The Victorian-era Volunteer Rifle Corps

The British volunteer rifle corps were formed on May 12, 1859 by Secretary of State for War Jonathan Peel, as a response to public fears of a French invasion or Britain. Italian, Felice Orsini  attempted to use a bomb made by the Birmingham Arms Company to blow up Napoleon III, Napoleon Bonaparte’s great Nephew, in Paris on January 14, 1858 . Despite recent alliances and diplomatic efforts, the French still felt the British were responsible due to the fact that an English city manufactured the bomb and consequently threatened invasions. Due to escalations on both sides, war seemed imminent.

Here, Charis Gambon explains how the volunteer rifle corps were set-up in response.

Jonathan Peel in the 1860s.

With the regular British Army largely fighting abroad a reserve was needed to become the first defence in the UK, with the aim of slowing the French invading force down in order to provide the regular army with enough time to return and take over, should the issue ever arise. Volunteer corps were to be raised under the provisions of the Volunteer Act 1804 which was last used during the Napoleonic Era.  The statistics from Ian F.W Beckett demonstrate the size of the volunteer force in England, Wales, and Scotland. These percentages were calculated based on number of volunteers per 100 people in the total population.  In 1861 the total for England was 0.629%, in Wales 0.655%, and in Scotland 1.119%.  Overall, there were 161,239 enrolled members within the volunteer force in 1861.

Each county of the country possessed at least one volunteer rifle corps, with many units possessing several at the peak of the movement. These corps were only to be formed on the recommendation of the county’s lord-lieutenant. Officers of the movement gained their commission from the lord-lieutenant, many of which had served in the regular army during the Crimea War.

Costs

Members had to attend eight days drill and exercise in four months, or 24 days within a year in order to be a part of a rifle volunteer corps. Additionally members were to provide their own arms and equipment, but as stated by Ian F. W. Beckett they did receive a 30% discount on ammunition from the government. However, this was not as generous as it may seem as the government were the only source for the ammunition. There was also a cost to join the volunteer rifle corps which was set at between 5s and £1.15s.6d. Enfield rifles with bayonet and scabbard cost £4.10s, with trousers and jacket costing the same.

The volunteer rifle corps were largely filled with middle class men, due to the fact that they could afford to purchase their uniform, Enfield rifle and ammunition. Additionally, the middle class were less likely to be in the regular army and consequently sought to make the volunteer movement their version of a men’s club.  The men were often seen as ‘playing soldiers’ by the regular army.  The social aspect of the volunteer movement was immense too. Typically men would take their family with them as volunteers would set up a camp for a week. The camps were seen as an opportunity to show off their wives and finery. Volunteer units would also meet up with other units for rifle competitions, with the biggest competition of the year being held at Wimbledon in London.

Shooting

To be classed as proficient and allowed to be a part of the volunteer rifle corps a volunteer was required to be able to shoot at a distance of 700 yards. This distance would also gain the volunteer a one star badge. To gain two stars a volunteer would have to be able to accurately shoot 900 yards and to gain three stars a volunteer would need to be accurate to 1,200 yards. The best shot in the unit earned himself a special badge that had crossed rifles on it - this signified that he was the most accurate shot.

The volunteers were initially mocked in sources such as PUNCH magazine, and were detested by the regulars, who felt they made a mockery of the military. As a result of this, units wore mostly grey uniforms (70%), the next most popular colour was green, emulating the rifle corps of the regular army (20%), and an assortment wore other colours; however only a few units wore red, and only briefly before being pushed away from this by the regulars. There was actually an approved uniform created by the war office for volunteer riflemen to wear, but no units opted to wear this uniform. Volunteer rifle units could create their own uniforms which they would then submit to the Lord- Lieutenant of the land for approval.  The ability to create uniforms led to a wide variety of uniforms being worn by corps across the country.  There were also generic cap badges and buttons created for all units to wear but similarly to the uniform each unit opted to create their own instead.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

US Civil War – The Confederate General Edward Kirby Smith

General Edmund Kirby Smith was a remarkable man who also was perhaps the Confederacy’s most successful general, even including Robert E. Lee. Because he was transferred to the Trans-Mississippi in 1863, most history narratives tend to lose track of him at that point, discounting the fact that he was the de facto ruler of that part of the country for 2 years. Lloyd W Klein explains.

General Edmund Kirby Smith, circa 1862.

Background

Smith was born in St Augustine, Florida. His parents were from Connecticut.  At the time of his birth, his parents were residing on the frontier, a region that was previously under Spanish control but had recently been acquired by the United States. Smith's father, Joseph Lee Smith, was appointed as a Superior Court judge in the newly acquired Florida Territory, while his grandfather, Ephraim Kirby, had served as an officer under the esteemed George Washington.

Despite his family's non-military background, Smith's parents insisted that he attend West Point, following his sister's marriage to a graduate from the artillery service in Florida. He followed his older brother in enrolling at West Point where Smith earned a respectable

25th ranking within his class of 41 cadets. However, it was not only military pursuits that captivated Smith's interests. Throughout his life, he harbored a profound fascination for botany and eventually became a highly accomplished botanist. His dedication to this field led to the creation of remarkable collections, which he later donated to renowned institutions such as Harvard, the Smithsonian, and UNC.

Smith's military career flourished during the Mexican War, where he actively participated in significant battles and eventually rose to the rank of captain. Subsequently, he was assigned to combat the Comanche, where he ascended to the rank of major. Smith's military progress continued as he became a captain in the Second US Cavalry, a position bestowed upon him by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. Serving under the command of notable leaders such as Albert Sidney Johnston and Robert E. Lee, Smith found himself among a select group of officers from the 2nd Cavalry who achieved the esteemed rank of full general, alongside Albert Sidney Johnston, Robert E. Lee, and John Bell Hood. Notably, from 1855 until the conclusion of the Civil War, Smith's valet was Alexander Darnes, a 15-year-old enslaved individual of mixed race who belonged to Smith's family.

The War Begins

Smith was in Texas with the 2nd Cavalry when the war started.  On January 31, 1861, Smith was promoted to major and became commander of Camp Colorado. When secessionists began the seizure of Federal property, Smith initially refused to surrender his post to Colonel Henry E. McCulloch's Texas Militia forces but then changed his mind.

With secession, he resigned from the US Army and entered the Confederate Army as a lieutenant colonel, He served as General Joseph Johnston's chief of staff at Harper's Ferry as Confederate troops organized in the Shenandoah Valley. On June 17, 1861, he was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general and placed in command of the 4th brigade of the Army of the Shenandoah. He led this brigade at First Manassas, where he was wounded in action in the head and neck. While recuperating he served as a commander of a Florida department, then promoted to major general and division commander in the ANV.

Although his wound at First Manassas was described as “serious”, In August 1861, Smith met Cassie Selden. While recovering from being wounded he still found time for wooing. The couple married on September 24.

Command of East Tennessee

After recovering from his wound and entering into marriage, he was dispatched to the western region to assume command of the Army of East Tennessee. On October 11, 1861, Smith was promoted to the rank of major general and took command from General Felix Zollicoffer in the District of East Tennessee. Smith's time in Tennessee was met with controversy as he adopted a strict approach, implementing martial law and suspending habeas corpus. Numerous individuals suspected of being Unionists were imprisoned or expelled, leading to a surge in anti-Confederate sentiment.

In August 1862, Smith's army, consisting of 6,500 soldiers, advanced through eastern Kentucky in support of General Braxton Bragg's invading Army of Mississippi. The objective of Bragg and Smith was to bolster pro-Confederate political factions in the Union-controlled border state and recruit new soldiers. While Bragg led his forces northward from Tennessee, Smith directed his troops towards Richmond, Kentucky, targeting the railroad hub in Lexington and the state capital in Frankfort. By August 28th, the Confederate advance, spearheaded by division commander General Patrick R. Cleburne, approached Richmond, Kentucky. Smith's Army of East Tennessee numbered 19,000, while Bragg's Army of Tennessee consisted of 35,000.

On August 29, 1862, a portion of Smith's army encountered an equally sized contingent of Nelson's forces, estimated to be between 6,000 and 7,000 troops. The Battle of Richmond ensued for two days, culminating on August 30, and resulted in a resounding victory for the Confederates. There were at least 5,000 Union casualties versus 750 Confederate losses. Also, substantial territory was surrendered, including the cities of Lexington, Richmond, and Frankfort, the state capital. When Smith subsequently seized control of Frankfort on September 2, it was the only state capital under Federal control to fall throughout the entire war. Out of the 6,800 Union soldiers engaged in the battle, approximately 4,000 were captured, while the remaining either fled towards Lexington or perished or sustained injuries on the battlefield. Additional losses were incurred during the battle, including the capture of Brigadier General Mahlon D. Manson and the injury of Nelson, who suffered a neck wound.

Promotion to Command of the Trans-Mississippi & Perryville

Smith was promoted to the newly established rank of lieutenant-general on October 9, 1862. He took command of the 3rd Corps, Army of Tennessee. Subsequently, on January 14, 1863, Smith was transferred to lead the Trans-Mississippi Department; this department included Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, western Louisiana, Arizona Territory, and the Indian Territory. Smith was given the responsibility of leading the Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi Theater, which encompassed the western Confederate states. In this position, he successfully maintained Confederate control over the region for 2 years. Throughout the remainder of the war, he remained stationed west of the Mississippi River, with a portion of his time spent in Shreveport, Louisiana. By October, Buell's army had received reinforcements and had become strong enough to become the aggressor. Smith and Bragg, however, were unprepared for Buell's advance and had not yet combined their armies.

Bragg recognized the importance of controlling Kentucky for the defense of the Western theater. This realization was influenced by Kirby Smith, who believed that launching an offensive action could have significant implications for the war. Bragg relocated his 30,000 troops to Chattanooga to join forces with Smith. They met on July 31 and decided to divide their army. Two of Bragg's brigades would join Smith in marching into Kentucky, with the intention that if Buell pursued Smith, Bragg would move north to attack Buell's rear. Additionally, Bragg sent his cavalry, led by John Hunt Morgan, north into Ohio. It was expected that Grant would remain in his position, focusing on the pursuit of Vicksburg. Smith believed that this plan would alleviate supply issues and divert the Union armies from their intended movements. Furthermore, an invasion of Kentucky would pose a threat to Indiana and western Ohio, to establish the Ohio River as the Confederates' northern border.

The plan to invade Kentucky was ambitious but carried significant risks. It relied on flawless coordination between two armies that lacked a unified command structure. Bragg, despite pressure from President Davis to proceed with the invasion, began to have doubts almost immediately. Smith, foreseeing the challenges, quickly abandoned the agreement, realizing that embarking on a solo venture in Kentucky would be highly precarious. The successful execution of the military operation required a high level of coordination between two armies that lacked a unified command structure. Despite initial enthusiasm and pressure from President Davis to seize control of Kentucky, General Bragg soon began to have doubts about the feasibility of the mission. Meanwhile, General Smith, driven by personal ambition, reneged on the agreement and deceived Bragg about his true intentions. He cunningly requested additional troops under the guise of an expedition to Cumberland Gap, only to later reveal his plan to bypass it entirely. This left Bragg in a difficult position, unable to compel Smith to adhere to their original strategy, and forced to redirect his focus toward Lexington instead of Nashville.

The turning point of the campaign came on October 7, 1862, when one corps of General Buell's army confronted General Bragg's forces near Perryville, Kentucky. Despite the Confederates' hard-fought victory in the Battle of Perryville, the arrival of the majority of Buell's army by the end of the day nullified their gains. Faced with the prospect of losing everything they had fought for, Bragg made the controversial decision to withdraw during the cover of night, much to the dismay of his subordinate officers, including General Smith, who had advised Bragg to capitalize on their success and continue the fight. As a result, Bragg's army ultimately retreated from Kentucky, leaving the state under Union control for the remainder of the war.

As forces under Grant tightened their grip on the Mississippi River, Smith attempted to change the trajectory of the war. However, his department never had more than 30,000 men, and they were stationed over an immense area.  Consequently, Smith found it challenging to concentrate his forces effectively to challenge Grant or the formidable U.S. Navy on the river. Despite facing criticism for not coming to the defense of Vicksburg, particularly as Grant's momentum grew, Smith's hands were tied by the constraints of his resources. Ultimately, Vicksburg fell under Union control, further solidifying their hold on the Mississippi River.

Following the Union forces' capture of Vicksburg and Port Hudson, Smith found himself cut off from Richmond, resulting in his isolation from the rest of the Confederacy. Despite this, Smith established his authority over a semi-autonomous region, effectively governing an area that operated almost independently. Throughout the remainder of the war, Smith faced the daunting task of governing the district and waging war with minimal support and limited communication with the Confederate government.  in Virginia, Despite these obstacles, Smith persisted in his efforts to reclaim Vicksburg from the Union, albeit from the western side of the Mississippi, but his endeavors proved unsuccessful.

Smith's interest in this region stemmed largely from the influence of Arkansans and Missourians in the Confederate Congress, who played a significant role in securing his appointment. Consequently, Smith's semi-autonomous Confederate region became derisively referred to as "Kirby Smithdom." This term reflected the perception that Smith held a considerable degree of authority and control within his designated territory, separate from the central Confederate command.

