemporary political institutions of the time, was an empire and not the modern version of a state that much of the world lives under today. ‘Modern states’, while obviously not all the same, have embraced a high degree of political uniformity (i.e. passports, laws, national militaries , etc.) within set boundaries that often border other politically autonomous states.  Unlike a modern state, territories under Qing control could vary vastly in how they were governed or exactly how much control Beijing was able to wield and the line between Qing territory and non-Qing territory was not always clear.  For example, most eastern parts of the empire were full provinces with viceroys and the full application of the Qing law while in the peripheries (Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, etc.), Beijing would give titles to local leaders and rely on these leaders to keep the peace.  Beijing’s involvement was not uniform in many of these areas but, in general, Qing law and influence was limited to almost non-existent depending on the place.  Also, unlike many states today, uniformity of political control was not a main priority.  Attempts to make periphery areas into full provinces only happened at the tail end of the dynasty from fears of outside influence and most of the periphery was highly, if not completely, autonomous.  This loose or lumpy system was by no means utopian but for most of the life of the empire, it worked to both bolster the dynasty’s political power in the center and co-opt potential threats in the periphery to become nominal allies.

Modern China

When the Qing fell, the Republic of China claimed these disparate territories and pursued bringing them into the fold of a new modern state that had stronger centralized control over its territory.  Part of state creation for the early republic was determining who was a member of a Chinese nation-state and what their position was in that state.  For many outside of China, words like Chinese people and Chinese language can be deceptively oversimplifying in the diversity they cover.  The majority ethnic Han population is classified as a single ethnicity but many Han dialects are mutually unintelligible and there is plenty of cultural diversity across the Han regions.  The non-Han ethnic groups speak a variety of languages (Tibetan, Mongolian, Uyghur, etc.) and have their own cultural diversity as well.  One of the problems faced by the early Republic of China was how to incorporate the politically and ethnically diverse empire of the Qing into a state that did not want to continue the loose relationships of the past, especially when regions like Tibet and Mongolia rejected any political connection with the Republic and pursued a more independent path. The Republic, under the Kuomintang (KMT), eventually embraced a policy that there was only one ethnicity in China, the zhonghua minzu. The zhonghua minzu were compared to a tree where the Han were the trunk and other ethnicities were merely branches that grew from the Han tree.  The KMT dominated Republic of China avoided questions of diversity with this program and embarked on Sinicization programs to teach the branches how to embrace their true national identity.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other hand, took the exact opposite approach, especially early in the life of the party.  With a combination of Marxists/Leninist/Stalinist ideologies and later time spent among non-Han communities, the CCP rejected notions that Tibetans or Mongolians were nascent Hans and promised recognition of various ethnic groups and specialized policies for these ethnicities.  The party even embraced the idea of self-determination for these regions early on but backtracked by the time they took power in 1949. Self-determination gave way to fostering patriotic minority identities that allowed for a non-Han identity loyal to the state.  

CCP

After 1949, the CCP adopted an approach to minority populations that had strong Soviet influences (i.e. titular or recognized nationalities/ethnicities) and was aimed at incorporating these people into a modern socialist state while allowing varying degrees of autonomy in specified national minority areas.  Much of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century can be seen as a mixture, and at times conflict, between hardline and accommodationist approaches.  Accommodationists have advocated a slow and welcoming approach to minorities by offering special benefits, at times with the opposition from some of the Han population, to convince hesitant minority populations that inclusion in the PRC is more beneficial than independence.  These policies have included exemptions from the one-child policy and preferential placements in the competitive university process.  Hardliners have been less sympathetic toward differences and have advocated an approach that has little space for dissent and exemptions. Many of the issues we see today have been as a result of hard liners pushing policies that take a more forceful approach to minority incorporation.

Most countries today have consider ethnic diversity and how to include different populations in one political entity. China is no exception and has been dealing with this issue with varying levels of success. The issue of minorities in China very much stems from a change in the way the state was organized and how different groups fit into this modern vision of a state. This change in state organization and vision renegotiated looser affiliations and has led to many of the issues that make their way into the news today.

What do you think of minority policy in China? Let us know below.

Further reading

Goldstein, Melvyn C., and Gelek Rimpoche. A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2007.

Khan, Sulmaan Wasif: Muslim, Trader, Nomad, Spy. China's Cold War and the People of the Tibetan Borderlands. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015.

Westad, Odd Arne. Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750. Basic Books, 2015.

Women in the Warzone: Disguised Soldiers in the American Civil War

Popular accounts of the Civil War describe the horrors of the battlefield, from the mass casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg to the starvation and freezing temperatures at Confederate camps in New York and Georgia. These documents highlight the poor quality of life of Union and Confederate soldiers, highlighting their tremendous historical value, but they rarely mention the experiences of women. Most commonly, women contributed to the war effort by providing medical aid on the battlefield and managing the homefront, but some even disguised themselves as men to join the military. To appear more masculine, these women dressed in layers or loose clothing–both efforts to hide their breasts–and sported short haircuts. These attempts to blend in with the rest of the soldiers generally succeeded, with their gender identity typically remaining a secret.

Brooke Keys explains.

Sarah Rosetta Wakeman, a disguised female who served in the US Civil War.

Context

At the dawn of the Civil War, the Union and Confederate armies recruited masses of young men to improve their chances of defeating the other side. Because of this desperation for soldiers, the armies failed to enforce strict requirements for enlisting. So, although the Union and Confederacy preferred that their ranks consisted of young men, ideally above eighteen years old, they still recruited a vast amount of adolescents. Not only this, but many lied about their ages to ensure that the army accepted them. After all, many people in the North and South maintained strong, oftentimes opposing, opinions on slavery, incentivizing them to support either the Union or Confederacy with their military service. 

This lack of strict requirements aided many men in the enlistment process. Unfortunately, it never helped the women, who the armies strictly banned from enlisting. By violating such a widely-known, highly-enforced rule, the women who disguised themselves as men demonstrated true bravery. They not only risked their lives, but they also risked severe punishment if caught.

Women in the Union Army

One woman who disguised herself as a man was Private Sarah Rosetta Wakeman. She constitutes one of hundreds of women who performed this feat, though many of their names have been lost to history. Intrigued by the monetary bonus offered to enlistees, Wakeman joined the 153rd New York Infantry Regiment on August 30th, 1862. Under the pseudonym Lyons Wakeman, Sarah joined the ranks and successfully blended in with the other recruits.

She traveled with the Union army to the Washington, DC area, where she operated as the provost. After a couple of years, the 153rd New York Infantry Regiment experienced a shift in leadership, eventually falling under the authority of Major General Nathaniel Banks. One month later, she and her fellow soldiers marched to Louisiana. Many of them died on the journey. When Wakeman reached Louisiana to participate in the Red River Campaign, she finally engaged in active combat. Prepared for battle, Wakeman fired at the Confederate soldiers at Pleasant Hill. Unfortunately, the Confederates prevailed, prompting the Union to retreat. Wakeman’s final battle occurred at Monett’s Bluff in late April. Shortly after, she found herself extremely ill. When Sarah Wakeman died on June 19, 1864, she died with the secret that she was actually a woman. Thanks to her family members who preserved her letters from the battlefield, however, Wakeman’s memory lives on.

Women in the Confederate Army

Although women in the Confederate army fought to preserve a morally-bankrupt institution, their stories remain important, at least from a historical standpoint. Their experiences illuminate the prominence of misogyny in the Antebellum, Civil War, and Reconstruction eras, and their rejection of gender roles proves worthy of examination.

One woman who disguised herself to fight for the Confederates was Lieutenant Loreta Janeta Velazquez. With Texas’s 1861 secession from the United States, Velazquez felt inspired to join the Confederate army with her husband. However, he refused to aid her in the enlistment process, so she adopted the name Harry T. Buford and joined the army anyway.

Velazquez then embarked on an eventful journey as a disguised soldier, even declaring herself a lieutenant and personally commanding a regiment. However, she ultimately abandoned this post and joined the Confederates in the Battle of Bull Run and the Battle of Ball’s Bluff. Shortly after her brush with combat, Velazquez abandoned the battlefield and served as a spy for the Confederacy. Because of the information she provided to them, they allowed her to join the detective corps.

Unsatisfied with her role as a spy, Velazquez joined a regiment in Tennessee and participated in the Battle of Fort Donelson, where she sustained a foot injury that prompted her to return to New Orleans. In New Orleans, authorities arrested her and accused her of spying for the Union. While Velazquez avoided those charges, she was reprimanded for impersonating a man and eventually released. To rejoin the Confederacy, she traveled back to Tennessee and found the regiment that she originally commanded. Together, they fought in the Battle of Shiloh, where Velazquez experienced an injury that required medical attention. Doctors quickly realized that she was a woman, meaning this injury symbolized the end of her journey as a soldier.

Intent on contributing to the war effort, Velazquez once again served as a spy for the Confederate army, and she later wrote her memoir, The Woman in Battle: A Narrative of the Exploits, Adventures, and Travels of Madame Loreta Janeta Velazquez, Otherwise Known as Lieutenant Harry T. Buford, Confederate States Army. According to historians, the information in this text remains contested, though it certainly contains some historical merit.