Being cut off from the main Confederate army, one might assume that Smith's forces would suffer from starvation and lack of military supplies. However, the reality was quite different. The territory under Smith's control was remarkably well-supplied, as the Union army would discover in 1864. This unexpected abundance of resources further bolstered Smith's position and allowed him to sustain his troops and continue his resistance against the Union forces.

Red River Campaign

The Red River expedition, a military operation conducted by the Union during the American Civil War, involved approximately 30,000 federal troops led by Major-General Nathaniel P. Banks. This campaign aimed to secure the key Confederate supply depot in Shreveport and disrupt the Confederacy's supply lines by controlling the Red River and its surrounding region. The plan was devised by Major-General Henry W. Halleck as a diversion from Lieutenant-General Ulysses S. Grant's strategy to encircle the main Confederate armies by utilizing Banks's Army of the Gulf to capture Mobile. However, the expedition ultimately failed due to poor planning and mismanagement, unable to achieve any of its objectives.

In March 1864, Union forces, comprising both army and navy components, embarked on a march into Louisiana along the Red River. They encountered logistical challenges caused by the low water levels on the river, necessitating the construction of dams and the removal of obstacles to enable their gunboats to proceed. As the Union forces advanced, they faced resistance from Confederate troops in a series of engagements, including the Battles of Mansfield on April 8, 1864, and Pleasant Hill on April 9, 1864. These battles ended in Confederate victories, compelling the Union forces to retreat. The situation worsened for the Union troops as the water levels of the Red River continued to decrease, making it increasingly difficult for their gunboats to navigate. Moreover, they found themselves isolated and susceptible to Confederate attacks.

Despite being significantly outnumbered, General Smith skillfully orchestrated the defeat of both Union advances. On April 8, Confederate troops under the command of Major General Richard Taylor successfully repelled Union General Nathaniel Banks's Red River Campaign. Recognizing their perilous situation, Union forces retreated from the Red River in late April 1864. Throughout their withdrawal, they encountered constant harassment and attacks from Confederate forces. By the time May 1864 rolled around, it was clear that the Red River Campaign had come to an end. The Union forces regrouped in Alexandria, Louisiana, and abandoned their original objective of capturing Shreveport.

Price’s Campaign

Later that year Smith went on the offensive. Major General Sterling Price's Army of Missouri, consisting of twelve thousand soldiers, was sent on an ill-advised and disastrous raid into Missouri. The objective of this raid was to capture St. Louis. It is worth noting that Price himself was a former governor of the state. Price's request for additional troops was denied, leaving him with only twelve thousand cavalry soldiers for the expedition when he wanted, and needed, many more. Price’s raid was initially conceived as a full invasion of Missouri with three goals: divert attention from the river to cross troops into the western theater for defense of Mobile and Atlanta, affect the 1864 election, and lure Missouri into leaving the Union. As commander of the Confederate Missouri state troops at the outbreak of war and field commander of the army in Arkansas, Price was the natural choice.

On August 28, 1864, Price's Raid commenced as he departed from Camden, Arkansas. It became evident that Price had not adequately planned his expedition, as the events that unfolded over the next three months proved to be disastrous. Engaging in a series of battles, Price's forces suffered heavy losses, and by the end of the raid, only six thousand survivors remained as they limped back into Arkansas. This outcome highlighted the poor execution and planning of Price's campaign, ultimately leading to its failure and further solidifying its place in history as a significant Confederate defeat.

Throughout the Civil War, Smith had the advantage of easier access to supplies compared to other Confederate areas due to Galveston TX remaining an open port. The Trans-Mississippi region was a major supplier of food crops so that was never an issue. John Magruder was able to reopen the port at Galveston so arms could come in through the blockade. This also allowed for a smooth flow of resources and provisions, ensuring that Smith's forces were adequately equipped. Additionally, the states of Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri, where Smith operated, were known for their agricultural productivity. These states were able to produce an abundance of food, further supporting Smith's troops and contributing to their overall sustenance during the war.

Remainder of the War

For the remainder of the war, the hostilities that occurred west of the Mississippi River were characterized by skirmishes and guerrilla raids. Smith, who had effectively defended his territory known as Smithdom, was situated away from the main action. On the Union side, General Thomas had a remarkable record of winning battles he commanded, while Kirby Smith held a similar distinction for the Confederates. Despite the ongoing clashes, the war in the West gradually came to a close.

By April 1865, the surrender of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Joseph Johnston marked the effective end of the war in the Eastern theater. However, Smith's forces continued to hold out for approximately one more month. Eventually, on May 26, 1865, Smith relinquished his command to General Edward R. S. Canby at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This surrender signaled the defeat of Smith's command, making it the final major Confederate force to concede at the end of the Civil War. Following his surrender, Smith made his way to Galveston, Texas before eventually fleeing to both Mexico and Cuba. However, he eventually returned to Lynchburg, Virginia to sign an oath of amnesty on November 14, 1865.

After the conclusion of the war, Smith briefly took on the role of managing the Accident Insurance Company in Louisville, Kentucky in 1866. Subsequently, he served as the president of the Pacific and Atlantic Telegraph Company for two years. In 1868, Smith established a school in New Castle, Kentucky, but unfortunately, it was destroyed by fire the following year. Undeterred, in 1870, Smith and his fellow Confederate General Bushrod Johnson were appointed as co-chancellors of the University of Nashville. Additionally, they jointly oversaw the management of the Montgomery Bell Academy, a preparatory school for boys. In 1875, Smith accepted a position as a professor of mathematics and botany at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, where he remained a faculty member until his passing.

Kirby Smith passed away in Sewanee on March 28, 1893, and was laid to rest on the campus of the University of the South. Notably, he held the distinction of being the last full general of the Confederacy to pass away.

At one time, a statue of Smith held a prominent position of honor. In 1922, the state of Florida erected a statue of General Smith as one of the two statues representing Florida in the National Statuary Hall Collection at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. However, in 2018, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed legislation to replace Smith's statue with one honoring African-American civil rights activist and educator Mary McLeod Bethune. The statue was subsequently removed in 2021, with plans to send it to St. Augustine, Smith's birthplace. However, the residents of St. Augustine declined to accept the statue. Another Florida county initially agreed to house the statue, but faced opposition from mayors and public figures, leading to a re-vote that resulted in a 4-1 decision against accepting the statue. As a result, the statue is currently being stored temporarily at the Museum of Florida History, away from public display, as no suitable exhibition space has been found.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/e-kirby-smith

·       https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/edmund-kirby-smith-rebel-lord-of-the-trans-mississippi/

·       https://www.thoughtco.com/general-edmund-kirby-smith-2360303

·       https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/edmund-kirby-smith-9253/

·       Davis, William C. (1999), The American Frontier: Pioneers, Settlers, & Cowboys, 1800–1899, Norman: University of Oklahoma Pres.

·       Prushankin, Jeffery S. (2005), A Crisis in Confederate Command: Edmund Kirby Smith, Richard Taylor and the Army of the Trans-Mississippi. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press

·       https://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/edmund-kirby-smith

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/richmond

·       http://battleofperryville.com/

American Bravery at the Alamo - The First Chapter

The April 1838 Convention of Limits Treaty was agreed between the United States and the Republic of Texas. Texas had won its freedom from Santa Anna and the Mexican Government in 1836. The treaty, which was signed before Texas was part of the United States, recognized Texas claims to disputed territory in Red River and also on the Eastern boundary. Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

The Fall of the Alamo or Crockett's Last Stand, circa 1903. By Robert Jenkins Onderdonk.

Here is the part that is most commonly known by Americans.

Perhaps the most memorable part of that period 187 years ago was one of the most iconic battles in history for Texas independence. This historic engagement has become widely known as The Alamo. The defense of the San Antonio mission was not only the intersection of unwavering American resolve but also the union of three US heroes; Colonel William Travis, Colonel Jim Bowie, and perhaps the first celebrity in American history in Colonel David “Davy” Crockett.

The 2023 Commemoration of the Battle of the Alamo was open to both the public and the press. The events ran into March 2023 and featured events such as “Dawn at the Alamo”, “Never Surrender or Retreat” and an “Evening with the Heroes.”

Most Americans know the story of massacre of all 189 defenders of the mission at the hands of the Mexican Army on March 6th, 1836. Legends surrounding the deaths of all three, especially Crockett have become popular chapters in American history. It is not known whether he was captured or died as portrayed in John Wayne’s 1960 version of The Alamo, but it is widely believed that he was one of its last remaining defenders.

This however was not the first act of valor by Texans at the mission against the Mexican forces.

The Alamo

The Alamo (or Mision San Antonio de Valero) was built in 1718 by Franciscan Monasteries who wished to convert native Indians to Christianity. Secularized in 1793, the original construction did not have military intentions and the roof on the main church was never completed.

The first documented military use of the mission was around 1801, also at which time the mission took the name that would last through the centuries and was also the name of the Spanish Army Unit that was stationed there. In 1813, the mission was reportedly used as a barracks for Mexican revolutionaries and American volunteers.

In 1820, Moses Austin (father of the Stephen F. Austin) petitioned Spain for an American settlement in Mexico. The Mexican Constitution of 1824 allowed foreign settlers to gain land title and tax exemption. In the 1830s, the Mexican government also armed Texian settlement garrisons with artillery pieces for protection against local American Indians, indigenous people, and native tribes.

Relations, however were soon strained between Mexico and the American settlers and Tejanos (Texians of Mexican descent living in the province of Oahuila y Tejas, or Texas.) The Mexican government, realizing the delicate situation moved swiftly to recover the cannons.

1830s battles

At the Battle of Velasco in 1832, Mexican troops clashed with Texas Militia, attempting to stop the transport of a cannon. In 1835, at Gonzales Texas, settlers draped a cloth over a six-pound bronze Spanish cannon that read “Come and Take It.”

When Mexican Dragoon cavalry crossed the river and attempted to take possession of the cannon and also a one-pound Spanish Bronze Esmeril, they were fired upon. The Texas Revolution had begun.

Mexican President Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna, sent 600 troops under General Coz north to quell the uprising. Coz became convinced upon arriving in San Antonio that the rebellion army would attack and fortified the city and the Alamo, which at that time sat just outside of the town.

His instincts proved to be quite correct.

On October 12, 1835, Steven F. Austin and Sam Houston arrived outside of San Antonio with an army of 300 men comprised of Texans and Tejanos, and began the Siege of Bexar. Texian artillery under Colonel Neill would pound the Alamo with a barrage during the attack.

After nearly eight weeks, Texian leaders were contemplating lifting the siege and withdrawing to winter quarters. It was then that two significant events transpired in the Texian camp. A Mexican defector rode into the camp, joined the Texans and told of deplorable conditions in the Alamo including rationing, starving horses, low military supplies and morale.

Ben Milam, a soldier with the Texas Militia who was himself the only the age of 47, stood up and rallied the troops at the nightly campfire and proclaimed “Who will come to San Antonio with Ol’ Ben Milam!”

Rejuvenated, the Texian Army attacked. Milam was killed in heavy street fighting but the Texians pressed on. By early December, Cos was forced to pull his artillery pieces and wounded soldiers behind the walls of the Alamo. The Mexican troops would construct some of the very fortifications that the Texian defenders would utilize twelve weeks later. On December 9th, the Mexican army raised a white flag of surrender from behind the walls of the Alamo. The victorious Texas army allowed the Mexicans to keep their regimental colors and muskets for the long march back to Mexico City. Among the military supplies that were surrendered by the Mexicans were approximately twenty cannons including; a 5-inch caliber Howitzer, three and four pound mounted artillery pieces, and small ordinance. All of these pieces would be re-purposed for the defense of Texas.

The celebration would be short-lived.

Back to San Antonio

A furious Santa Anna would shortly be assembling an army and conducting a Winter march back to San Antonio and a date with destiny and Travis, Bowie, and Davy Crockett. This time, Santa Anna would personally lead his troops.

In the end, both battles at the Alamo during the Texas Revolution would work against Santa Anna. After the massacre in March 1836, the death of all 189 defenders became a rallying cry for the Texians.

On April 21 at the Battle of San Jacinto, when Santa Anna’s army was defeated in less than 20 minutes, Sam Houston’s army broke over the Mexican breastwork defenses yelling, “Remember the Alamo!”

Whether the Army of the Republic of Texas victory at the Siege of Bexar or the legendary last-stand of the outnumbered defenders three months later, history is clear.

We shall always remember all of the events surrounding the complete story of the Alamo. At least those of us who know the full history.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington, Pennsylvania.

US Civil War Maritime Disasters

The US Civil War in the Gulf is defined by the Northern strategy of the blockade of Southern ports and the daring attempts by Confederate vessels to run this blockade.

Here, Richard Bluttal looks at this strategy and the maritime disasters during the war.

A 19th century print showing the sinking of USS Hatteras by CSS Alabama, off Galveston, Texas in January 1863.

USS Hatteras

The remains of the Union ironclad Tecumseh, whose sinking by a Confederate mine prompted Farragut’s famous order "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" are well known off Fort Morgan, Alabama. Only one U.S. warship, however, was sunk at sea in the Gulf. This important shipwreck, the USS Hatteras, has been the subject of repeated investigations by BOEM, the Texas Historical Commission, and Texas A&M University at Galveston.