Conclusion

These accounts illustrate a new reality of life during the Civil War. Yes, women overarchingly remained in the domestic sphere and occupied a lower position than men, but some individuals refused to conform. Private Sarah Rosetta Wakeman and Lieutenant Loreta Janeta Velazquez are just a couple of women who, despite their gender, greatly influenced the sociopolitical landscape of a country torn apart by war.

What do you think of female soldiers in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

Further Reading

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-women-who-fought-in-the-civil-war-1402680/ 

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-1.html 

​​https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/sarah-rosetta-wakeman 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/loreta-janeta-velazquez 

The Industrial Revolution: Shaping American History

The Industrial Revolution was a time of great change in America, and it had many important and lasting impacts. Here, Andrew Kim considers some of the most important themes: inequality, the power of big companies, and gender issues.

A Ford Model-T assembly line in the early 20th century.

After the Civil War came the Industrial Revolution, which changed the way that America functioned in many ways. Before this time period, the majority of Americans lived more localized lives, producing much of their own food and goods. However, with the rise of industrialization, people began moving away from farms and into cities. Along with the rise of industrialization came the rise of big corporations and businesses, which took advantage of people working these new factory jobs. People were paid little and had very poor working conditions. Because pay was so low, many women and children also worked in these factories. This led to the emergence of reform movements to improve the quality of American life. By 1920, these movements achieved better working conditions for the working class, supervision of business typhoons, and monumental strides in women’s rights.

Inequality

With the rise of industrialization came the growing gap between the rich and poor. While the rich indulged in elaborate and excessive riches, the working class suffered some of the worst living and working conditions. The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, detailed these awful working and living conditions through the experiences of a man named Jurgis, who worked in a meat packing factory. Almost everyone in Jurgis’s family was forced to work, often from early morning to late at night in hazardous conditions without any breaks. Clara Lemlich, also an author and women’s rights activist, brought attention to this issue in an article she wrote about the conditions of a shirtwaist factory, stating that the young girls that worked there would work a total of 13 hours with only a half an hour break. Under these working conditions, it is no surprise that many people died in factories. And not only were these working conditions terrible, but after work, many people would come home to poor living conditions as well, furthering mortality rates. Jacob Rilis, a Danish-American journalist and social activist, documented these poor living conditions in a photograph he took of two newsboys sleeping fully clothed on the ground of the pressroom where they worked. In the end, these people and countless other reformers and activists would bring enough attention to the issue to bring about reform laws for workers, including minimum wage, industrial accident insurance, child labor restrictions, and improved factory regulation.

Industrialization also made big companies extremely influential and powerful, and they were often able to avoid regulation by the government, often by making deals with corrupt government officials. Andrew Carnegie, a mogul of the steel industry, negotiated a deal with the railroad companies in order to lessen transportation costs, which angered farmers. Many people saw how corporations could influence the government and were motivated to do something about it. People began advocating that railroads and banks be operated by the government instead of private corporations, because they were services of the people, and not big businesses. Reformers used many different methods to limit the power that corporations had over the government including referendums, primary elections, and recalls. Eventually in 1913, the 17th amendment was passed, stating that each state would have 2 senate votes, and each senator could hold office for six years. Because of the efforts of the reformers and activists, people were able to regain their voice in government and prevent corporations from taking over.

Gender

In the late 1800s, there was a big inequality gap between men and women; women lacked the human rights that men had, and were treated as lower than men. Women were not allowed a voice in almost every aspect of life, from government, to home life, to religion, to education. Elizabeth Stanton, a women’s rights reformer, advocated for women's rights by detailing the limitations women faced in the Declaration of Sentiments in 1846, which was largely ridiculed after its release. However, by the 1900s, the purposes and plans of the National Women’s Association were represented by 26 states, and in places like Alabama, more and more women sought an education, as written in the Southern Workman, monthly journal published by the Hampton Institute Press. In the 1920s, women celebrated a huge victory with the signing of the 19th Amendment, which legalized women’s suffrage.

The Industrial Revolution was a time of great change in America. With the tremendous growth of large corporations and subsequent government corruption came the necessity for regulation and reform for the protection of the rights of the American people, which perhaps brought to light the question of women’s rights. These movements certainly shaped the trajectory of American society for years to come, and also made way for future revolutions and reform, including the Civil Rights Movement.

What do you think of the American Industrial Revolution? Let us know below.

Quack Doctors Throughout History

Throughout history, the idea of using fake cures to prevent and treat disease has thrived on the fears, vulnerabilities and a lack of scientific knowledge of the public.  A quack doctor was historically a figure intending on deceiving their customers and patients, for profit, with no skill, knowledge or equipment of the medical world, but claimed their wares could cure and treat illnesses. The reasons why these fake and unreliable treatments thrived are not as clear-cut as it appears. For example, some individuals today may seek out these quacks after desperation from not gaining support from medical professionals, their religious beliefs or superstitions and curiosity for less clinical treatments for their conditions.

Amy Chandler explains.

The Quack Doctor, a 17th century painting by Jan Victors.

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is no exception to the rise of quack cures, treatments and ways to prevent catching the virus. Despite our society's advancement in medicine, science and technology, the same human fear and vulnerabilities prevail, such as a desire to take control of the situation. Many quack theories emerged during the pandemic suggesting drinking hot water and lemon or smoking as effective prevention. This article explores the rise of quack doctors throughout British history, with a particular focus on eighteenth-century medicine, and its impact on public health.

The rise of fake doctors and medicines

During the eighteenth century, the prospects of surviving over the age of forty for many poor and working class individuals were low. Treatments and surgery were dangerous and painful, especially with no antiseptics and anaesthetics. The rise of the industrial revolution in Great Britain, 1750 to 1850, caused a large number of people to travel to major cities like London to find better employment and improve social status. However, the reality was depressing, poverty-stricken and disease-ridden. Diseases including cholera, typhus and smallpox made death a regular occurrence. Many women did not survive childbirth due to infection and unsanitary hospitals, and if the child did survive birth, it was estimated that one in five infants died before their second birthday.(1) The streets in London were filled with rubbish, rotting food, rats and fleas, contaminated drinking water and poor living conditions that contributed to high mortality rates. Medical knowledge during this time focused on Hippocrates’ theory of the Four Humours and was later expanded by Galen. This theory suggested that the human body had four elements connected to the seasons. The elements were blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm. A healthy lifestyle and body meant these elements were in balance, and unbalanced humours caused illness because the body had too much of one humour. Treatments for unbalanced humours included bloodletting. Furthermore, the access to medical treatments provided by doctors was expensive for the working classes, meaning many poorer individuals resorted to consulting barber-surgeons for treatments, such as pulling teeth, amputation and blood-letting through leeches. Due to these dangerous and unsuccessful treatments, many poorer members of society would seek other forms of treatment. The rise of self-treatment and traditional remedies from apothecaries created an opportunity for quack doctors to provide miracle, cure-all medicines.

The reaction throughout Europe towards quack doctors, 'quackery' as many referred to the practice, was mixed and resentful amongst professional medical doctors, who valued science rather than superstition. Many members of the general public were quick to be drawn into the allure of quack cures and lacked the knowledge to condemn them as fake. The Buckingham Express, 1892, reported riots in Russia by peasants who attacked Russian doctors who were medically trained and favoured the quack doctors instead. This report suggested the reaction of the peasants to show “clear widespread superstition in the country” that felt more comfortable with spiritualism rather than science.  An example of a popular cure for fever was called “frogs and fright” and it was said that it was unknown if this method killed more than cure, but “it has its advantages, as it must do one or the other”.(2) This is an example of medicines and treatments not having scientific evidence but still having an impact by coincidence or a psychosomatic effect.

Furthermore, an account by Mr G A Brine, reported in the Charity Organisation Reporter, 1875, described his employment as an assistant to a quack doctor. Brine met the unnamed ‘doctor’ when sharing the same accommodation and asked if he was willing to "easily earn a couple of shillings".(3) Brine, being a “pauper in Sherborne workhouse”, accepted this offer gratefully, without much thought of what the work entailed. The next day Brine and the elusive ‘doctor’ visited the marketplace in the afternoon while the doctor was selling “virtues of his infallible medicines”, Brine played an important role in this performance to help sell the medicines. Brine was given money by the vendor to pretend to purchase “half-a-dozen boxes of the pills” and announced that he and others had “derived immense benefits from their use” and claimed he could never be without this medicine.

This account of what it was like to work with a fake doctor highlights that it's not just the customers who are fooled into buying fake medicine, but those who were involved in the practice.  Accomplices are motivated by money and the disadvantages of their socioeconomic living and working conditions. Brine is an example of an individual who worked in a workhouse, was poor and had no means of gaining money or moving beyond his social status. The allure of this mystery quack doctor offered Brine a way to earn decent money and survive at the expense of the customers. While Brine takes no responsibility for his involvement in fooling the general public, he described his involvement as a “tool at the hands of others”.(4) This idea emphasises how the key to success for many ‘doctors’ was the way they manipulated the public and played on their fears, vulnerabilities, socioeconomic situation and lack of knowledge, as a performance that drew others into the lie.