In less than a year, the Hatteras captured seven Confederate blockade runners off Vermilion Bay, Louisiana. Early in 1863, she was ordered to join the squadron under Rear Admiral David Farragut, who was attempting to retake the key Texas port of Galveston, Texas. As the blockading squadron lay off the coast on the afternoon of January 11, 1863, a set of sails was sighted just over the horizon and the Hatteras was ordered to give pursuit. She chased the intruder for four hours, closer and closer into shore, and farther and farther from her supporting fleet. Finally, as dusk was falling, the Hatteras came within hailing distance of the square-rigged, black-hulled vessel. Commander Homer C. Blake demanded to know the identity of the ship. "Her Britannic Majesty’s Ship Vixen," came the reply. Blake ordered one of Hatteras’ boats launched to inspect the "Britisher." Almost as soon as the boat was piped away, a new reply came from the mystery ship, "We are the CSS Alabama!" A broadside from the Alabama’s guns punctuated the reply. Within 13 minutes, the Hatteras, sinking rapidly, surrendered. The Hatteras today rests in 58 feet of water about 20 miles off Galveston. Her 210-foot long iron hull is completely buried under about three feet of sand. Only the remains of her 500-horsepower walking beam steam engine and her two iron paddle wheels remain exposed above the sea floor.

USS Monitor

During the Civil War, the idea of the USS Monitor was born amidst a nation in turmoil. After discovering the Confederate Navy was constructing an impenetrable ironclad in Hampton Roads, Va., President Lincoln called for a naval board to propose construction of an ironclad vessel to lead the Union Navy. John Ericsson, a Swedish-American inventor, introduced a plan, which caught their attention. Complete with a rotating gun turret, low draft, sleek profile and Ericsson's claim as an "Impregnable Battery," the board was convinced to order swift production on what would become the USS Monitor. Construction immediately began at the Continental Ironworks in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, N.Y. Almost 100 days later, on January 30, 1862, the USS Monitor was launched into the East River.

On March 9, 1862, the first time iron met iron ( the ironclad confederate ship CSS Virginia) , the two warships fired upon each other for hours, each side looking for their opponent's weaknesses. Almost four hours into the battle, a shot from the Virginia exploded against the Monitor's pilot house and Captain Worden was temporarily blinded. The Monitor's Executive Officer, Samuel Dana Green, assumed command and ordered the Monitor into shallow water, where the Virginia could not follow, to assess the captain's wounds and damage to the ship. The Virginia's captain, assuming the Monitor was withdrawing from battle, withdrew in supposed victory. When the Monitor returned to resume the engagement and found the Virginia gone, her crew also assumed victory. In reality, the battle was a virtual draw with neither vessel inflicting serious damage to the other. Although the Monitor remained in Hampton Roads throughout the spring and summer of 1862, the two vessels never again met in battle.

Dive 230 feet below the Atlantic Ocean off the North Carolina coast on one of our nation’s most historic shipwrecks, USS Monitor. This Civil War ironclad sank in 1862, and in 1975, it became the first national marine sanctuary – Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. Transformed from a weapon of war to an island of marine life, Monitor continues to serve as habitat for a wealth of marine life. Dive in to see sand tiger sharks, sea turtles, and more!

SS Sultana

A boiler explodes, shattering the silence of the night and throwing the hopeless passengers of the SS Sultana into the Mississippi River. Legally allowed to carry 376 people, the Sultana was carrying over 2,300 passengers, most of whom were Union soldiers recently released from Confederate prisons. The estimated death toll increases steadily to 1,700 or 1,800 in the worst maritime disaster in American history.

The Sultana was a privately owned sidewheel steamboat built in Cincinnati, Ohio, in February 1863. A relatively large boat, the Sultana stood three decks tall and measured 260 feet long and approximately 70 feet wide – a little shorter than a football field and about half as wide. Built for the New Orleans cotton trade, the Sultana spent her first two years carrying troops and supplies up and down the Mississippi River for the Union Army, until Vicksburg, MS, was captured in July 1863. She then carried cotton, manufactured goods and civilian passengers between New Orleans and her home port of St. Louis, MO.

On April 23, 1865, the Sultana limped back into Vicksburg from downriver. She had sprung a leak in one of her four boilers, and it needed to be repaired. While the work was being done to fix the boiler, the recently released soldiers began showing up. Instead of 1,000 soldiers, as Captain Hatch had suggested, the Sultana got almost 2,000 men. They were crowded together in every nook and cranny of the steamboat, as Captains Mason and Hatch knew more men meant more money. Very late in the evening of April 24, 1865, the Sultana finally backed away from the Vicksburg wharf and started upriver on her final journey. She carried on board a total of 2,137 people; 1,960 ex-prisoners, 22 guards, 85 crew members, and 70 paying passengers.

On April 27, after unloading the sugar and taking on a new load of coal, the Sultana finally started on the last leg of the journey towards Cairo, Illinois, where the men were to be transferred to trains and taken to Camp Chase, near Columbus, Ohio for mustering out.

Around 2:00 a.m., when the Sultana was about seven miles north of Memphis, three of the four boilers suddenly exploded. The horrendous explosion came from the upper back part of the boilers and ripped upward through the heart of the Sultana. The blast went up at about a 45-degree angle, ripping apart the center of the main cabin, destroying the middle of the texas cabin (the section of a steamboat that includes the crew's quarters), and shearing off the back two-thirds of the pilothouse. The right smokestack fell into the giant hole in the center of the Sultana while the left stack crashed heavily onto the center of the crowded hurricane deck, smashing it down onto the equally crowded second deck underneath. Dozens and dozens of soldiers were crushed to death between the two decks although some were saved by the support of the heavy railings outlining the openings of the main stairway. Many people had been catapulted into the river by the force of the explosion while hundreds more fought to get away from the spreading flames and to find scraps of lumber to keep them afloat in the water. People trapped in the wreckage cried out for assistance as men women, and children who were lucky enough jumped into the icy cold river.

In the aftermath, it was discovered that at least 1800 soldiers and civilians had died, making it the worst maritime disaster in American history. (The Titanic sinking in 1912 by comparison resulted in approximately 1500 deaths.) Amidst the competing headlines of the South’s elongated surrender, the assassination of Lincoln and the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth, the Sultana catastrophe received surprisingly little news coverage. A halfhearted investigation would place most of the blame on Capt. Mason, who conveniently was not alive to point the finger at others. A war weary public, eager to put the war and all of its tragedies behind them, soon forgot about the Sultana and its victims.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Connections between the U.S. Civil War and the Wild West

The Civil War and the American conquest of the West were two of the most important events of the nineteenth century. However, these events are often treated as separate occurrences, even though the end of the war played a crucial role in stimulating westward expansion. It is important to acknowledge that the expansion of slavery played a prominent role in the power struggles for control over the territories, which would eventually become the Old West. Indeed, what we now perceive as the Old West saw itself as the New South during that period.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Buffalo Bill, around 1880.

Following the defeat of the Confederacy, numerous men who had fought for a cause found themselves suddenly without employment, money, or prospects. Many returned home to find their families and farms devastated, facing circumstances beyond their worst nightmares. In response, those who had the means chose to migrate westward in search of a fresh start. However, their anger, experiences, and familiarity with guns and violence accompanied them on their journey.

The popular perception of the Old West, largely influenced by Hollywood depictions, revolves around lawlessness, gunfights, and violence. In these portrayals, lawmen are depicted as heroes, distinguished by their badges and white hats, while the "bad guys" are characterized by black hats, unshaven appearances, and a tendency to draw their weapons first. However, the reality was far more nuanced. Violence was rampant, and law and order were virtually nonexistent. Interestingly, those who carried badges typically hailed from the northern states, while outlaws were often from the Border States and the old South. And those who wore the badges were of a specific background.

The Border States

It is crucial to recognize that the western frontier in the 1850s and 1860s encompassed Missouri and Kansas, known as the Border States. Kansas, in particular, had a history steeped in violence, which was deeply ingrained in the lives of its inhabitants. While we may not commonly associate the Old West with the consequences of the Civil War, those who lived during that time held no such distinction. When we envision the Old West today, we often think of states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. However, during the 1860s, the frontier was primarily located in Kansas. Whether we refer to it as a result of the Civil War or as Old West-related, those who actively participated in that era did not make such distinctions. It was the frontier in many different ways: between North and South, for sure, but also the West vs. East, whites vs. Native Americans, and Republicans vs. Democrats. It was a place of violence and lawlessness precisely because it was the border of all of these cultural shifts.

Bushwhacking and Western Gangs

Bushwhacking is a form of guerrilla warfare common during conflicts in which there were large areas of contested land and few governmental resources to control these tracts. This tactic was particularly prevalent in rural areas during the Civil War where there were sharp divisions between those favoring the Union and Confederacy in the conflict. The individuals responsible for these attacks, known as bushwhackers, utilized ambushes as a means of attrition. Attrition warfare, a military strategy aimed at wearing down the enemy through continuous losses in personnel, material, and morale, was the underlying objective of these guerrilla tactics.

Bushwhackers were typically affiliated with irregular military forces on both sides of the conflict. While they occasionally launched well-coordinated raids against military targets, their most devastating attacks involved ambushing individuals and conducting house raids in rural communities. These actions were especially inflammatory as they often pitted neighbors against each other, serving as a means to settle personal scores. Due to their lack of proper insignia, the Union considered these attackers as terrorists. Notable figures such as William Quantrill, Bill Anderson, and John Singleton Mosby exemplified the bushwhacker profile. Partisan Rangers, essentially land-based privateers, also fell under the category of bushwhackers.

The association of bushwhacking became particularly strong with the pro-Confederate guerrillas in Missouri, where this form of warfare reached its peak intensity. Guerrilla activities also extended to regions like Kentucky, Appalachian Tennessee, northern Georgia, Arkansas, and western Virginia. In Kansas, pro-Union guerrilla fighters were referred to as "Jayhawkers" and frequently engaged in cross-border raids into Missouri.

Jesse & Frank James

The James Brothers, along with their partners the Youngers, can be traced back to their involvement in the Civil War. Understanding the James–Younger Gang solely as outlaws in the Wild West would be incomplete, as their formation can be traced back to the bushwhackers of the Civil War era who engaged in partisan warfare in Missouri during the Civil War.

After the war ended, their motives shifted from fighting for the Confederacy to pursuing personal profit through acts of plunder and murder. Jesse James, a prominent member of the gang, began his insurgent activities in 1864. Throughout the war, he primarily fought against fellow Missourians, including Missouri regiments of U.S. Volunteer troops, state militia, and unarmed Unionist civilians. Although there is only one confirmed instance of him engaging in combat with Federal troops from another state, which occurred after Appomattox, he faced numerous hardships during the war. His mother and sister were arrested, his stepfather was tortured, and his family was temporarily banished from Missouri by Unionist Missourians.

The James–Younger Gang eventually disbanded in 1876 after the Younger brothers were captured during a failed bank robbery in Northfield, Minnesota. It is often mentioned that Union Army veterans played a significant role in the gunfight that led to their capture. Considering the contributions of the Iron Brigade and the First Minnesota in the war, it appears that the gang had chosen the wrong town to engage in criminal activities.

Three years later, Jesse James formed a new gang and resumed his criminal career. However, his reign came to an end in 1882 when he was shot from behind by Robert Ford, resulting in his death. Interestingly, Ford, who was a member of the James-Younger Gang, had been offered a reward and full pardon by the Governor of Missouri, Thomas Crittenden, if he successfully killed James. Crittenden had been elected with the promise of bringing an end to the notorious gang.

Buffalo Bill

In 1853, a man named Isaac Cody sold his land in Scott County, Iowa, and he, his wife, and their son moved to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Territory.  The allure of the frontier and the potential opportunities it held were the driving factors behind this move. However, little did he know that he was about to find himself in a tumultuous and violent situation. As an ardent opponent of slavery, Isaac was invited to deliver a speech at Rively's Store, a local trading post known for hosting gatherings of pro-slavery individuals. Unfortunately, his impassioned antislavery rhetoric provoked such anger among the crowd that they resorted to threatening his life. In a shocking turn of events, a man leaped forward and viciously stabbed Isaac twice with a Bowie knife. Although Rively, the store's proprietor, promptly rushed him to receive medical attention, Isaac never fully recovered from the injuries inflicted upon him. 

Following their arrival in Kansas, the Cody family faced relentless persecution from pro-slavery supporters. Isaac's safety was jeopardized to such an extent that he was compelled to spend considerable time away from his home. Matters took a grave turn when his adversaries discovered his planned visit to his family and devised a sinister plot to assassinate him en route. It was at this critical juncture that his 11-year-old son, already an accomplished equestrian, rode an astonishing thirty miles to warn his father of the impending danger. In a surprising twist, Isaac decided to divert his course and journeyed to Cleveland, Ohio, where he organized a group of thirty families to bring them back to Kansas to bolster the antislavery population. Tragically, during his return trip, Isaac fell ill with a respiratory infection, exacerbated by the lingering effects of his stabbing and complications arising from kidney disease. These afflictions ultimately led to his untimely demise in April 1857.