Brine was employed in the business and earned a substantial wage from his role in selling at the marketplace and collecting the ingredients for the pills and medicines. These pills were ready-made and coated with finely ground sugar and flour, dried and placed in ready-made pillboxes. This concoction was marketed as ‘American Sugar Coated pills’ containing vegetables and did not contain mercury or other poisonous substances that medically trained doctors prescribed. In some ways, the fake medicine was less dangerous than some professionally prescribed pills, as it did not contain substances like mercury. The quack doctor was skilled enough to fool various villages across England but was a “greater fool” than Brine, as he “could not read a paragraph in a newspaper, and could scarcely write his own name”.(5) This observation by Brine praises how despite having no formal education, there was skill in seeing an opportunity to benefit them.

Successful quack doctors

Many quack doctors throughout history have been called out for their fake cures and lack of medical qualifications, while a few have successfully managed to fool royalty with their miracle cures. The performance of a quack gained advantageous alliances, such as the press, with many selling their concoctions on press property and sharing the profits.(6)

Other quack doctors used the press to advertise their miracle drugs, such as Chevalier Ruspini in 1826. Historians have discovered that Ruspini was trained as a surgeon but decided to branch off into dentistry in 1758, but dentistry was not seen as a respectable career. Ruspini created an image as a surgeon dentist specialising in treatments for illnesses relating to teeth and gums. Ruspini printed an advertisement in the Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser on 31 May 1826, which “begs to inform the Nobility, Gentry and the public that he [Ruspini] has appointed Mr Charles Butler […] agent for the sale of his medicines”.(7)  This treatment was called “Dentifrice and Tincture for beautifying and preserving the teeth and gums, and fastening those teeth that are loose”.(8) The advertisement also continues by suggesting the authenticity of the product is only guaranteed by Ruspini’s name engraved onto the government stamp attached to each bottle. It is ironic that Ruspini was concerned about fake and counterfeit versions of his medicines, but implied that customers should be wary of buying fake goods. While Ruspini is regarded as completing medical qualifications, he blurs the truth with embellishments to disguise his dentistry with surgery.

In comparison, Doctor Joshua Ward, in 1733, built a reputation as a noble and miracle curer of all ailments and had a brief career in politics as an MP. Early in Ward’s career, he moved to work in Paris and developed his popular and successful Ward’s Pills and Ward’s Drops, which caused harmful side effects, such as violent sweating.(9) By 1733 he returned to England and created the successful and popular ‘Friar’s Balsams’. Due to Ward’s success, he became a recommended figure among high-ranking officials such as Lord Chief Justice Reynolds and General John Churchill. Ward’s credibility became secured when King George II sprained his thumb and called upon Ward for the “purpose of setting his majesty’s sprained thumb”.(10) It is uncertain whether Ward’s medicines were effective, but while he was attending to King George II, the King recovered, and this secured Ward’s reputation as a doctor and acquired wealthy patients. There are reports that Ward was awarded the thanks by the House of Commons and was given permission to drive his carriage through St James’s park. Endorsement from the King protected Ward from public criticism from the college of physicians.(11)

The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London displays a statue of Ward in their collection. This statue housed in the V&A was for Ward’s grave located at Westminster Abbey, and after his death in 1761, he was given an ostentatious funeral.(12) Ward’s legacy as a successful doctor overshadows the truth behind his fake cures with generally lethal side effects, but he is also noted for his philanthropic nature, such as building hospitals for the poor and generous financial donations.(13)

Parliamentary reaction

Parliament in Great Britain during the eighteenth century attempted to regulate and prevent toxic medicines from being sold to the general public by quack doctors and medically untrained merchants. As the selling and advertising of toxic, fake medicines became more frequent, Lord John Cavendish, Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided to pass the 1783 Medicine Stamp Duty tax to regulate the medicine trade by unqualified entrepreneurs and raise money.(14) This tax required all medicine sellers to purchase an annual licence, and a stamp to be attached to the packaging to show the duty had been paid. Specific groups were exempt from paying duty and licences, for example, respected professions, such as surgeons, military medical professionals and physicians. However, this tax targeted the individual that sold the medicine rather than the harmfulness of the product. This tax also did not produce as much revenue as predicted. In 1875, the tax was redefined and required every medicinal seller to pay tax on medicine, regardless of status and qualifications, and specific ingredients were taxed more than others.(15) This Act was a start toward regulating the work of quack doctors, but it would take many more centuries until the stricter regulation of medicine.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the rise of quack medicine claimed to cure all, prevent and treat disease, reached a peak in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Parliamentary action to regulate and manage the growing number of opportunists and entrepreneurs, who fooled the general public with their performance and allure of the exotic. The success of many quack doctors was the mystery, price and feeding on fears, vulnerabilities and lack of medical and scientific knowledge of the customer and patient. Furthermore, the accessibility of these fake medicines claiming to cure, prevent and treat all diseases was easy to access through marketplaces and shops instead of the path of a physician’s advice and prescription. The cost of a physician was not always accessible to the working and poorer classes, but the opportunity for self-treatment with miracle cures held a lot of appeal. In society today, the regulation of medicine and who can prescribe these are much stricter and ensures the health and safety of the patient. However, there are always opportunities for fake and ineffective products to surface and requires the consumer to be aware of what they buy.

What do you think of quack doctors? Let us know below.

Now read Amy’s article on the Great Stench in 19th century London here.

References

1 M. White, ‘Health, Hygiene and the rise of ‘Mother Gin’ in the 18th Century’, 2009, British Library < https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain/articles/health-hygiene-and-the-rise-of-mother-gin-in-the-18th-century >[accessed 1 October 2022].

2 Buckingham Express, ‘Quack Cures’, Buckingham Express (20 August 1892).

3 G. A. Brine, ‘ Confessions Of A Quack Doctor’, The British Medical Journal, vol. 2 (1875),pp.111-112.

4 Ibid.,p. 112.

5 Ibid.,p. 112.

6 A. Teal, ‘The art of medicine - Quacks and hacks: Georgian medicine and the power of advertising’, The Lancet, vol. 383 (2014),p.404.

7 ‘Chevalier Ruspini’s Medicines’, 31 May 1826, Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser.

8 Ibid.

9 Science Museum Group, ‘Joshua Ward 1684 – 1761’, 2022, Science Museum Group < https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/people/cp119760/joshua-ward >[accessed on 23 September 2022].

10 W. Sydney, England and the English in the eighteenth century (London, Ward & Downey, 1891), p,309.

11 Ibid.

12 Westminster Abbey, ‘Joshua Ward’, Westminster Abbey, 2022 <  https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/joshua-ward >[accessed on 23 September 2022].

13 Science Museum Group., op.cit.

14 C. Stebbings, ‘Chapter 8: Tax and Quacks: The policy of the Eighteenth Century Medicine Stamp Duty’ in: Tiley J, ed., Studies in the History of Tax Law, vol. 6 (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013) < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK293691/ >.

15 Ibid.

Bibliography

‘Chevalier Ruspini’s Medicines’, 31 May 1826, Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser.

Brine, G. A. ‘ Confessions Of A Quack Doctor’, The British Medical Journal, vol. 2,no.760, July., 1875, pp. 111-112.

Buckingham Express, ‘Quack Cures’, Buckingham Express (20 August 1892).

Science Museum Group, ‘Joshua Ward 1684 – 1761’, 2022, Science Museum Group < https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/people/cp119760/joshua-ward >.

Stebbings, C. ‘Chapter 8: Tax and Quacks: The policy of the Eighteenth Century Medicine Stamp Duty’ in: Tiley J, ed., Studies in the History of Tax Law, vol. 6 (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013) < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK293691/ >.

Sydney, W. England and the English in the eighteenth century (London, Ward & Downey, 1891).

Teal, A, ‘The art of medicine - Quacks and hacks: Georgian medicine and the power of advertising’, The Lancet, vol. 383, Feb., 2014,pp. 404-405.

Westminster Abbey, ‘Joshua Ward’, Westminster Abbey, 2022 <  https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/joshua-ward >.

White, M. ‘Health, Hygiene and the rise of ‘Mother Gin’ in the 18th Century’, 2009, British Library < https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain/articles/health-hygiene-and-the-rise-of-mother-gin-in-the-18th-century >.

Haunted Histories in 5 American Towns

History is everywhere - even in ghost stories. Every town has their local tales of ghostly happenings. They are passed on from person to person through generations. Many cities have ghost tours that squire people around to buildings, homes and parks in their area. These tours tell of paranormal activity and strange experiences. Everyone loves to be scared a little. But behind all ghost stories is history. The history of real people, real places and real events.

Ghost tours are a great way to learn local history that may not be in history books or even on the internet. Whether you believe in ghost stories or not, there is so much history to be gleaned from them. This history can allow us to see our cities with new eyes. Here are five American towns and some of their haunted history.

Angie Grandstaff explains.

Ichabod pursued by the Headless Horseman, a depiction from the 1820 book The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Irving Washington.