His son, William Cody, was forced to make a living as a young teen. He first worked as a messenger, capitalizing on his exceptional horse-riding abilities. Subsequently, he embarked on a career as a scout, riding alongside the US Cavalry in Utah, where he demonstrated his marksmanship by preventing a Native American from harming his comrade. At the age of 14, he ventured into gold prospecting in California but soon abandoned this quest to become a rider for the Pony Express. In 1861, he attempted to enlist in the Union army, but was rejected (he was just 15). In 1863, at age 17, he enlisted as a teamster with the rank of private in Company H, 7th Kansas Cavalry, and served until discharged in 1865.

With the end of the war, he went to Junction City KS to enlist as a scout with an old friend named Bill Hickok. They would work for various troops and their generals, including George Armstrong Custer. The reunion of Bill Cody with Wild Bill Hickock after the war was a critical part of the Old West story. They first met when Hickok was age 18, and a Jayhawker, and Cody was age 12. They crossed paths again in 1862 when Hickock joined General James Henry Lane's Kansas Brigade, and while serving with the brigade, saw his friend Buffalo Bill Cody, who was serving as a scout.

Buffalo Bill's Wild West Shows have been the subject of much contemporary criticism, with controversy revolving around whether they exploited Native Americans or if Bill was their benefactor.

Billy the Kid

Billy the Kid’s real name was Henry McCarty, whose alias was William H Bonney – that was not his real name. He had killed 21 men by the time of his own death at age 21. His connection to the Civil War is indirect but is a fascinating reflection on the times.

McCarty was orphaned at the age of 15. His first arrest was for stealing food at the age of 16 in 1875. Ten days later, he robbed a Chinese laundry and was arrested again but escaped shortly afterward. He fled from New Mexico Territory into neighboring Arizona Territory, making himself both an outlaw and a federal fugitive. In 1877, he began to call himself "William H. Bonney".

After killing a blacksmith during an altercation in August 1877, Bonney became a wanted man in Arizona and returned to New Mexico, where he joined a group of cattle rustlers. He became well known in the region when he joined the Regulators and took part in the Lincoln County War of 1878. He and two other Regulators were later charged with killing three men, including Lincoln County Sheriff William J. Brady and one of his deputies.

Bonney's notoriety grew in December 1880 when the Las Vegas Gazette, and The Sun, in New York City, carried stories about his crimes. Sheriff Pat Garrett captured Bonney later that month. In April 1881, Bonney was tried for and convicted of Brady's murder and was sentenced to hang in May of that year. He escaped from jail on April 28, killing two sheriff's deputies in the process, and evaded capture for more than two months. Garrett eventually caught up with him and shot and killed Bonney, by then aged 21, in Fort Sumner on July 14, 1881. Garrett shot him in the chest in a dark room. Garrett and Bonney had been friends; he had a temper and had killed several men, with and without a badge. Rumors developed that Garrett never actually killed Bonney but it was a set up for him to escape. The movie in the 1970s accompanied by Bob Dylan’s lyrics made it seem as if Garrett was more of an assassin than a lawman. Certainly, a reward offered by the Governor of New Mexico was part of the incentive. And indeed, Garrett’s life story shows him seamlessly drifting among these roles.

Governor Lew Wallace, renowned for his involvement in the battles of Shiloh and Monocacy, as well as his authorship of the novel "Ben Hur," arrived in Santa Fe on September 29, 1878. His service as governor of the New Mexico Territory occurred during a time of lawless violence and political corruption. Wallace was involved in efforts to resolve New Mexico's Lincoln County War, a contentious and violent disagreement among the county's residents, and tried to end a series of Apache raids on territorial settlers.

On March 1, 1879, after previous attempts to restore order in Lincoln County had proven unsuccessful, Wallace issued orders for the arrest of those responsible for the local killings. Among the outlaws was none other than Billy the Kid. On March 17, 1879, Wallace clandestinely met with Bonney, who had witnessed the murder of a Lincoln County lawyer named Huston Chapman. Wallace sought Bonney's testimony in the trial of Chapman's alleged murderers. In return, Bonney requested protection from his enemies and amnesty for his past transgressions. During their meeting, the two struck a deal, with Bonney agreeing to become an informant in exchange for a full pardon of his previous crimes.

Wallace supposedly assured the Kid that he would be "scot-free with a pardon in your pocket for all your misdeeds." On March 20 Bonney agreed to provide grand jury testimony against those involved in Chapman's murder. Wallace arranged for a "fake" arrest and Bonney's detention in a local jail to assure his safety. Bonney testified in court on April 14, as agreed. However, the local district attorney revoked Wallace's bargain and refused to set the outlaw free. Bonney escaped and went back to killing people. Garrett set a $500 reward for his capture. That was when Garrett went after his friend. The authenticity of this bargain, however, remains questionable. It is unclear whether Wallace truly made such an offer or if it was merely a fabrication.

Garrett's early life was marked by financial hardship and tragedy. At age 3, Garrett’s father purchased the John Greer plantation in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. The Civil War, however, destroyed the Garrett family's finances. Their mother died at the age of 37 on March 25, 1867, when Garrett was 16. Then the following year, on February 5, 1868, his father died at age 45. The children were left with a plantation that was more than $30,000 in debt. Relatives took in the children. The 18-year-old Garrett headed west from Louisiana on January 25, 1869. He became a Buffalo hunter and killed his first man in 1876. His first lawman job was as sheriff of Lincoln County during its war between 2 families after the previous sheriff was killed in a 5-day shootout. Billy the Kid was involved, so Garrett began to track him. Garrett went on to great acclaim as a Western lawman, recognized alongside Bat Masterson and Ben Daniels by Theodore Roosevelt. He would eventually be killed on the trail under still-mysterious circumstances.

An intriguing aspect to consider is the contrasting backgrounds of McCarty and Garrett. While McCarty was born in New York City, Garrett hailed from Alabama. in this regard, although an interesting switch of geographic roles, Garrett wasn’t such a good guy; Garrett's reputation as a lawman was not without blemish. On the other hand, Bonney, despite his outlaw status, had spent most of his life in the South. This pattern reveals a recurring theme where the law was often associated with the Republican and Northern states, while outlaws tended to emerge from the Border States or regions with Southern influences.

Arizona

In March 1861, Arizona territory issued an ordinance of secession. In retrospect, this is noteworthy because it wasn’t even a state at the time; it was part of a territory with New Mexico. Its stated reasons for this measure included: the need for protection from Native American raids and attacks, continued mail service, and the ties of “southern identity” although the document makes no explicit mention of slavery.  A specific passage in the secession statement says, “RESOLVED, That geographically and naturally we are bound to the South, and to her we look for protection; and as the Southern States have formed a Confederacy, it is our earnest desire to be attached to that Confederacy as a Territory.”

Black Americans in the Old West

Old Hollywood Westerns are fantastic updated examples of a Greek morality play: Evil may seem to be winning, but in the end, justice will prevail. There is of course a problem with the casting of these movies: 25% of the estimated 35,000 men who went out west and became cowboys (in the modern sense) were black.  These were former slaves who had been emancipated, went west due to limited prospects in the South, and were now looking to make a living.

And once this fact is pointed out, the reasons are not hard to discern. Former slaves had skills in cattle handling; suddenly free with no prospect of being hired for a fair wage at home, they headed West at the end of the Civil War.  While not treated exactly as equals, black men had equality to white men in terms of pay and responsibilities, A typical trail party consisted of a dozen men, of whom 7 or 8 were white men, 2 or so were Mexicans, and 3 were blacks.  These men were most often employed as wranglers or cooks, but not very often as trail bosses. The freed slaves might not be hired right away. Many came with kitchen or ranching skills but often trained under Mexican vaqueros or native Americans, and then hired by white ranchers and paid an equal wage.).

Many of the authentic characters of the Old West were former slaves who found a better life on the frontier. Here are 5 examples:

Deadwood Dick: Real name: Nat Love from Tennessee. Breaking horses and driving cattle were his specialties. He lived for a time in Deadwood and Dodge City. Later became a rodeo rider and performer.

Bob Lemmons: After being freed, he moved to West Texas and became known for his skills in capturing wild mustangs. He was so good at this that he became wealthy, bought his own ranch, and developed large herds of cattle and horses.

John Ware: Rancher freed from slavery in South Carolina, considered one of the most reliable cowboys on cattle drives from Alberta to Texas.

Bass Reeves: A freed slave from Arkansas who spoke numerous Native American languages, one of the great western lawmen, the first Black deputy U.S. marshal west of the Mississippi. Throughout Arkansas and the Oklahoma Territory, he apprehended over 3,000 criminals. Tales of his exploits are legendary, including that he once went on a posse with just a cook and an assistant and rounded up 21 wanted outlaws, who he led back on a rope. When we think of Western heroes, he really should be among the first we recognize, and the fact that we don’t is purely a manifestation of what old Hollywood thought would sell.

Bill Pickett: Legendary Rodeo performer, who invented steer wrestling, enshrined in the Rodeo Hall of Fame.

Wyatt Earp

If you think the Civil War has its myths and legends bent out of proportion to reality, well, the Old West has it beat, and the legend surrounding Wyatt Earp may be its greatest fraud. He is truly the embodiment of “the real America”, just not the ersatz one Hollywood created; the truth about the misogyny and violence of the Old West are romanticized, leading to false legends which have impacted modern views.

The story surrounding the Earps and the McLaurys and the Clantons and the facts of the Gunfight at the OK Corral and the Vendetta Ride go beyond this article. The truth is an even better story than the romanticized, sugar-coated version, and the blending of good guy versus bad guy never really ceases to amaze.

Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson were assistant marshals in Dodge City, KS in the 1870s and 1880s. This town did not exist during the Bleeding Kansas days (it was founded in 1871), but the state’s reputation for violence predated the Old West. Earp moved to Dodge City from another Kansas boomtown, Wichita. His first wife was a prostitute who had opened a brothel there. Earp had been a pimp in Peoria. He was arrested several times while in Wichita for engaging in business with the brothel, and it was considered a conflict for a constable to be engaging in that behavior.

The Earps were northerners, from Illinois. Masterson was Canadian, from Quebec. Wyatt and Bat were Dodge City lawmen, in Kansas in the 1870s. Bleeding Kansas was still fresh in everyone’s mind. The territory west of them was Native American: Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, Kansan, Kiowa, Osage, Pawnee, and Wichita.

Among the Dodge City lawmen of 1883 were Bat Masterson, Earp, and Charlie Basset, the town marshal. You would not want to mess with this group; these men were Tough. And they weren’t especially concerned with the details of the law. They applied the law with their fists and their six-shooters. What we see illustrated is that the guys wearing the star are northerners, sanctioned by Republican politicians in the post-war years by Grant or Hayes or Garfield, all Union generals serving as President; while the outlaws are originally from border states or southerners, and Democrats, who left behind a destroyed land and culture, represent the majority of the settlers. In the movies, the cliché was that the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys black ones. In reality, the lawmen were urban, wore ties, were clean-shaven, and represented society and a brand of frontier justice in the vacuum of the real thing.

Doc Holliday was from Georgia but graduated from Penn Dental School and his first dental practice was in St Louis. He moved west because his dental practice, at first successful, couldn’t survive his active tuberculosis, which was his eventual cause of death. He gambled because it was the only way an intelligent man with a persistent cough could earn a living, and his manual dexterity manifested in his gun handling.

The Clantons were from Missouri, the McLaurys from Iowa, but had become Texas and later Arizona cattle ranchers. The tension between North and South was not lost on anyone even a dozen years after Appomattox. While Hollywood has suggested that “cowboy” refers to the (white) settlers of the West it was a pejorative term suggesting cattle rustling, stagecoach robbery, and other crimes. The Clanton’s were indeed cowboys in this sense. Cowboys were poor, rural, isolated, worked with cattle and horses, worked hard, and did anything necessary to survive.

Tombstone is located in southern Arizona and was acquired as part of the Gadsden Purchase. That land was purchased from Mexico specifically to build a southern transcontinental railroad. Tombstone had its origins in the lead-up to the Civil War, and you just cannot understand the Gunfight or the Vendetta Ride without recognizing this. Tombstone was another boomtown due to silver mining. These kinds of places were infamous for loose law enforcement, perfect for the Earps. Earp’s second wife was also a prostitute. In Tombstone, his girlfriend was Josephine Marcus, a prostitute and gambler, from Brooklyn NY whose actual name was Sadie, called Sarah. She had been Sheriff Behan’s girlfriend before Earp came to town, and he was a friend with the Cowboys.

This is the foundation of the true story: Tombstone, AZ was perfectly happy with a bunch of cowboys – cattle thieves – in charge of town with their own elected sheriff in charge. Then these northerners came down uninvited, ran for office, tried to “reform” the town, stole the sheriff’s girlfriend, and carried badges from a Republican governor. They are not exactly noble: they are rough-and-tumble lawmen from Kansas and an infamous gambler, with reputations as gunfighters.