The Oldest City - St. Augustine, Florida

Facts about St. Augustine:

• It was the first permanent European settlement in America. Established in 1565

• It was burnt to the ground by Sir Francis Drake in 1586 but was rebuilt

• The Castillo de San Marcos was a fort constructed in 1672 to help defend against attacks

• It is the home of the oldest wooden schoolhouse in America

The oldest city has many local ghost stories. Its black and white striped lighthouse is supposedly haunted by several specters. The St. Augustine lighthouse opened in 1874. Many caretakers lived and worked here. This historic lighthouse has many spooky stories associated with it including a man seen walking up and down the spiral staircase. He is dressed in a blue jacket and mariner’s cap. Visitors say they smell cigar smoke although it is a smoke free building. Some people think it is either lighthouse caretakers, William Russel or Joseph Andreu. Joseph Andreu fell to his death while painting the lighthouse in 1859. A woman has been seen by visitors on the catwalk looking down. Locals say it is the ghostly specter of Andreu’s wife looking at where her husband’s body must have lain after his deathly fall. His wife, Maria Mestre de Los Dolores, took Joseph’s job after he died. She was the first woman to serve in the Coast Guard and the first Hispanic American woman to command a federal shore installation. This was a huge achievement at the time.

The Casablanca Inn, formerly The Matanzas Hotel, is a historic hotel with a waterfront view and ghostly residents. Many locals and visitors have reported seeing a female apparition waving a lantern or just a waving light at night in a window or on the roof. The story behind this starts in the early 1900’s. The Casablanca Inn was a popular hangout spot for smugglers. A Ms. Bradshaw owned the hotel and was struggling to stay afloat during Prohibition. So, she took advantage of her smuggler connections and her prime location near the ocean to make some money. Ms. Bradshaw worked with bootleggers by giving them a place to store their illegal alcohol and being their local lookout. She would wave a lantern at a window on the second floor at night to signal bootleggers. This would let them know the coast was all clear for them to come ashore with their illegal spirits. This Inn saw several dangerous characters and shady happenings. A woman, possibly Ms. Bradshaw herself, and a child have been seen floating around the Inn. There are other stories of disembodied voices and misty fogs from customers and staff.      

Historic Harbor Town - Charleston, South Carolina

Facts about Charleston:

• It was named Charles Town after King Charles II

• It is estimated that 40% of enslaved Africans arrived in North America through Charleston’s harbor

• It was devastated by an earthquake in 1886

• It is nicknamed the Holy City for its tolerance of all religions

Charleston has spooky happenings all over the city particularly in its oldest building, The Old Exchange. There are many accounts of hearing screams and moans of pain coming from the bottom floor of this building. Chains still on the walls of the bottom floor have been seen to swing on their own. The sound of clinking chains has been heard by visitors and workers. Ghostly apparitions in Revolutionary War clothes have been seen roaming the building. There must be some interesting history behind these stories. The Old Exchange was built in 1771. It served as a public marketplace and custom house. Slave auctions were held here as well. So, what happened on the bottom floor of this building? Turns out it was used by the British during the American Revolution as a prison and was known as the Provost Dungeon. Prisoners were chained to the walls and left to die. Conditions were horrendous and prisoners were treated cruelly. Many prisoners waited for their execution in this dungeon including pirates and Revolutionary War traitors. The infamous Stede Bonnet, a gentleman pirate, was captured and held with his crew in this prison until their executions. 

Charleston had another prison called the Old City Jail. This jail was built in 1802 and was used until 1939. Among its prisoners were pirates, Civil War prisoners and a woman considered the first female serial killer in America, Lavinia Fisher. Fisher and her husband John owned a local inn. They drugged and murdered travelers who stayed with them. Husband and wife were eventually convicted and spent their final days in the Old City Jail. Lavinia went to the hangman’s noose reportedly saying, “If you have a message for the devil, give it to me and I’ll carry it”. Many inmates died in this jail from mistreatment, disease and starvation. Not surprisingly, there have been stories from visitors and locals about strange happenings. Stories about objects moving, whispering voices and slamming doors are just the beginning for this jail. When the building was closed for renovation in 2000, workers encountered a ghostly jailer who ran at them before disappearing and footsteps in the dust of a sealed off area.

The Legendary Sleepy Hollow

Facts about Sleepy Hollow:

• It has a long history dating back to the 1600s

• There have been witches, mad monks, Revolutionary War traitors and pirates connected to this little village

• The great American ghost story, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, written by Sleepy Hollow resident, Washington Irving

• The Sleepy Hollow Cemetery is the final resting place for many historical figures such as Andrew Carnegie, Washington Irving, Elizabeth Arden, Rockefeller family members and the Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley

This sleepy Dutch village is the home of the Headless Horseman and a spooky cemetery. One of the cemetery’s spookiest residents is the Bronzed Lady. Locals have many tales involving the bronze statue of a woman who sits outside the mausoleum of Samuel Thomas. Many believe the Bronzed Lady can curse you if you touch her. She has been heard weeping by many. Some residents have stories of touching her face and feeling wet tears. The history behind these ghostly encounters starts with millionaire and Civil War General, Samuel Thomas. Thomas died in 1903 and was laid to rest in a mausoleum in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery. His widow, Ann, wanted something to place outside the mausoleum to further commemorate her husband’s life so she commissioned sculptor, Andrew O’Connor Jr., to create a bronze sculpture. The sculptor created a huge bronze statue of a woman sitting. Ann felt the woman’s face was too sad and downcast. She asked for something happier. O’Connor created a new head which pleased Ann but the temperamental artist smashed it to pieces and used the original more downcast head. The sculpture was still placed outside her husband’s mausoleum.  

Another historic haunt is Sunnyside, the home of Washington Irving. It is visited by thousands of tourists every year. Irving moved into this home in 1835. He was America’s first celebrity author, and his home was in magazines and guidebooks while he lived there. His four nieces lived with him and ran the household. This home saw many notable visitors and lively meetings with Irving and his literary friends. Irving died at Sunnyside in his bedroom in 1859. Visitors and workers have claimed to witness paranormal activity in the house and on the grounds. There have been photographs taken with ghostly images appearing in them. Visitors have said they felt pinched while touring the house and ghostly apparitions of young women have been seen tidying the home. Could these young women be Washington’s nieces?

Georgia’s Oldest City - Savannah, Georgia

Facts about Savannah:

• Savannah became the first planned city. It was laid out in a grid pattern with wide streets and public squares

• Savannah has been devastated by several fires and yellow fever epidemics

• The Girl Scouts were founded by Savannah resident, Juliette Gordon Low

• The famous bus stop scene from the movie Forrest Gump was filmed in Savannah

One of Savannah’s oldest buildings is The Pirate House. It is now a busy restaurant but it started as an inn and tavern built around 1753. The inn was frequented by pirates. There are tales of underground tunnels that led to the Savannah River. Pirates supposedly kidnapped drunk men and forced them into service as crew members on their ships. This inn was so famous for its pirate clientele that author Robert Louis Stevenson used it as a setting in his book, Treasure Island. There are many accounts of ghostly apparitions moving through the building. Visitors post pictures online of these ghosts looking out through the windows. Employees have seen the ghost of a menacing sailor and hear footsteps when they are alone in the building.

Savannah has a couple famous cemeteries including the Colonial Park Cemetery. It is the oldest in the city established in 1750. It is called the most haunted place in the city. Reports of mysterious sounds, shadowy figures, green mists and a man hanging from a tree have been given by locals and visitors. What is the history that could lead to these eerie tales? This cemetery has many mass graves from those times when yellow fever hit the city. Savannah dealt with many yellow fever epidemics because of the swampy areas that were breeding grounds for the mosquitos who transmitted it. Another spooky aspect of this cemetery is the fact that voodoo cemeteries were held there at night. Human bones would sometimes be used in these ceremonies which makes a cemetery ideal as a setting. The hanging man apparition may be Rene Rondolier who supposedly lived in Savannah during the early 1800's. Rondolier was accused of murdering a young girl and was lynched by locals in the Colonial Park Cemetery in 1821.    

Queen City - Cincinnati, Ohio

Facts about Cincinnati:

• It was known as the “Queen City of the West” because it served as a stopping point for many settlers heading West

• It was also known as “Porkopolis” because it was a major pork processing center in the early 1800s

• In 1880, there were 1800 saloons in the city

• It has three miles of an abandoned subway beneath its streets

Cincinnati has many haunted places including the beautiful Eden Park. This park started as a vineyard but was bought by the city in 1869. The lands held a reservoir for the city at one point and a famous gazebo was built there in 1904. There are several stories from locals about seeing a ghostly female dressed all in black around the gazebo and nearby Mirror Lake at dawn or dusk. Photographs showing a shadowy figure have been shared. What could be behind the woman in black? Many think the woman in black is Imogene Remus. Imogene was the wife of George Remus, the King of Bootleggers. George was a former lawyer who created a very successful bootlegging operation in Cincinnati until he was arrested for tax evasion in 1925. While George was in prison, Imogene filed for divorce. After his release the couple headed to court on October 6, 1927. George had his cab follow Imogene’s car and drove her off the road in front of the gazebo in Eden Park. Imogene and her daughter were in the car. George fatally shot Imogene. George represented himself in court and successfully used the plea of temporary insanity.     