Those killed at the OK Corral famously are buried on Boot Hill. Where Wyatt Earp is buried is highly illustrative of the real America: Wyatt Earp is buried in a Jewish cemetery in Los Angeles. Despite her gambling addiction, Earp and Josephine, who was Jewish, remained together for many years after the shootout. Earp lived in LA as a movie consultant for Hollywood as one of many real-life roles including working for a time for Theodore Roosevelt. This is the real America, the melting pot, and the part that is left out because it is not the Western narrative Hollywood thrives on.

The Native American Perspective

The Civil War profoundly impacted the Native American tribes and led to what followed for the next 30 years. One-third of all Cherokees and Seminoles in Indian Territory died from violence, starvation, and war-related illness. Elite tribal members’ enslavement of African Americans motivated Southern allegiance. It turns out that the Native Americans fought for all the same reasons, influenced by the same economics and politics, as the white man.

It is estimated that over 20,000 Native Americans actively participated in the Civil War, fighting on both sides of the conflict. Approximately 3,500 Native Americans served in the Union Army. While exact numbers don’t exist for the CSA, it is believed to be much higher. It is crucial to recognize that some of the territories that were at the center of the slavery debate in 1850 eventually became the Indian territories in the 1870s. This historical context sheds light on the complex dynamics at play during this period.

Native Americans held complex aspirations during the war, perhaps naively hoping that aligning themselves with the white man would grant them a voice and consideration for their views. A close examination of the geographical distribution reveals that certain Indian territories, such as Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, lay below the Missouri Compromise line, indicating the presence of Native American slave owners. Ultimately, what the tribes truly desired was tribal sovereignty, but their concerns were overshadowed by the larger, more devastating destruction of indigenous ways of life. Oklahoma was the primary site of Indian Territory in 1861, housing at least nine tribes, with the Cherokees being the largest among them. The tribes faced internal divisions and conflicting opinions on the best course of action, both within and between their respective communities. Once again, it is important to emphasize that some of the territories of 1850 where slavery was a political issue would become the Indian territories of the 1870s.

The indigenous peoples of America held complex desires during the war and may have been somewhat naive in their belief that aligning with the white settlers would grant them a platform to voice their concerns. Their primary aspiration, however, was to attain tribal sovereignty. But the war wasn’t about their issues and was just an interlude to the bigger, more chilling destruction of aboriginal ways of life.

Tribes located in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were situated below the Missouri Compromise line, while Wyoming and the Dakotas were located above. This indicates that certain Native American tribes did own slaves while others did not. Oklahoma today was the main location of Indian Territory in 1861, and at least 9 tribes were located there, although the Cherokees were the largest of them. Within these tribes, there were divisions in terms of loyalty and differing opinions on the best course of action to take. These divisions were not only present between tribes but also within individual tribes themselves.

Stand Watie served as Brigadier General in the Confederate States of America (CSA) during a tumultuous period in the history of the Cherokee Nation. Before his leadership, John Ross, who had guided the nation through the tragic Trail of Tears, advocated for neutrality and unity as the secessionist movement gained momentum in and around Indian Territory. Ross, supported by a significant majority, aimed to maintain the nation's sovereignty while also advocating for the abolition of slavery. However, Watie represented a wealthy minority within the Cherokee Nation who owned slaves. He was the most prominent figure of the Treaty Party, a group that defied the majority's wishes and illegally signed a treaty that resulted in the forced removal of Cherokees from their ancestral lands.

In a move that bypassed Ross, Watie formed a Cherokee cavalry by recruiting members from within the nation. Consequently, the Cherokee Nation found itself embroiled in its own civil war. When the CSA eventually surrendered, Watie lost his rank, and Ross resumed his position as chief. Watie actively participated in significant battles such as Wilsons Creek, Pea Ridge, and Cabin Creek. Notably, he became the last Confederate general to surrender. However, the Cherokee Nation suffered immense devastation both internally and externally. The absence of support from the Union army made it clear that their loyalty would not be rewarded. This summary only scratches the surface of a complex narrative filled with ruthless decision-making, self-centered actions, and violence.  

Ely Parker, a Seneca (Iroquois) and a colonel on Grant's staff played a significant role in the Civil War. Unlike Stand Watie, Parker strongly opposed slavery. Before the war, he had served as a civil engineer and diplomat for the Seneca, even contributing to the construction of the Erie Canal. As the war drew to a close, Parker was entrusted with the task of drafting the final terms of surrender for the Confederacy. At the time of surrender, General Lee "stared at me for a moment," said Parker. "He extended his hand and said, 'I am glad to see one real American here.' I shook his hand and said, 'We are all Americans.' After the war, he served in many government capacities including as Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arizona_Territory_Ordinance_of_Secession

https://listverse.com/2016/04/04/10-african-american-cowboys-who-shaped-the-old-west/

https://historycollection.com/the-little-known-history-of-american-indians-during-the-civil-war/

https://historycollection.com/the-little-known-history-of-american-indians-during-the-civil-war/

https://www.history.com/news/civil-war-native-american-indian-territory-cherokee-home-guard

https://americanindian.si.edu/static/why-we-serve/topics/civil-war/

One of the Greatest Tragedies in the History of American Expansion – The Donner Party

The Hastings Cutoff - why would this area in the western part of our country, near Salt Lake City, be so important in the history of westward expansion? All the wagon train had to do was make a simple decision, make the turn, thereby cutting off three hundred miles or about two weeks on their journey to California.

Richard Bluttal explains the tragedy of the Donner Party, a group who took the Hastings Cutoff route.

James and Margaret Reed.

During their first week in the Cutoff, the Donner party made good progress. Hastings, who had promised to lead migrants along the trail, left Fort Bridger with a different company of wagons, and it fell to James F. Reed to act as the company’s guide. As they broke a new trail through the nearly impassable terrain of the Wasatch Mountains, they lost the two weeks’ time.

In May 1846, the last wagon train of the season left Independence, Missouri for the Mexican territory of Alta California. Led by two men from Springfield, Illinois—farmer George Donner and furniture manufacturer James F. Reed—the Donner Party followed the well-established California Trail as far as the Little Sandy River in Wyoming. It is there that they made the fateful decision to take a new, more direct route over the Wasatch Mountains and across the Great Salt Lake Desert. The determination was made despite the warnings from accomplished mountain man James Clyman.

On August 30, after gathering as much water and grass as they could carry, they entered the Great Salt Lake Desert. A note left by Hastings had assured the party that they would be able to cross the desert in just two days, but the journey took five. The party lost dozens of cattle in the desert, and several wagons had to be abandoned. The pioneers lost valuable days conducting a fruitless search for the missing oxen before beginning a circuitous navigation of the Ruby Mountains in modern north-eastern Nevada. By the time the Donner party reached the Humboldt River, where Hastings Cutoff re-joined the main California Trail, it was late September. All the other migrants of 1846 had completed their journey to California, and the Donner party was racing the weather to clear the passes in the Sierra Nevada.

Tension

Tensions were running high among the exhausted migrants, and on October 5 an altercation between Reed and a teamster employed by another family ended with Reed fatally stabbing the man. Some members of the party suggested that Reed be hanged, but he was instead banished from the company. Reed would continue west on horseback while the rest of his family remained with the Donner party.

The migrants began the ascent of the Sierra foothills low on food, and Paiute warriors killed several of the remaining oxen. By this point, the members of the company had cached, or buried, virtually all their personal possessions—except for food, clothing, and the barest essentials necessary for survival—in an effort to minimize the load on their exhausted animals. On October 31 the weary migrants approached what is now Donner Pass across the Sierra Nevada and found their progress blocked by deepening snow.

177 years ago, the Donner Party was unable to cross the Pass in a storm. They returned to the Lake and built cabins. They slaughtered their cattle for food and used the hides as roofs on the cabins. The Breens inhabited the cabin that had been built two years earlier by the Stephens Party. This is the site of the Pioneer Monument at Donner Memorial State Park. The Murphys built a cabin a few hundred yards to the south, against a large rock. This rock is today marked by a plaque in the park. The Graves and Reeds built a cabin about a half-mile down the Creek.

From November 20, 1846 to March 1, 1847, Irish immigrant Patrick Breen, a Donner party member, kept a diary of his ordeal in the mountains. Clinging to survival with his wife Margaret and their seven children, Breen described the harsh winter weather, the leather hides they resorted to eating, and the deaths of their traveling companions.

Diary Entries

“Came to this place on the 31st of last month that it snowed we went on to the pass the snow so deep we were unable to find the road, when within 3 miles of the summit then turned back to this shanty on the Lake, Stanton came one day after we arrived here we again took our teams & waggons & made another unsuccessful attempt to cross in company with Stanton we returned to the shanty it continuing to snow all the time we were here we now have killed most part of our cattle having to stay here until next spring & live on poor beef without bread or salt” - November 20, 1846

“still snowing now about 3 feet deep…killed my last oxen today will skin them tomorrow gave another yoke to Fosters hard to get wood” - November 29, 1846 “... snow about 5 ½ feet or 6 deep difficult to get wood no gong from the house completely housed up looks as likely for snow as when it commenced, our cattle all killed but three or four them, the horses & Stantons mules gone & cattle suppose lost in the Snow no hopes of finding them alive” - December 1, 1846 “... Milt. & Noah went to Donnos 8 days since not returned yet, thinks they got lost in the snow…”

December 17, 1846 “... May we with Gods help spend the comeing year better than the past which we purpose to do if Almighty God will deliver us from our present dreadful situation…” - December 31, 1846

Ordeal

Breen’s account of the winter of 1846–47 would provide the only contemporary written record of the Donner party’s ordeal. On December 15 Baylis Williams, an employee of the Reed family, died of malnutrition at the lake camp; his was the first recorded death. On December 16 a party of 10 men and 5 women set out to cross the mountains on improvised snowshoes. During a month’s harrowing, often overwhelming hardships from cold, storms, deep snow, and inadequate food, they struggled on. Eight of the men died, and the bodies of some of these were eaten by the others. Two men and all the women got through to the Sacramento Valley. The settlers of California organized a relief party which left Fort Sutter (Sacramento) on January 31, 1847. Heroically struggling through the deep snow, seven men reached the lake camp on February 18. They then took twenty-three of the starving emigrants, including seventeen children, back to the settlements; several deaths occurred on the way. Other relief parties followed, but, because of illness and injuries, it was impossible to remove everyone.

After dogs and cowhides had been devoured, many deaths occurred, and the survivors were forced to resort to cannibalism of the dead bodies. The last survivor, Lewis Keseber who had supported himself during the last weeks by cannibalism, did not leave camp until April 21. Five of the emigrants died before reaching the mountain camps, thirty-four at the camps or on the mountains while attempting to cross, and one just after reaching the settlements. Two men who had joined the party at the lake also died. The total number of deaths was thus forty-two, with forty-seven survivors, although many others would soon follow.

The ordeal of the Donner party highlighted the incredible risks that were inherent in the great overland trek, but it did little to slow the pace of migration. Indeed, even the survivors of the party encouraged others to undertake the journey. In a letter to her cousin in Illinois, Virginia Reed recounted that “I have not wrote you half of the truble, but I hav Wrote you anuf to let you now what truble is,” before concluding, “Dont let this letter dishaten anybody. Never take no cutofs and hury along as fast as you can.” The discovery of gold in California in 1848 would turn the flow of migrants into a virtual flood, and the legacy of the Donner party would become less a cautionary tale and more a grim historical footnote in the story of the great westward movement.

After examining remains from the Alder Creek campsite, researchers in 2010 announced that they had been unable to find any human bones or other physical evidence of cannibalism. The researchers themselves clarified, however, that the absence of archaeological evidence did not rule out the possibility that cannibalism had occurred, especially given the extensive contemporary accounts by members of the rescue parties.

Key problems

There has been a lot written about the Donner party’s own problems, below were a number of them.

1. The Donner Party started its trip dangerously late in the pioneer season. The core of what became the Donner Party did not leave their jumping-off point at Independence, Missouri until May 12. They were the y fell behind schedule after taking an untested shortcut.

2. After reaching Wyoming, most California-bound pioneers followed a route that swooped north through Idaho before turning south and moving across Nevada. In 1846, however, a dishonest guidebook author named Lansford Hastings was promoting a straighter and supposedly quicker path that cut through the Wasatch Mountains and across the Salt Lake Desert. There was just one problem: no one had ever traveled this “Hastings Cutoff” with wagons, not even Hastings himself. Despite the obvious risks—and against the warnings of James Clyman, an experienced mountain man—the 20 Donner Party wagons elected to break off from the usual route and gamble on Hastings’ back road. The decision proved disastrous. The emigrants were forced to blaze much of the trail themselves by cutting down trees, and they nearly died of thirst during a five-day crossing of the salt desert. Rather than saving them time, Hasting’s “shortcut” ended up adding nearly a month to the Donner Party’s journey.

3. The emigrants lost a race against the weather by just a few days. Despite the Hastings Cutoff debacle, most of the Donner Party still managed to reach the slopes of the Sierra Nevada by early November 1846. Only a scant hundred miles remained in their trek, but before the pioneers had a chance to drive their wagons through the mountains, an early blizzard blanketed the Sierras in several feet of snow. Mountain passes that were navigable just a day earlier soon transformed into icy roadblocks, forcing the Donner Party to retreat to nearby Truckee Lake and wait out the winter in ramshackle tents and cabins. Much of the group’s supplies and livestock had already been lost on the trail, and it was not long before the first settlers began to perish from starvation.

4. During the “Forlorn Hope” expedition, the hiking party included a pair of Indians named Salvador and Luis, both of whom had joined up with the Donner emigrants shortly before they became snowbound. The natives refused to engage in cannibalism, and Salvador and Luis later ran off out of fear that they might be murdered once the others ran out of meat. Indeed, when the duo was found days later, exhausted and lying in the snow, a hiking party member named William Foster shot both of them in the head. The Indians were then butchered and eaten by the hikers. It was the only time during the entire winter that people were murdered for use as food.

Conclusion

Of the eighty-one pioneers who began the Donner Party’s horrific winter in the Sierra Nevada, only forty-five managed to walk out alive. The ordeal proved particularly costly for the group’s fifteen solo travelers, all but two of whom died, but it also took a tragic toll on the families. George and Jacob Donner, both of their wives and four of their children all perished. Pioneer William Eddy, meanwhile, lost his wife and his two kids. Nearly a dozen families had made up Donner wagon train, but only two—the Reeds and the Breens—managed to arrive in California without suffering a single death.

Did you find that article of interest? If so, get more by joining us for free - click here.

Female Hysteria Throughout History

Mental health is fast becoming an issue at the forefront of the public consciousness, but it has not been without struggle; history is littered with a multitude of inhumane ways those suffering from mental health issues have been treated - all you have to do is look through the history of ‘lunatic asylums’ to discover that their methods were usually cold, brutal and often detrimental to the patient.

These asylums commonly had a high volume of women within their walls; many of whom were abandoned at the gates by their husbands or other family members, as they were unable to deal with their ‘issues’ - which could have been anything ranging from mood swings and nervousness, loss of appetite, or even simple dizzy spells. The diagnosis: a bad case of female hysteria. The treatment? Well, a pelvic massage, of course!

Rachael Elizabeth explains.

Marie Wittman in a cataleptic pose taken, circa 1880.

The Queen of Hysterics

One such place where these afflicted women would be sent was the Salpetriere Hospital in Paris, France. The Salpetrieire Hospital was originally a gunpowder factory until its recondition in 1656, when it was converted into a ‘hospice’ for women suffering from hysteria, epilepsy, and dementia, along with poor women and female criminals. Although it is cited as a ‘hospital’ or ‘hospice’, the Salpetrieire Hospital quickly became a notorious insane asylum, and the go-to place to dispose of women suffering from so-called ‘hysteria’. The hospital had a capacity of 10,000 “patients” and 300 prisoners - but among the women, a patient named Marie “Blanche” Wittman became the unlikely star of Dr Jean-Martin Charcot’s hysteria show.

Dr Jean-Martin Charcot was a French neurologist, and famously became known as ‘the father of neurology’. Dr Charcot would use Miss Wittman, along with other female patients, for his hypnosis shows, demonstrating his ability to induce and stop moments of hysteria. Whilst on stage, Charcot could arouse an attack of hysteria from his female host via hypnosis, and it was Wittman who became the main attraction - due to the fact she would reenact any scenario Charcot asked with an extreme display of emotion, making her audience coo with disbelief. In one such event, Charcot made Wittman believe that an image of a donkey was in fact a nude image of herself, and through her shock and embarrassment, Wittman smashed the picture.

In order to “switch off” Wittman (or the other women), Charcot would use ovary compression, as this was believed to bring them out of their hypnotic state - at first, Charcot would manually press down on the women's bodies - that is, until he invented the first ovary compression device, aptly named “the ovary compressor”.

The first demonstration of the device was on February 7, 1888, with Wittman as the hypnotized demonstrator. The straps, made from leather, would fasten around her back and the padded screws were placed over the abdomen, before being slowly tightened which would squeeze the woman's abdomen, towards the “hysteric centre”, and would magically appease their hysteric state.

The History of Hysteria

The word ‘hysteria’ is derived from the ancient Greek word ‘Hystera’ (which, loosely translated, means ‘uterus’), and it was believed that if a woman didn’t keep her uterus in check (usually by engaging in sexual encounters with her husband or by producing offspring), her uterus would angrily ‘wander around her body’ - like a naughty child throwing a tantrum - and thus cause a myriad of symptoms and diseases; but because hysteria was only thought to be caused by the womb, this “condition” was only ever attributed to women.

In the Victorian era, hysteria diagnosis was rampant, and the physicians of the time concluded that rubbing the woman’s pelvis until she reached “hysterical paroxysm” was a way to cure (or at least provide some temporary relief to) the hysteria-ridden woman and help bring the womb back to its rightful place.

The action of massaging the woman’s pelvis consisted of the physician physically performing the task himself - and although this could be construed as predatory, the act itself was supposedly never considered or intended to be sexual. Unfortunately, however, as with many archaic medical interventions, there were downsides to the procedure - it was a difficult technique to master, and could in some cases take hours to gain a successful result. The laborious task of curing a woman’s hysteria quite rapidly became a hindrance, both due to the volume of women affected, and the volume of women who needed ‘repeat prescriptions’, if you will.

In 1734, the invention of the first clock-work vibrator named the ‘Tremoussoir’ provided welcome relief to the cramping hands of the physicians, as now they had an apparatus to take the strain out of manual pelvic massages. A little later, around the early 1800s, Joseph Mortimer Granville patented the first ‘electromechanical’ vibrator; its original purpose was for the relief of muscular aches and pains for men, and he specifically stated that it should NOT be used to treat hysterical women - although many physicians began implementing the devices regardless.

Although the invention of the vibrator did help to alleviate the workload of the physicians, they were still manually using the devices to treat the women. As electricity became a growing staple in people's homes, women were now able to buy their vibrators to use in the comfort of their own home; in the 1920s, the vibrating devices began making an appearance in adult films, therefore catapulting them deep into the world of eroticism, and they were subsequently rendered obsolete by the medical community.

A Happy(ish) Ending

To our modern minds, doctors facilitating the use of a vibrator sounds ludicrous, and perhaps even ominous, but we have to remember that in the 1800s, when this was a popular topic, not one iota of the device's purpose, nor the treatment itself was intended to be sexual - in fact, physicians sometimes even used the device to help deter women who made ‘sexual forward advances’, as that behavior was also seen as an affliction.

Although it is tempting to poke fun at the historic medical blunders that seem so outlandish by today’s standards, it’s important to remember that historical sexism towards women’s ailments was a deeply troubling and disturbing time, and even though ‘hysteria’ is no longer a diagnosis, it took until the 1950s for Female Hysteria to be declassified as a mental health issue.

Even today, although thankfully vastly improved, the remnants of the dismissive attitude towards women’s health problems are still ingrained in us - a study on heartandstroke.ca details, “Women who mention stress, along with physical symptoms of cardiac disease, are more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety than men reporting the same issues”. According to the British Heart Foundation, another study has also shown that women have a fifty percenthigher chance of heart disease being misdiagnosed as anxiety-related disorders when compared with men.

Although it is easy to look back at the science of the time and laugh at its absurdness, we should also consider that they were probably trying to do the best they could with the information they had available at the time. Nowadays, we can rest assured that medical science has evolved in a variety of ways which has had an overwhelmingly positive effect on many people's lives.

Did you find that piece fascinating? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/from-awareness-to-action/202303/the-history-of-hysteria-in-womens-lives

https://www.glamour.com/story/the-history-of-doctors-diagnosing-women-with-hysteria

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/female-hysteria_n_4298060

https://www.rti.org/insights/myth-female-hysteria-and-health-disparities-among-women

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/the-controversy-of-female-hysteria#Hysteria-in-the-19th-century

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/women/misdiagnosis-of-heart-attacks-in-women

https://theamericanscholar.org/beyond-nerves/

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/12/3342/285315

https://www.bestfranceforever.com/the-hysteria-show/

https://gizmodo.com/meet-the-queen-of-hysterics-who-was-freuds-early-muse-1604567867

Quackery by Lydia Kang

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3480686/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232746123_Women_And_Hysteria_In_The_History_Of_Mental_Health

https://victorian-era.org/female-hysteria-during-victorian-era.html

https://victorian-era.org/female-hysteria-during-victorian-era.html?expand_article=1

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vibrator/

Cannons and Colonialism – What Caused the Rise of Europe?

How did Europe grow quickly and become a hub of innovation, making it a global leader in trade and military strength? Here, Ilyas Ali gives us his take.

The 1836 Siege of Constantine during the French conquest of Algeria.

Historians disagree on how Europe came to be so powerful - to say the least.

But one thing is for certain and which all agree on. And that is that to find the answer, we must not look at what happened or who did during an isolated point in time.

Rather, we must grasp the long-term changes that brought Europe to its current position.

Troublesome Geography

One thing that is striking about Europe in 1500 was its political fragmentation. And unlike in places such as China, Europe’s political disunity was not a temporary affair.

In fact, this is as it had always been. Even the mighty Roman Empire had difficulty conquering areas north of the Rhine and Danube rivers.

In comparison to the Ottomans and Chinese, the Europeans were divided into smaller kingdoms, lordships, clans, and confederations in the East.

And the cause that prevented anyone from conquering Europe was geography.

Europe lacked the vast open plains that enabled the Mongols to conquer on horseback in Asia.

Nor were there large rivers like the Nile, Euphrates, or the Yangtze which provided nourishment to easily conquerable peasant populations living along its banks.

Europe was divided by mountains and forests, making it inaccessible for conquerors wishing to dominate the continent. Also, the climate varied considerably across the continent, which made that goal harder still.

But whilst it denied the unification of the continent, it also acted as a barrier to invasion from elsewhere.

Indeed, despite the Mongol horde swiftly conquering much of Asia, it was these same mountains and forests which saved Europe.

Free Economy

Because its geography supported dispersed power, this greatly aided the growth of a free European economy.

Do you remember how Europe had different climates across the continent?

This same variable climate allowed for different products to be made and traded.

For example, due to their different climates, an Italian city-state would sell grapes the English couldn't grow. And in return, the English sent fish from the Atlantic.

And another advantage Europe possessed was its many navigable rivers which allowed the easy transport of goods. And to make transporting goods even easier, many pathways were made through forests and mountains.

And dispersed political power also meant that commerce could never be fully suppressed in Europe. This was a recurring problem that Eastern empires had, but not so much in Europe.

If a king taxed his merchants too much or stopped trade completely, they would move to a more business-friendly part of Europe. And they would take his tax money with them.

Because of this, over time European statesmen learnt that it was in their best interests to strike a deal with these merchants and tradesmen. They would give them a law and order, and a decent judicial system. In return, those merchants would give them tax money to spend on their state and military ambitions.

Military Superiority

Despite its geographic situation, there was still one way to unify Europe: to have superior military technology.

This is what happened with the ‘gunpowder empires’ of the East. For instance, in Japan, the feudal warlord Hideyoshi brought together the country by obtaining cannons and guns that his rivals lacked. This technological superiority allowed him to unify Japan.

And it wasn’t at all impossible for a ‘gunpowder empire’ to arise in Europe. By 1500 C.E., already the French and English had amassed enough artillery at home to crush any internal enemy who rebelled against the state.

Despite Europe having powerful military forces, no one was able to conquer the entire continent -although the Habsburgs would come close though.

So why did this not happen?

The reason this didn’t happen was because of that same decentralization spoken of before. Due to political decentralization, an arms race occurred among all European states.

Europe, you see, had a habit of constantly going to war. To survive, every European polity aimed to be militarily stronger than its neighbors.

This created a competitive economic climate to create superior military technology.

But this also meant that no single power had complete access to the best military technology. The cannon, for example, was being built in central Europe, Milan, Malaga, Sweden, etc.

Nor could one power easily proliferate the most superior ships. There were shipbuilding ports all across the Baltic to the Black Sea, all locked in fierce competition.

One might ask at this point; wouldn’t the disunited European armies easily be crushed by the mighty Ottoman and Chinese armies of the East?

And the answer would probably be yes.

Europe was definitely lagging behind the Eastern empires in the 16th century. However, by the latter half of the 17th century, the Europeans were gaining an upper hand.

This was because the Europeans were successful in creating superior military technology, which set them apart from others.

Although gunpowder and cannons were invented by other civilizations, Europeans improved and enhanced them. They also worked towards creating more powerful variations.

The Ottomans and the Chinese invented this technology, but they didn't feel the need to improve. There was not much of a threat which forced them to innovate and better those weapons like before. When they were weak, they innovated and improved, but once they had become mighty, they stopped.

But due to the competitive climate in Europe, improvement was a matter of survival. They improved the grain quality of the gunpowder they used, they changed the materials of the weaponry to make them lighter and more powerful.

In their shipbuilding large strides were taken also. They learned how to build big, sturdy ships for the rough Atlantic waters. Then, they learned how to equip these ships with powerful cannons for destructive potential.

And it was these new ships and weaponry that would soon allow them to travel across the whole world and conquer territories in other continents.

All this innovation allowed the Europeans to soon supersede the Eastern empires, and for the age of colonialism to soon begin.

Colonialism

With their powerful ships in tow, Europe started venturing outside of its continental borders.