The Cincinnati Music Hall was built in 1878. This Victorian Gothic style building is the musical center for the city and is known to be one of the most haunted buildings in America. Security guards, conductors and other employees have given many accounts of paranormal activity. Soldiers have been seen walking around as well as children in period dress. Music is heard playing in the middle of the night along with doors opening and closing, knocking throughout the building. What happened here that would lead to all these stories? It turns out the land that the Music Hall is built on was once the grounds for a Lunatic and Orphan Asylum as well as a ‘plague house’ with a pauper’s cemetery attached. A plague or pest house was where those afflicted with communicable diseases were treated. The plague house was moved and a military hospital was established during the Civil War. Whenever this land has been excavated or building renovated hundreds of pounds of human bones have been unearthed. The most recent renovation in 2017 led to the discovery of more human remains.      

What do you think of these haunted histories? Let us know below.

Now read Angie’s article on 5 of the oldest breweries in the USA here.

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

Resources

St. Augustine

https://www.legendsofamerica.com/fl-staugustine/

https://ghostcitytours.com/st-augustine/haunted-places/st-augustine-lighthouse/

https://ghostcitytours.com/st-augustine/haunted-places/casablanca-inn/

Charleston

https://www.legendsofamerica.com/sc-charleston/

https://www.oldexchange.org/highlights

https://www.scpictureproject.org/charleston-county/old-city-jail.html

Sleepy Hollow

https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/discover-sleepy-hollow-ny/pages/history-of-the-village

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/10/25/sleepy-hollow-ghosts-bronze-lady-new-york/6175251001/

https://www.haunted-places-to-go.com/sleepy-hollow.html

https://visitingamuseum.com/2019/11/09/washington-irvings-sunnyside-3-west-sunnyside-lane-irvington-ny-10533/

Savannah 

https://www.visitsavannah.com/article/history-savannah

https://www.southernbellevacationrentals.com/blog/attractions/pirate-secrets-savannah-coast#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Navy%20acquired%20the,an%20inn%20for%20visiting%20sailors.

https://www.travelchannel.com/destinations/us/ga/savannah/articles/haunted-savannah

https://ghostcitytours.com/savannah/haunted-places/colonial-park-cemetery/

Cincinnati

http://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cincinnati,_Ohio

https://cincinnatipreservation.org/haunted-spring-house-gazebo-in-eden-park/

https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/ohio/hauntingly-beautiful-music-hall-oh/

The First Sino-Japanese War: Imperialism at its Worst?

The annexation of territories has always been a prominent way of exhibiting any empire's stature and power. After all, a kingdom becomes an empire only when it acquires dominance over a considerable expanse of land. Many lives are, and have been, lost when conflict arises regarding matters of expansion. When two powers like China and Japan clash over the same piece of land, it's the perfect recipe for a disaster.

Here, Disha Mule explains the First Sino-Japanese War.

A depiction of the Battle of the Yalu River in 1894. By Kobayashi Kiyochika.

Qing China and Meiji Japan

Bureaucracy can weaken even the strongest foundation. Qing China was no stranger to that fact. It became noticeable with the military's incompetence in their Burmese and Vietnamese operations and caused hindrance in proper governance(1). In addition to that, the 1860 occupation of Peking by the British and French invoked hatred in the Chinese public. They started holding the ruling dynasty responsible for all the ill-happenings in the state. The people were immensely dissatisfied with the administration and many conspired to overthrow the Qings, also known as the Manchus, and establish a rule like that of the Hans.

As a result many rebellions broke out during the late eighteenth century. One of the more popular uprisings was the White Lotus Rebellion. An attempt at recovery from the losses caused by these uprisings, called the Tongzhi Restoration, was made. But the government could not restore the disrupted order to its earlier state(2).

The Opium Wars were an important factor in the decline of the Qing dynasty. An 'opium infestation' plagued China as the military and government officials started consuming the drug. In the year 1884 alone, around 81,000 chests of opium were imported in China; whereas the amount was only 1,000 chests in 1773(3). Given the state of these officials, it should not come as a surprise that the Daoguang emperor himself was a fan of opium(4). With the increase in these new difficulties, the continuous anti-dynastic rebellions and the failure of the system, Qing China was already losing its supremacy by the end of the Second Opium War.

Japan, on the other hand, was undergoing major modernization. Earlier, the military generals called shoguns oversaw the functioning of the state while the emperor had no powers. Later, the feudal system would be replaced by an oligarchy, the Tokugawa shogunate would be replaced and pave the way for an imperial state. While some of the measures were exploitative in nature, the educational system flourished during this period. With the increasing literacy rate, the Japanese set the wheels in motion for industrialization. This was called the Meiji Restoration.

Korea

China and Japan have a long history of enmity in which Korea was trapped as the battleground. The Chinese attacks on Japan in the thirteenth century and the attempts made by Japan to invade China were via Korea(5). Then again there were the coal and iron resources and the strategic location of Korea that attracted invaders(6).

Korea was an agrarian society. Agriculture was a top priority. The land was the property of the government and peasants did not care much for politics. However, the land ownership system started deteriorating once foreign powers intervened. The Russians arrived in 1860 and the British in 1861(7). The coming of foreign powers began a struggle for control over Korea and the animosity between two of them was almost palpable. Who were they? Japan and China.

To understand how both states wanted to consolidate power in the Korean Peninsula, the French missionaries in Korea are worth mentioning. In 1855, Siméon Berneux, the third Bishop of Korea arrived. The number of French priests would go on increasing after his arrival. China promoted tolerance towards Christianity in Korea which was then a Chinese protectorate. Most of the missionary activities that were limited to China till the 1860s started in Korea. The occupation of Peking by the British and the French along with the treaties of Tientsin (Tianjin) and Peking gave free reins for the spread of the religion(8). The topic might seem irrelevant for now, because what does this have to do with a war? This would be explained further in the article. Let's see what was happening in Japan.

Japanese newspapers relentlessly wrote about how Japan was the only civilized country in Asia on par with the West and how conservative Qing China was(9). One newspaper published an essay called "Japanese Soldiers Must Demonstrate Their Power to the World" which explicitly said that Japan should go on a war with China and Korea to display its military might(10). In 1884, Japan also supported the Gapsin coup which attempted to bring about reforms in Korea which was still under China's shadow. After the failure of the coup, the Treaty of Tianjin was signed in 1885 which made it mandatory for Japan and China to notify the other when either of them took military action(11).

The Tonghak Rebellion

The Tonghak (or Donghak) Rebellion was one of the triggers that started the first Sino-Japanese War. Tonghak was a religion that wanted to see the flourishing of "Eastern Learning" - the literal meaning of the name. The promotion of Christianity and the onslaught of Europeans on their land, mentioned in the previous section, had the entire Korean state in turmoil. In the light of the inefficient rule of the monarch, the revolt got enthusiastic support as they saw the religion as a way to establish their identity.

As the movement grew stronger and spread like wildfire throughout the entire state, the Korean crown asked for help from China. Chinese troops arrived in Korea in 1894. The Japanese saw this as a violation of the the Treaty of Tianjin, also known as the Li-Ito Convention, and sent their own troops.

On August 1, 1894, war was declared and both the armies clashed at sea in Asan striking the final match.

Japanese Victory

The two states fought for nine long months before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed which stated that Korea would be a Japanese protectorate(12). The bloody war resulted in China giving up territories like Taiwan and Liaodong Peninsula. It was also agreed that China would give certain privileges to Japanese traders and pay for the huge war losses with 200 million taels of silver(13).

The modernization of Japan was a major factor in their victory. The war was mostly fought at sea and the foresighted Japanese state had definitely benefited from an advanced navy, thanks to the Meiji Restoration. China, however, had used its naval funds for updating the Beijing's Summer Palace under Empress Cixi's orders(14).

The world saw the war as Japan's attempt at joining the European and American powers as a modernized country(15). The end of Chinese influence made it easy for Korea to be a Japanese colony, which it eventually became in 1910.

Even if the matter seemed to be settled for the time being, China and Japan would go on to fight again in 1937 - that would prove to be just a prelude to hard times that were yet to come.

What do you think of the First Sino-Japanese War? Let us know below.

Now read Disha’s article on the Hitler Youth here.

References

1 S.C.M. Paine, The First Sino-Japanese War: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 'The Decline of Order in China and Korea', 24

2 Ibid., 26

3 Peter C. Perdue, "The First Opium War - MIT Visualising Cultures", https://visualizingcultures.mit.edu/opium_wars_01/ow1_essay.pdf

4 Ibid.

5 Kallie Szczepanski, "The First Sino-Japanese War", thoughtco.com/first-sino-japanese-war-1894-95-195784

6 "First Sino-Japanese War", https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Sino-Japanese-War-1894-1895

7 Key Rey Chong, "The Tonghak Rebellion: Harbinger of Korean Nationalism", http://www.jstor.org/stable/23849478

8 Daniel C. Kane, "Bellonet and Roze: Overzealous Servants of Empire and the 1866 French Attack on Korea”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719212

9 Kyu Hyun Kim, 'The Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895): Japanese National Integration and Construction of the Korean “Other”'

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Szczepanski, "The First Sino-Japanese War"

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Douglas Howland, "Japan’s Civilized War: International Law as Diplomacy in the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895)." Journal of the History of International Law Revue d’histoire du droit international Volume 9, Number 2, (2007),  200

Bibliography

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "First Sino-Japanese War". Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Jul. 2022, https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Sino-Japanese-War-1894-1895

Chong, Key Ray. “The Tonghak Rebellion: Harbinger of Korean Nationalism.” Journal of Korean Studies (1969-1971), vol. 1, no. 1, 1969, pp. 73–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23849478

Howland, Douglas. "Japan’s Civilized War: International Law as Diplomacy in the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895)." Journal of the History of International Law Revue d’histoire du droit international Volume 9, Number 2 (2007): 179-201.