Using the long-range capabilities of the new ships, they controlled ocean trade routes and demonstrated their powerful cannons by bombarding resisting coastal settlements.

The Portuguese and Spanish were the first to explore. The Portuguese dominated the spice trade with powerful ships. Additionally, they carved out an empire stretching from Aden, to Goa, and to Malacca.

The Spanish, in turn, went West into the New World and quickly overcame the comparatively primitive populations of South America in a matter of a few short years. And as a result of their successes, they sent home silver, furs, sugar, hides, etc.

Soon the Dutch, the English, and the French joined in as the Europeans kicked off their bid for world domination.

New crops such as potatoes and maize, along with various meats gave the Europe steady nutrition. And access to the Newfoundland fisheries by the English gave Europe steady access to fish and seafood.

Whale oil and seal oil, found in the Atlantic, brought fuel for illumination.

Moreover, Russia’s eastward expansion also brought other previously inaccessible such as hemp, salts, and grains.

All of this created what is now known as the ‘modern world system’ which allowed Europe to connect the world using their new technologies and exploit various opportunities across the globe in a manner never done so before.

Less Obstacles

What allowed the Europeans to achieve this success was that they simply had fewer hindrances.

It was not that there was something special about them. Rather it was that the necessary conditions which allowed Europe to succeed were not present elsewhere.

In China, India, and Muslim lands, there wasn't the correct mix of ingredients like in Europe. Europe had a free market, strong military, and political pluralism.

And because of this they appeared to stand still while Europe advanced to the center of the world stage.

Ilyas writes at the Journal of Warfare here.

Charles Francis Adams Sr: America’s Man in London During the US Civil War

Naturally, we get taken in by imagining the sights, sounds, and smells of the battlefield; our books describe in detail what that experience must have been like. This article will concentrate on battles fought in fancy conference rooms by men wearing expensive clothes. And especially those of one man, who in his own peculiar way, won bigger battles with more important implications than Grant or Lee. Adams came from perhaps the most storied family in the north. But he didn’t get an easy out. Several early defeats in life despite a sterling family pedigree forged a tough diplomat who didn’t let things dissuade him when frustrating, difficult things happened later on.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Charles Francis Adams Sr. As painted by by William Morris Hunt in 1867.

Charles Francis Adams Sr was the youngest of 3 sons of John Quincy Adams and the grandson of John Adams, which is about as illustrious a family tree as one could imagine. As you’d expect of a northern elite family, he attended Boston Latin and Harvard, then studied law with Daniel Webster. He opened a law practice, was elected 3 times to the Massachusetts House and once to the Massachusetts Senate.

But politics was not really his game, and he knew it. Instead, he purchased and edited the Boston Whig, a newspaper for the common people, who were more liberal minded than those he grew up with and wanted to see change faster. His initial successes came as an editor. This paper went from obscurity to national acclaim under his editorship, so much so that he was offered a national candidacy at the age of 41. He edited his grandmother’s, Abigail Adams, letters; then finished his father’s incomplete biography of his grandfather, including a highly acclaimed collection of his letters, which ultimately became the first Presidential Library.

Many of his relatives found the burden of carrying on the family tradition of public service impossible to live up to. Many retired to private life, while others broke under the strain.  Charles Francis Adams was the youngest of 3 brothers; his older brothers were George Washington Adams (1801–1829) and John Adams II (1803–1834). All 3 were rivals for the same woman, their cousin Mary Catherine Hellen, who lived with the Adams family after the death of her parents. In 1828, John married Mary in a White House ceremony, and both Charles and George declined to attend. John was the father of an out-of-wedlock child born later that year to a woman who was the chambermaid to the family’s physician. The child died in infancy.  John was a reputed alcoholic who is believed to have committed suicide the next spring.

Charles Francis Adams

Instead, Charles Francis married Abigail, the daughter of Peter Chardon Brooks, a Boston millionaire and one of the richest men in Massachusetts. Her father insisted that they wait several years before getting married, as they were too young when they met. Later, Charles Francis Adams said that if not for Abigail Brooks, he would never have accomplished anything in life. After experiencing his brother's death, his marriage to Abigail Brooks, and his reconciliation with his father, Charles Francis became a more focused and goal-oriented person.

Charles opened his own law office but was careless about its operation, and his father criticized Charles for being aimless and irresponsible. Charles and his father had never been close but after Charles' oldest brother died in 1829, John Quincy seemed to show more interest and affection for his two remaining sons. After his father’s presidency, he spent eighteen years representing the Quincy district; Charles Francis assumed the care of the property the elder Adams possessed.

The controversy over slavery, however, propelled Charles Francis into prominence. In the Massachusetts legislature, where he served from 1840 to 1845, Adams became a leader of conservative antislavery members who concentrated on resisting the encroachments of "slave power." With the issue of the annexation of Texas, Adams became one of the leaders of the "conscience Whigs," that wing of the Whig Party that demanded guarantees that slavery would not be expanded westward. The Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts merged with the broader "Free Soil" movement in 1848.

Adams unsuccessfully ran for vice president as that party's candidate alongside Martin Van Buren. Adams disapproved of the Free Soil tendency to ally with other parties in order to achieve election. He became unpopular in the south for his abolitionist views and unpopular in the north for his strict adherence to supporting abolition over elected office.

In 1848, he was the unsuccessful nominee of the Free Soil Party for Vice President of the United States, running on a ticket with former president Martin Van Buren as the presidential nominee. That same year, his father died from a stroke at age 80. He spent most of the 1850s rehabbing the family home in Quincy, today a national park.

In 1859, Adams was elected to the US House of Representatives. He became chair of a northern committee studying how to work for conciliation with the South. Suddenly, the intransigent abolitionist was looking for a solution: the very definition of diplomacy. He supported Seward – not Lincoln – for the presidential nomination.  But on his election, Lincoln asked him to serve as US minister to Great Britain, which Adams accepted. This became the work of a lifetime. Give Lincoln props for an amazing recognition of talent.

US Minister to the Court of St James

The US Minister to the Court of St James (Great Britain) was a crucial post. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom from 1861 to 1868, Adams played a crucial role in preventing British recognition of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Through skillful diplomacy and advocacy, he successfully conveyed the Union's perspective and counteracted Confederate efforts to gain international support. Through firm but skillful negotiations, Adams was influential in persuading the British, and by extension the French, not to recognize the Confederacy.

Britain issued a proclamation of neutrality at the beginning of the Civil War on May 13, 1861. The imposition of the blockade forced Britain to take a position on which side it would support. Southern cotton was critical to the textile industry in western England, especially Liverpool. The United States Secretary of State, William Seward, threatened to treat as hostile any country that recognized the Confederacy. Instead, the Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent, but it was premature to recognize it as a sovereign state.  Britain remained neutral officially and waited to see how things would develop before making a commitment. Adams did incredible work to keep Britain neutral and prevent the British from going any further in their recognition. Both his father and his grandfather had served in this diplomatic post, and so he was immediately accepted by the British as speaking for the new administration with a wise voice.

Official recognition was tied to the idea of the Union blockade being against a belligerent power rather than an insurrection. Adams managed to navigate this by getting the British to respect the blockade officially while still not recognizing the Confederacy as an independent entity. Because of his own family legacy, he managed to form a friendship with Prince Albert.

One of his main accomplishments was leveraging his friendships to prevent the British from supplying Confederate ironclads. A strong element in Britain wanted to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.  Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had strong sympathies with the South and believed it would win independence. The Prime Minister in particular had a lifelong hostility to the US, and despite opposition to the slave trade and slavery, he believed that dissolution of the Union would benefit the British.

Adams played a key role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom through diplomatic efforts and effective communication. Adams skillfully engaged with British officials, politicians, and influential figures, presenting the Union's case and countering Confederate propaganda. Support of the Confederacy in Britain was popular for several reasons. The primary one was the availability of cheap cotton for English mills.

Adams in London

Britain had lost 2 wars to this fledgling primitive country on the other side of the pond. Further, the idea of a successful democracy remained unappetizing to a government based on a monarchy. Moreover, southern trade especially cotton was very important to British manufacturers. Finally, they knew that if they helped this new country win independence, it would be forever in its debt; which is precisely what empire is about.

He emphasized the Union's commitment to upholding international law, the abolition of slavery, and the economic benefits of maintaining trade relations with the North. Adams emphasized the military and industrial power of the Union, which was vital in dispelling the perception that the Confederacy could achieve a quick and decisive victory. He provided accurate and timely information about Union victories, the strength of the Union army, and the North's ability to sustain the war effort.

Adams warned that meant war with the United States, as well as the cutting off of American food exports, which comprised about a fourth of the British food supply. ”The English people can't eat cotton” was his strong argument, and the Union supplied too much necessary food to England to make war with the United States a realistic action. Losing grain and meat shipments from the United States would mean a huge fall in food supply. It’s fascinating that the Jefferson Davis government believed King Cotton would be decisive, yet it was corn that really was.

Also, the American Navy, increasingly strong, would try to sink British shipping. Britain depended more on American corn than Confederate cotton, and a war with the U.S. would not be in Britain's economic interest.

Adams recognized the significance of public opinion and worked to shape it in favor of the Union. He engaged with the British press, wrote articles and letters to influential publications, and delivered speeches to counter Confederate narratives and generate sympathy for the Union cause.

Adams conveyed to the British government that recognition of the Confederacy would likely strain relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. He made it clear that such recognition would have negative consequences for British trade and international standing, creating a disincentive for British officials to support the Confederacy.

By employing these diplomatic strategies, effectively countering Confederate propaganda, and highlighting the Union's strength, Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in preventing the recognition of the Confederacy by the United Kingdom. His diplomatic efforts helped to maintain the international isolation of the Confederacy and ultimately contributed to the Union's victory in the Civil War.

Had Britain recognized the Confederacy, and given its aid and assistance, the Civil War would have had an entirely different result. Charles Francis Adams took on this exasperating and vexing assignment. Recognition was a fear of the Union and a pipe dream of the Confederacy. In retrospect, it was never really likely to happen without multiple major successes on the battlefield by the Confederacy.  This reality was based on the political situation in Britain more than the circumstances we Americans think the Civil War was about.

Trent Affair

The “Trent Affair” in November 1861 produced public outrage in Britain and a diplomatic crisis. The British predicted a war and Seward threatened to fight. Only Abraham Lincoln kept the crisis in perspective.  Ambassador Adams played a crucial role in resolving it, and for a time, things looked bleak. Adams almost single-handedly calmed British anger.

The "Trent Affair” was initiated when an American warship seized two Confederate agents bound for Europe from the British mail ship Trent.A U.S. Navy warship stopped the British steamer Trent and seized two Confederate envoys en route to Europe. On November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS Trent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate envoys: James Murray Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Britain and France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and to lobby for possible financial and military support.

Public reaction in the United States was to celebrate the capture and rally against Britain, threatening war. In the Confederate states, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Anglo-American relations and possibly even war, or at least diplomatic recognition by Britain. Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on foreign intervention.

In Britain, there was widespread disapproval of this violation of neutral rights and insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners and took steps to strengthen its military forces in British North America and the North Atlantic. PM Palmerston called the action "a declared and gross insult", demanded the release of the two diplomats and ordered 3,000 troops to Canada. In a letter to Queen Victoria on 5 December 1861 he said that if his demands were not met: "Great Britain is in a better state than at any former time to inflict a severe blow upon and to read a lesson to the United States which will not soon be forgotten."  In another letter to his foreign secretary, he predicted war between Britain and the Union.

President Abraham Lincoln did not want to risk war with Britain over this issue. “One war at a time” Lincoln told Seward. After some careful diplomatic exchanges, Lincoln admitted that the capture had been conducted contrary to maritime law and that private citizens could not be classified as "enemy despatches”, which was the only possible legal argument. After several tense weeks, the crisis was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions, although without a formal apology.  Slidell and Mason were released, and war was averted. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to Europe. Adams basically brokered this resolution, by recognizing the British right to engage in diplomacy as it saw fit while maintaining the Lincoln administration’s position that the war was an internal domestic conflict not an international one.

The resolution of the Trent affair dealt a serious blow to Confederate diplomatic efforts. First, it deflected the recognition momentum developed during the summer and fall of 1861. It created a feeling in Great Britain that the United States was prepared to defend itself when necessary, but recognized its responsibility to comply with international law. Moreover, it produced a feeling in Great Britain and France that peace could be preserved as long as the Europeans maintained strict neutrality in regard to the American belligerents.  Lincoln, through Adams, turned a potentially explosive event into a huge net positive. (See more at https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/trent-affair)

Slidell was the designee to represent the Confederacy in France.  He failed to bring France into the war, which would not change its position unless Britain made the first move. His major success in the war was negotiating a loan of $15,000,000 from Emile Erlanger & Co. and in securing the ship "Stonewall" for the Confederate government. Slidell, Louisiana is named after him. After the war, he remained in Paris.

Mason was the grandson of George Mason. He was a strong secessionist and white supremacist who strongly favored slavery, wrote the fugitive slave act, and before the war was the chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You’d think he would have been tough competition for Adams, but in fact his views were so extreme that he was ineffectual as a diplomat and he moved to Paris in 1863 where he hoped he would find a more sympathetic ear. After the war, he lived in exile in Canada, eventually purchasing a huge estate in Alexandria VA with white servants as he believed free blacks to be worthless.