Kane, Daniel C. “Bellonet and Roze: Overzealous Servants of Empire and the 1866 French Attack on Korea.” Korean Studies, vol. 23, 1999, pp. 1–23. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719212

Kim, Kyu Hyun. 'The Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895): Japanese National

Integration and Construction of the Korean “Other”' International Journal of Korean History (Vol.17 No.1, Feb.2012).

Paine, S.C.M. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Perdue, Peter C. "The First Opium War - MIT Visualising Cultures" https://visualizingcultures.mit.edu/opium_wars_01/ow1_essay.pdf

Szczepanski, Kallie. "The First Sino-Japanese War". ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2020, thoughtco.com/first-sino-japanese-war-1894-95-195784.

Patterns, Processes, and People in History - And How they Come Back Around

History often repeats in itself in different ways. Here, Michael Cho gives his take on how patterns processes, and people interact - and come back around throughout history.

Washington Crossing the Delaware, an 1851 painting by Emanuel Leutze.

The study of history has altered my perspective of how and why the world in which I live changes the way that it does through repetition and influence. World history is a constant repetition of patterns of change with the constant rise and fall of different nations, rulers, and ideals. Through the repetitions in history, a deeper understanding of the basis and core of modern society can be found because of the constants that emerge. If history has a pattern, the constants revealed by history can also be the base of understanding of the present and the future in order to explain how and why change occurs. Ideas spark revolutions, single decisions spark war, and actions taken by one person can influence the world for generations to come. The study of history has allowed me to understand the world in which I live in because its patterns reveal the core constants that shape human interactions, allowing me to understand my society today through past societies.

Change can be measured in a pattern of repetition and influence since the beginning of known history. Decisions made affect future generations, nations are made with similar ideals and fall in the same manner, and revolutions inspire other revolutions. A perfect example of this were the Atlantic Revolutions taking place from the 1760s to the 1830s. The Atlantic Revolutions included the: American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, and the Revolutions in Latin America. These revolutions which were both fought on the same ideals and were also heavily influenced by each other with some of the revolutions possibly never having occurred without each other. America’s revolutions came from the Enlightenment, the spread of ideas in Europe which sparked the spread of ideas of liberty, freedom, and constitutional government, changes that would lead to human development and a better future.

American Revolution

The American Revolution was fought between the American colonies and the British over the long period between 1765 and 1791 and reveals the constant of geography in the overall ebb and flow of history. Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was largely fought due to the restrictions on free trade that grew out of the geographic advantages the American colonies possessed. The Americans wanted free trade, liberty, freedom, and constitutional government and the geographic distance from Great Britain afforded the colonists the opportunity to develop an independent existence and redefine their relationship. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” They thought these ideals were worth fighting for and signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776 and continued to fight for these ideals until the Treaty of Paris which declared the end of the revolutionary war was signed. This reveals how the influence of geography shapes society’s needs, wants, fears and desires, manifesting in the American desire for free trade as the nation moved literally and symbolically further away from the influence of Europe.

As geography shapes societies ambitions, the individuals who comprise that society begin to conceive of new ideas and perspectives to explain those motivations. The American Revolution heavily influenced the French Revolution and a lot of the grounds in which the French Revolution was fought for was a repetition of the American Revolution. French officials signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen which covered the same topics as the American Declaration of Independence. The first line of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, “1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good,” is a direct expression of the idea of individualism that was at the heart of the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence and redefined liberty and what was possible in a free society for French citizens.

When these French citizens then took action to change their world, the effects of this rippled across its colonial structures through the Haitian Constitution and the revolution of Latin America. Hearing about the end of slavery decreed by Napoleon Bonaparte around the completion of the French Revolution, the people of Haiti and Latin America decided to have their own revolution. Inspired by the previous revolutions and the Enlightenment ideas which had spread to these regions, the Haitians rebelled against the French monarchy and is remembered as the only successful slave-lead rebellion against the governing regime. In so doing, their Constitution applied those same rights to people of color, “There cannot exist slaves on this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French.” This entire ripple effect and process of change next inspired Latin American revolutions led by Simon Bolivar and reveals how geography and human nature interact to change the world.

Today’s world conflict seems unprecedented. War, pestilence, famine, and hate seems to ravage all corners of the Earth, it may seem as if these are unprecedented times. However, the patterns of change throughout history – geography and human nature – can help reveal that the world has endured these forces before and that positive change is possible, even through difficult times.

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

Spain in the New World: The Revolutionary Abdications of Bayonne

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at how the abdications of Bayonne in France led to chaos in Spain and then the start of revolutionary outcomes in South America.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later life and as a leader is here.

Joseph Bonaparte as King of Spain in 1808. He became King of Spain following the Abdications of Bayonne.

Napoleon Shackled to a Corpse

Trafalgar, 1805. The defeat of the combined Franco-Spanish fleet at the hands of Britain’s Lord Nelson. The most complete naval defeat of the 19th century. The end of Napoleon’s dream of invading Britain and finishing off Perfidious Albion once and for all. This defeat, despite being coupled with Napoleon’s most stupendous victory at Austerlitz, would lead to a chain of events that would see revolutionary independence movements erupt throughout the Western Hemisphere.

With no chance of invading Britain in the foreseeable future, Napoleon needed to reassess his strategy to defeat his primary geopolitical rival. If he could not defeat Britain on the battlefield, or at sea, then he could strike at the foundation of British strength: trade. Great Britain had nearly inexhaustible sources of wealth from controlling the world’s trade system. British merchants, ships, banks, and refined trading methods dominated the world. Being Europe’s merchant had made Britain fabulously wealthy, and thus able to fund a decades-long global war with Napoleon. Napoleon’s rationale was that if he could remove all of Europe as a British customer, then there would be nowhere for Britain to sell, and therefore, the country would go bankrupt. A bankrupt country could not continue fighting, what was in essence, a world war.

After his defeat of Prussia in 1806, Britain declared the European coastline from Brest, at the extreme western tip of France, to the mouth of the Elbe River to be under its naval blockade. Napoleon responded with his Berlin Decree, which forbade all commerce with the British Isles and declared a counter-blockade. All British goods and ships in any port of France or French ally were to be seized. Further, any ship from any nation that stopped in Britain before coming to the continent was also subject to seizure.

All of Napoleon’s allies officially accepted the Berlin Decree and embargoed trade with Great Britain. The European coastline is long, with many inlets and bays. Against a country with unquestioned sea control, it was impossible to prevent smuggling. All his allies quietly accepted smuggling to keep their economies running. This was especially true of Spain. The one spot in Western Europe that openly defied the Emperor was Portugal.

Portugal had been a British ally for hundreds of years. For the Emperor of the French, master of all between the Atlantic and the Vistula to be defied by the tiny King of Portugal was unacceptable. The country just had to be defeated. The road that began with the decision to blockade British commerce would lead to revolutions half a world away.

Godoy

Manuel Francisco Domingo de Godoy y Alvarez-Faria de los Rios y Sanchez-Zarzosa was one of history’s most notorious social climbers. Beginning his career as a military cadet in 1784, he would be made a Lieutenant General in 1791. When he was made a royal bodyguard after his time as a cadet, he was able to see firsthand the inner workings of the Spanish government. He was able to see how incredibly unintelligent and colossally incompetent King Carlos IV was. He saw that the true power behind the throne was Queen Maria Luisa. He knew the best way to achieve power in that situation. He was a handsome, dashing, and young army officer. The Queen was saddled with a stupid and indifferent husband. He knew what he had to do.

Godoy became the Queen’s lover sometime in 1788, while Charles was still the heir. It is unclear whether the King knew or cared whether Godoy was bedding his wife, but the results for Godoy were immediate. He was showered with titles and rocketed through the military ranks. By 1792, he became Prime Minister of the kingdom.

Graft and nepotism were the twin pillars of Godoy’s government. His family and friends received riches and titles through the influence of the Queen. Carlos, not interested in government or administration anyway, was more than happy to let Godoy do what he wanted. It was Godoy’s policy to tie Spain to the French. His calculation was that it was better to let the British threaten the empire rather than let the French threaten Spain itself.

Napoleon was a leader who liked to find out what motivated someone. Whether it was titles, riches, or glory, Napoleon would use that motivation to get his way. With Godoy, it was all three. Napoleon would join the Queen in showering Godoy with honors and money, in exchange for Godoy’s support for the continuance of the French alliance.

As the years passed, however, relations between the two allies would suffer. The destruction of the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar highlighted the impotence of Spanish military policy. While tied to France, there was zero chance for an independent foreign policy. Economically, Spain was in terrible shape. The richest source of wealth, its vast New World empire, was cut off by the Royal Navy. Napoleon, recognizing the atrophied state of the Spanish army, did not want Spanish troops anywhere near the battlefields of Central Europe. Instead, he would force contributions on Spain in the form of gold and cash to fund the Imperial war machine. Dissatisfaction and resistance to Godoy’s pro-French policy began to coalesce around one man, the man who hated King Carlos more than any other: the heir to the throne, Infante Ferdinand.

Ferdinand vs. Carlos

Relations between the king and his heir could not be any worse. Born in 1784, Ferdinand had been shut out of any power or decision-making authority by his father. Whether this decision was the king’s or Godoy’s is open for debate, but it had the effect of Ferdinand hating both men with an undying passion. Due to this strained relationship, the Infante would become the focus for all those who opposed Godoy’s (and the king’s) policies.

After the defeat at Trafalgar in 1805, Godoy began to realize that something had to change. Spain’s government at the time had little to fear from a displeased public. What they did have to fear was a displeased elite class. The day-to-day machinery keeping any government working has always been the elite class. When the elite turns against the government, the situation can become revolutionary very quickly (see Paris, 1789). Godoy, for all his nepotism and hedonism, was not a fool. He knew he had to do something.

In 1806, Napoleon, fresh off his victory over the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz, was at war again, this time against Prussia. Napoleon would be facing off against the vaunted legions Frederick the Great had left behind him, along with the rest of the Fourth Coalition. For Godoy, this was the perfect opportunity. He issued a bellicose proclamation which, while not naming France, was intended to be seen as a shot across Napoleon’s bow. It called for the Spanish people to unite against the enemy, though who that was was left unsaid. Godoy hoped that this would appease his enemies, and if Napoleon lost, Godoy would be able to finally stake out an independent policy for his government.

It only took a few weeks for Napoleon (and Marshal Davout) to crush the Prussians at the twin battles of Jena and Auerstädt. The proclamation was withdrawn rather quickly afterward. Godoy would inform his French friends that it was meant for domestic consumption only, and his friendship with the Emperor could never be questioned.

Napoleon was not amused. The only ally of any sizable strength he had was Spain. Now Spain itself could not be trusted. During his conquests, Napoleon had a policy of placing his family in charge of small satellite states on the French border to ensure loyalty. Brothers Joseph and Louis were kings of Naples and Holland respectively. His brother-in-law, Marshal Murat, was Grand Duke of Berg. An idea began forming in Napoleon’s mind.

By 1807, Prince Ferdinand was growing more and more frustrated with the direction of Spain. He knew his father hated him. He even began to fear that Godoy was looking to take the succession from him. Despite being the focus of the anti-French party, Ferdinand took the drastic step of writing to Napoleon himself. He requested the emperor’s help against Godoy and his father the king. Godoy had a good intelligence network and was able to discover the contents of the letter. Using it as proof of a plot, Godoy was able to arrange a raid on the prince’s residence, finding more letters, including further complaints against the king. Ferdinand was arrested for plotting to overthrow his father. Napoleon, however, did not want his fingerprints on this situation and convinced Godoy to squash the affair.

After the Treaty of Tilsit ended the War of the Fourth Coalition, there was one country that openly defied Napoleon’s Continental System embargo on the British, Portugal. He could not allow Portugal to snub its nose at France, but France did not border Portugal. Spain, however, did. French troops would have to go through Spain to get there. An arrangement had to be made, and Manuel Godoy was a man always looking to make an arrangement.

This led to the Treaty of Fontainebleau between Napoleon and King Carlos IV of Spain. This treaty divided Portugal into three parts, a kingdom in the north, a central region, the control of which was to be determined, and a southern part called the Principality of the Algarves. The latter would be given to the man who would be the new Prince of the Algarves, Manuel Godoy, the Spanish Prime Minister. In exchange, French troops would be able to pass through Spain on their way to Portugal.

Tumult of Aranjuez

French troops began entering Spain in late 1807. General Junot’s corps of 25,000 was to be the only force that entered the country. If Great Britain decided to intervene in Portugal, the French could send reinforcements, but only after notifying Carlos IV. General Dupont’s corps entered the country soon after, with no notification. By early 1808, Marshal Moncey led three more corps over the Pyrenees. Many of them were not moving toward Portugal, but instead taking up positions at strategic points throughout the Iberian peninsula.

Although Godoy and Carlos were beginning to suspect something was afoot, they were hesitant to make an open break with the French emperor. Napoleon would reject a request that he provide a suitable princess for Ferdinand to marry.

Further French troops now crossed the border. They began occupying the border forts in the Pyrenees. Little resistance was met. Carlos, and Godoy, still did not want to provide any pretext for open war. The problem for the Spanish was that while it takes two to make peace, only one is needed to make war. Napoleon used his dashing, and hyper-aggressive, cavalry commander Marshal Murat, the primary commander in the peninsula. Murat led his troops toward Madrid.

As Murat approached the capital, the Spanish royal family and Godoy finally realized the danger they were in. However, they had a plan. Carlos may have been the King of Spain, but he was also the King of the four viceroyalties in the Americas. Yes, Spain would fall. There was no stopping Napoleon. But they could continue the fight from Mexico City, Lima, or Buenos Aires. Behind the wooden walls of the British Royal Navy, Napoleon would not be able to reach them from there. The royal family decided to flee.

Much like the flight of their French cousins, the Spanish Bourbons would not make it out of the country. While they were staying in Aranjuez, not far from Madrid, every element of society revolted against the corrupt Manuel Godoy. He was captured by the crowd. Two days later, King Carlos IV was forced to abdicate in favor of Ferdinand. Now the people would finally get the anti-French king that they craved.

Except they wouldn’t. One of now Ferdinand VII’s first acts was to write to Napoleon begging him for his support. Soon, Carlos wrote to Napoleon claiming that he had been forced to abdicate and requested that his old ally help him reclaim his throne. Napoleon, being the benevolent man that he was, invited Ferdinand, and his father Carlos IV, to meet with him in Bayonne, France. Carlos went under the impression Napoleon would support his claim that his abdication was under duress. Ferdinand went assuming that Napoleon would recognize his claim to the throne. Napoleon only wanted to lure both men out of Spain and into custody.

Dos de Mayo Uprising

While Carlos and Ferdinand made their way to Bayonne, Marshal Murat was occupying Madrid. He expected his troops to be treated as allies there to help. Instead, they were treated as an occupying force. Living at the royal palace was King Carlos’ youngest son, Francisco. To protect the young Infante, a crowd assembled to prevent the French from taking him into custody. When the crowd would not disperse, the French troops opened fire. The crowd, now an angry mob having smelled blood, went through the streets looking for French detachments.

Murat, realizing the danger of the situation, declared martial law and set about retaking the city. Utilizing the Imperial Guard, the best troops in the French army, control was slowly and bloodily restored. For the Spanish civilian population, this came with a double humiliation. The Imperial Guard had a battalion of Mamelukes, Islamic soldiers mostly from Egypt. Evoking memories of the Reconquista, it now became a religious and racial fight as well as a nationalistic one.

Upon retaking control of Madrid, Murat ordered military justice imposed on the population. Courts-martial would order the executions of those found guilty. Weapons were confiscated. The soldiers of Spain’s ally now openly acted like the occupation force they were.

Napoleonic Maneuvers

Meanwhile, in Bayonne, Napoleon had the Spanish king and the would-be king under his control. Meeting with Carlos, Napoleon recognized Carlos’ claim to the throne. Then Napoleon convinced him to abdicate that claim in favor of a French prince of Napoleon’s choosing. Meeting separately with Ferdinand, he met stiffer opposition. Ferdinand initially refused to abdicate his claim. After the meeting, Ferdinand received a letter essentially threatening him with death if he did not abdicate. On May 6, only four days after the dos de Mayo uprising, but with no personal knowledge of the events, Ferdinand abdicated his claims in favor of his father.

Napoleon now had what he wanted. Ferdinand abdicated in Carlos’ favor, and Carlos’ had abdicated and handed his crown to Napoleon. Previously, Napoleon had asked his brother Louis, King of Holland to take the Spanish crown. Louis refused. He then turned to his older brother Joseph. Joseph was an able administrator and good with finances. Napoleon thought he would make a pliant King of Spain.

Spain Rises Up

Information moved slowly in the early 19th century. The news of the new King José I of Spain spread like wildfire. Coupled with the events in Madrid, the entire peninsula rose. Many of the governmental administration and the elites were willing to accept Joseph. It was the people who turned this into a revolution.

City after city rose in revolt against the French. This “Spanish ulcer” would bleed the French army for six years. Only a month after the initial uprising in Madrid, General Dupont surrendered his entire corps, 24,000 men, to the Spanish. This further emboldened the people to greater resistance.

All the hopes of the people focused on Ferdinand, now in custody in French territory. He became the desired one. The hope of the entire nation to throw off their Bonapartist oppressors. Since Ferdinand could not rule as a captive, someone had to rule in his name.

Creation of the Supreme Central Junta

All over Spain, groups rising against the French organized themselves. With the government decapitated, and much of the civil service accepting Joseph, new men stepped up to assume leadership. In situations such as these, it can be difficult to get everyone to recognize the same supreme authority.

Many of these groups formed Juntas, or councils, and assumed governmental functions. These groups asserted for themselves authority over a certain geographic area. Fighting the most impressive military machine of the early 19th century was more than a disorganized rabble could handle. There had to be a central authority.

A series of regional Juntas banded together for the creation of a unifying supreme junta. This Supreme Central Junta would govern Spain in the name of King Ferdinand VII. It would be representative of all the people of Spain and the empire. Each local Junta would have representation. They even attempted to be inclusive and invited the viceroyalties and several captaincies-general of the New World to send representatives, albeit fewer in number than those from Spain itself.

Spread to the Americas

When news reached the New World about the French occupation of Spain, most colonial authorities accepted the authority of the Supreme Central Junta. Among the people, however, there was resentment. Why did the regions of Spain each get two representatives in the Junta, while each of their regions only get one each? Why were they even recognizing the authority of this extra-legal body in the first place?

For many in Spanish America, they could understand loyalty to King Ferdinand. What they could not fathom was continued loyalty to Spain. They should have their own Juntas with authority over their own kingdoms, independent of Spain, but still in the name of Ferdinand. This position would eventually be a short jump away from total independence without the king.

The creation of local Juntas and their struggles for local control would meld into the Wars of Independence for the nations of Spanish America. Napoleon had thought he could bring Spain under his control and attain with it the wealth of the Spanish Empire. Manuel Godoy, the feckless Spanish Prime Minister thought he could control a great empire, the king he served, and outwit the great man on horseback. What both men had done, through overconfidence and blundering, was set the spark which led to the conflagration of the Spanish colonies and the collapse one of the world’s largest empires.

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

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

President Buchanan’s Blunder Before Battle

1856 was a critical year that would change the course of history for the United States. Tensions between the North and the South had been on the rise for many decades, and the threat of civil collapse was imminent. On March 4th, 1857, James Buchanan was inaugurated as the nation's fifteenth president. At the time, Americans believed that Buchanan was the leader necessary to prevent total civil unrest and the South leaving the Union. However, Buchanan’s actions during the Utah War, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott decision failed to resolve the crisis. Many historians rate President James Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in history.

Lillian Jiang explains.

President Buchanan (center) and his cabinet.

Historians sometimes refer to the Utah War as “Buchanan’s Blunder”. In simple terms, The Utah War was an unnecessary confrontation between Mormon settlers (the members of the Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints in Utah) and the Armed Forces of the United States from 1857 to 1859. Mormons desired their own isolated territory, to practice freedom of religion. But many Americans and President Buchanan viewed Mormonism and the leaders of the LDS Church negatively, specifically because they practiced poligamy. Tensions between Americans and the Mormans had been growing for a long time, and when Buchanan sent an army of 2,500 troops in what he called the “Utah Expedition '', Mormans assumed that they were being persecuted and armed themselves in preparation for war.

Although no direct battles occured, Mormons feared occupation, and murdered 120 migrants at Mountain Meadows (Ellen, 1). The Utah War or the Mormon Rebellion only lasted for a single year, and congress blamed Buchanan for the unnecessary violent conflict.

President Buchanan’s friend, Thomas L. Kane, who corresponded regularly with Brigham Young, intervened, and convinced the present that all Mormons would accept peace if offered, so the president granted amnesty to all Utah residents who would accept federal authority. (Ellen, 1)

Buchanan’s approach to the crisis only left a bitter aftertaste of his administration. (Stampp, 60).

Inauguration

In the year of President Buchanan’s inauguration, the Panic of 1857 swept the nation. The Panic of 1857 was a financial crisis in the United States caused by a sudden downturn in the economy, which was a result of false banking practices and the decline of many important businesses that were central to the economy, including railroad companies. At the beginning of President Buchanan’s inauguration in 1857, the United States had “$1.3 million dollars surplus and a moderate $28.7 million debt.” (Ellen, 1) When the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, took the presidency in 1861, the U.S. Treasury recorded a “25.2 million deficit and a 76.4 million debt… The amount of fiscal accumulated in the years was the largest imbalance by a pre-Civil War leader.” (Ellen, 1).

To ease the financial crisis, President Buchanan ordered the withdrawal of all banknotes under twenty dollars and ordered the state banks to follow the federal government’s “Independent Treasury System,” which required that “all federal funds be deposited into treasuries” (History Central, 1)  instead of private banks. Although this did ease the financial crisis, the Utah War had added millions to the army’s budget (Ellen, 1). The financial crisis also had an impact on sectionalism between the North and South. As the South was not affected by the crisis as much as the North because of the prevalence of slavery, Southern states began to believe they had a far superior economy, which divided the Union even further. On this matter and Buchanan’s actions, historian Mark W. Summers said, “the most devastating proof of government abuse of power since the founding of the Republic.” (Ellen, 1)

Bleeding Kansas

One of Buchanan’s most significant missteps was in regards to the way he dealt with Bleeding Kansas, a period of violent warfare between pro and anti-slavery factions in Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed in May of 1854 by President Franklin Pierce, gave residents residing in Kansas Territory the right to choose whether or not to permit slavery because of Popular Sovereignty, which gave rise to violent confrontations over the legality of slavery. On December 8th, 1957, in his first annual address to Congress, President Buchanan promised to resolve the conflict. However, his future decisions would not promote a resolution between factions and instead would escalate tension and violence.

President Buchanan was careless about whether or not Kansas would become a slave state or a free state. Although Buchanan was morally opposed to slavery, he believed that it ultimately protected by the laws of the constitution. He wanted to admit Kansas into the Union as soon as possible in hopes of settling conflicts. In 1857, Buchanan demanded approval of Kansas’s Lecompton Constitution, which protected the rights of slaveholders because he was politically dependent on Southern Democrats. However, Buchanan endorsed Popular Sovereignty, so he held an election in Kansas, on January 4th, 1858, to decide whether the constitution should be rejected or ratified. The constitution was rejected by a vote of “11,300 to 1,788” (Ellen, 1). In the end, Buchanan conflicting stances on slavery did not gain approbation from neither the Northern nor Southern states.    

Buchanan’s unrelenting support for the constitution and his dedication to Popular Sovereignty ultimately had a destructive impact on the Union. The rejection of the constitution angered many Southerners. The Northerners felt betrayed by Buchanan for protecting slave owners after being so vocally anti-slavery. In his inaugural address, he stated:

To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that under the Nebraska-Kansas act the appropriate period will be when the number of actual residents in the Territory shall justify the formation of a constitution with a view to its admission as a State into the Union (Wilder, 117).

He believed that governing the territories with Popular Sovereignty would reunite the opposing factions, but instead, it aggravated them even further.

Poor judgments

Buchanan’s poor judgments continued into the Dred Scott V. Sandford case as well. The Dred Scott case was when a formerly enslaved man, Dred Scott, sued his master for his freedom in 1846. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and The Missouri Compromise of 1820 both prohibited slavery in Fort Snelling—what is now present-day Minnesota—therefore, he argued that he had been illegally enslaved in a free territory. (Ellen, 1). After winning his lawsuits in a lower court, the case was handed over to the Supreme Court after eleven years. Despite the long wait, the Supreme Court’s decision did not satisfy the abolitionists. On March 6, 1857, referring to the “Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom”, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney decided:

The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied. . . . And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under territorial government, as well as that covered by States. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. (79)

The court determined that African-Americans could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery (Swain, 79). Buchanan also concurred with the decision, believing that the Constitution protected slavery. The Republicans quoted Buchanan’s inaugural address to claim that he was aware of the court’s verdict as he had addressed that he would “cheerfully submit” to the decision regarding the Dred Scott case and urged citizens to do the same (Ellen, 1).

This case is one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions to this date. The result invalidated the Missouri Compromise and further widened the divide between North and South over slavery (Ellen, 1). In his fourth annual address, Buchanan explained that his power was restrained under the Constitution and laws. He stated:

It is beyond the power of any president, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the states. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous question. (Hirschfield, 70).

His actions or rather, non-actions, towards sectionalism became the rallying point for nations to vote for Abraham Lincoln into office in 1860.

Sectionalism and slavocracy were the most contentious issues at the time. An empowered and decisive leadership was needed to settle the crisis between the North and the South, but Buchanan lacked these qualities as president. His blunders during the Utah War, Panic of 1857, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case only further raised tensions between the factions and left the U.S. in great turmoil. Although Buchanan had good intentions and was trying to prevent the outbreak of an imminent civil war, his administration failed to do so.

What do you think of President Buchanan? Let us know below.

Works Cited

Ellen, Kelly. “Everything Wrong with the Buchanan Administration.” Libertarianism.org, 12 June 2020, www.libertarianism.org/everything-wrong-presidents/everything-wrong-buchanan-administration#_edn15.

Hirschfield, Robert S.. The Power of the Presidency: Concepts and Controversy. United States, Aldine, 1982.

Pray, Bobbie, and Marilyn Irvin Holt. Kansas History, a Journal of the Central Plains: a Ten-Year Cumulative Index. Kansas State Historical Society, 1988.

Stampp, Kenneth M. And the War Came: the North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-1861. Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Swain, Gwenyth. Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2010.

Wilder, Daniel Webster. The Annals of Kansas. United States, G. W. Martin, 1875.