The British Government

In retrospect, Both the Union and the Confederacy overestimated the potential of British recognition. Not only the Queen and Prince, but also the Church, the Commons, and working people adamantly opposed slavery. Still, faced with both a PM and a ruling party that favored the enemy, you can understand the fears.

Lord Palmerston was the Prime Minister and William Gladstone the Chancellor. Their relationship lasted 35 years, both as allies and as political enemies, exchanging jobs several times. Together they dominated British foreign policy, and If they were in agreement, the US was in trouble. With very little cotton reaching Europe except through Union channels, a strong element in Britain, including both Palmerston & Gladstone, wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.

Palmerston's sympathies in the Civil War were with the Confederate States of America. Although a professed opponent of the slave trade and slavery, he held a lifelong hostility towards the United States, and believed dissolution of the Union would enhance British power. Additionally, the Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures". He expected the Confederacy to achieve its independence.

The British government pulled back from talk of war when the Confederate invasion of the North was defeated at Antietam, and Lincoln announced that he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation.  Palmerston then noted that the only thing positive that had been accomplished by the war was the killing off of thousands of “troublesome Irish and Germans”.

Palmerston and his government were careful to avoid any actions that could be interpreted as favoring either the Union or the Confederacy. While there were debates within his government and among politicians regarding the recognition of the Confederacy, Palmerston ultimately adhered to a policy of non-recognition and neutrality.

Palmerston's government closely monitored the progress of the war, sought to gather accurate intelligence, and maintained diplomatic channels with both sides. However, the British government did not extend official recognition to the Confederacy as an independent nation during Palmerston's tenure.

Overall, Palmerston's approach was one of careful neutrality, prioritizing British interests and avoiding actions that could disrupt relations with either the Union or the Confederacy. The neutrality policy pursued by Palmerston was influenced by the efforts of Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, who effectively conveyed the Union's perspective and countered Confederate attempts to gain international recognition.

Gladstone believed in the principle of self-determination and viewed the Confederacy's struggle for independence as a valid cause. He saw the war as a conflict between two parties, and he argued that the British government should remain neutral and extend recognition to the Confederacy if it appeared likely to achieve independence.

Gladstone's public statements and speeches, such as his Newcastle speech in October 1862, expressed sympathy for the Confederacy and called for British recognition. His views caused controversy both in the United Kingdom and in the United States, where they were seen as potentially detrimental to the Union cause. Gladstone owned a home on Abercrombie Square in Liverpool, and was very likely a confidential member of the Southern Club.

The British government did not officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation. The British government, led by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, adopted a policy of neutrality throughout the conflict and maintained trade relations with both the Union and the Confederacy. The official recognition of the Confederacy as an independent nation did not occur, largely due to diplomatic efforts by Charles Francis Adams and concerns over the potential consequences of such recognition on British trade and international relations.

Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, generally remained neutral and refrained from publicly expressing her opinions on the conflict. As the constitutional monarch, her role was largely ceremonial, and she did not have direct involvement in formulating or implementing government policies.

Queen Victoria's stance on the American Civil War was influenced by the prevailing British policy of neutrality. She, along with her husband Prince Albert, closely followed the developments of the war, but she did not publicly take sides or officially recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation.

It is worth noting that there were some instances where Queen Victoria's sympathies seemed to lean towards the Union cause. In 1861, she wrote a private letter to Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister to the United Kingdom, expressing her hopes for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and her admiration for President Abraham Lincoln.

James Russell Lowell said, "None of our Generals, nor Grant himself, did us better or more by trying service than he [Charles Francis Adams] in his forlorn outpost in London." As we ponder strategy and battles and generals, we ought to keep in mind that Charles Francis Adams won a huge diplomatic victory of greater value than is ever described in books or articles. The battle of Antietam is usually credited with keeping England neutral, but the question is never asked why that was.

Imagine being Adams, who had to be diplomatic yet persuasive with Palmerston, an obviously arrogant and racist man who made decisions purely on the basis of value to his personal political future. Imagine being able to converse directly with Queen Victoria, the most powerful monarch in Europe, in such a convincing manner as to maintain her views, despite a government whose leaders tended the opposite way. The struggle to keep Palmerston and Gladstone officially neutral despite their evident slant toward the South required someone of experience, who could play the “long game”, and who could unemotionally remind these headstrong men of the consequences of choosing the wrong side. Lincoln needed a man whom the British would immediately take seriously; Adams had his family background (both his father and his grandfather had been Ambassadors to the Court of St. James as well) and the recognition of non-political accomplishments to bolster the power of his argument. And, he had had the taste of failure and frustration in his life, and knew that calmness and composure, not superciliousness, was the right path.

After the War

Minister Adams publicly supported moderation toward the South during the last year of the war and at the start of the Andrew Johnson administration after Lincoln's assassination. The British recognized him as a steady hand at the wheel. But support for Johnson's conciliatory policies, particularly his opposition to radical reconstruction of the South, was unpopular at home, and this injured Charles's future political prospects. He gladly resigned his post in 1868 with the election of the new Grant administration and returned to his home in Quincy. He turned down an offer to be president of Harvard.

But in 1871-1872 he returned to Europe with his youngest son Brooks. There, he would win his biggest victory, one that all of the frustrations and setbacks in life he had experienced, all of the diplomatic skills he had acquired, had prepared him for; and no other American of his era could have accomplished it.

As Minister to Great Britain, Adams was quite aware that although the British government was officially neutral, its citizens were taking sides anyway. And that those who supported the South, like the Southern Club, were having critical effects on the war. In particular, he knew exactly how Confederate agents were working to arrange armament shipments through the blockade. He knew that Liverpool shipbuilders were creating commerce raiders and blockade runners. He uncovered how ships were being built on the Mersey, sent off to the Caribbean under the British flag, then its crew & captain changed in port and the ship was renamed as a Confederate ship.

For example, he convinced British authorities to confiscate two ironclad warships from the Laird shipyards that were destined for use by the Confederates. But many others he could merely document. He wrote myriad letters to Secretary of State Seward with documentation of the British private sector working with the Confederacy while the official government looked the other way.

The Alabama Claims

Adams and his staff at the Embassy, including his son, collected details on the shipbuilding issue, showing how warships built for the Confederacy caused widespread damage to the American merchant marine. They documented everything in real-time: Who were the agents, where the money came from, who the British citizens were, everything. For the 4 years of the war, he collected the evidence, knowing the British weren’t going to do anything about it, and if he mentioned it, it would be a serious impediment to working with those he had to keep neutral. And so, he waited. He held onto all of these documents and they collected dust.

When Palmerston died in late 1865, Benjamin Disraeli, who for his own political purposes had no interest in getting involved after the war, took his place. Disraeli had maintained a truly neutral position during the war, but he did criticize the Lincoln administration's handling of the war and expressed concerns about the potential growth of American power if the Union were to emerge victorious. He believed that a strong United States could pose a challenge to British interests in the future. Overall, Disraeli's approach during the American Civil War was one of caution and pragmatism, focusing on preserving British neutrality and safeguarding British interests. And so, Adams held onto his notes.

The evidence he collected became the basis of the postwar Alabama Claims. The Alabama Claims were a series of demands for damages sought by the government of the United States from the United Kingdom in 1869, for the attacks upon Union merchant ships by Confederate Navy commerce raiders built in British shipyards during the American Civil War. The claims focused chiefly on the most famous of these raiders, the CSS Alabama, which took more than sixty prizes before she was sunk off the French coast in 1864.

The Alabama Claims were a series of diplomatic negotiations and arbitration proceedings that took place in the aftermath of the American Civil War between the United States and the United Kingdom. The claims arose from the actions of Confederate warships that were built and equipped in British shipyards and subsequently attacked and destroyed American ships during the Civil War.

The most notorious of these Confederate warships was the CSS Alabama, a powerful raider that had a significant impact on Union shipping during the war. The British government's involvement in the construction and outfitting of the CSS Alabama and other Confederate vessels raised serious issues of international law and neutrality. Can a country declare itself neutral but its citizens aid one of the combatants?

After the end of the Civil War in 1865, the United States sought compensation from Britain for the damages caused by these Confederate warships and demanded that the British government take responsibility for its role in aiding the Confederacy. Negotiations between the United States and Britain began in 1866, but they failed to reach a satisfactory resolution.

The United States claimed direct and collateral damage against Great Britain. The United States claimed that Britain had violated neutrality by allowing five warships to be constructed, most especially the CSS Alabama, knowing that it would eventually enter into naval service with the Confederacy. For 3 years, the British denied responsibility. They claimed that officially declaring neutrality had nothing to do with businesses its private industry conducted. They said that there was no proof of American claims. American outrage grew; Sumner, still head of the US Foreign Affairs committee, demanded $2 billion in indirect costs for supplying the South through the blockade. Calls for annexation of Canada, or provinces like British Columbia, as payment for damages became common American political rhetoric. Britain continued to stall, and Canadian separatists began looking into joining the US to control the northwest Pacific Ocean.

As a result, the United States brought the case before an international tribunal known as the Alabama Claims Commission. The evidence leading to the settlement of the Alabama Claims case was collected and presented by the United States government. After the American Civil War, the U.S. State Department was responsible for compiling the evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The U.S. government conducted thorough investigations and collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. This evidence was used to support the United States claims that Britain had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War and should be held responsible for the damages caused by the Confederate warships.

During the negotiations and arbitration proceedings, the U.S. delegation, led by chief U.S. arbiter Charles Francis Adams and Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, presented this evidence to the international tribunal, known as the Alabama Claims Commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871. The evidence played a crucial role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

Charles Francis Adams played a crucial role in collecting the evidence for the Alabama Claims case. As the U.S. Minister to the United Kingdom during the American Civil War, Adams was responsible for gathering and presenting evidence of British involvement in the construction and outfitting of Confederate warships, particularly the CSS Alabama and other raiders. The evidence collected by Charles Francis Adams was the central documentation evaluated during the arbitration proceedings. Adams had diligently collected documentation, testimonies, and other evidence related to British shipyards, contractors, and individuals who were involved in supplying arms and vessels to the Confederate Navy. His efforts were instrumental in building a strong case against Britain, showing that the British government had violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War.

Finally, in 1871, the British agreed to a commission to resolve the dispute, and Adams unveiled the notes and documents he had collected. He showed contemporaneous notes and letters. He named names. He had the proof, because the whole time he was ambassador, he kept meticulous records and documented everything.

The commission, which convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1871, was composed of representatives from the United States, Britain, Italy, Switzerland, and Brazil. After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the tribunal issued its decision in September 1872. The tribunal ruled in favor of the United States, stating that Britain had indeed violated its duty of neutrality during the Civil War by allowing the construction of Confederate warships in its shipyards. As a result of the ruling, Britain was required to pay the United States $15.5 million in damages. Today, that would be equivalent to several hundred million dollars. Nothing like that had ever happened before.

So, who actually paid for the Confederate war machine, war supplies, and naval presence? The British Government did in 1872, along with its citizens and investors who purchased Confederate Cotton Bonds. The evidence Adams had collected during his years as ambassador played a vital role in convincing the tribunal of Britain's culpability, ultimately leading to the commission's ruling in favor of the United States and the subsequent settlement of the Alabama Claims case.

The resolution of the Alabama Claims case marked an important moment in the development of international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. It also helped improve relations between the United States and Britain after a period of tension and served as a precedent for future international arbitration cases.

Treaty of Washington

A final deal was then arranged. The Treaty of Washington established for the first time a codification of international law and of international arbitration. The Treaty of Washington resolved fishing disputes with the establishment of the Halifax Commission, set up the Alabama Claim arbitration, and set up the San Juan Island territorial dispute arbitration. The Halifax Commission would order the US to pay the UK $5.5 Mil for illegal fishing practices. The Alabama Claims would order the UK to pay the US $15.5 Mil in direct damages, with $1.9 Mil deducted for illegal US blockading practices during the war. An additional $500 million in loans was the biggest part of the agreement, which the US was able to take out with British banks at low-interest rates to refinance their war debt.

 The treaty set principles of what neutrality between two warring factions meant:

1.     That due diligence "ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part."

2.     "The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterward have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step by which the offense is completed cannot be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the neutral country, nor can the consummation of fraud become the means of establishing its innocence."

3.     "The principle of extraterritoriality has been admitted into the laws of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality."

And the best part of his story is that although it took many years, eventually his enemies were defeated, and his inherent refinement and intellect ultimately carried the battle. These setbacks that would have buried a lesser man had a funny way of moving him into his real calling. It’s kind of like a real-life “David Copperfield”, overcoming personal losses led to amazing success, albeit not exactly what anyone had imagined. His wife Abigail steadfastly supported him through all of his life’s trials. They succeeded in "passing the torch" to the next generation of the Adams family, which included four noteworthy sons—railroad reformer Charles Francis Adams Jr., Massachusetts politician John Quincy Adams II, celebrated writer Henry Adams, and historian Brooks Adams. His son Henry Adams would go on to become one of the first great American historians and authors. The posting influenced the younger man through the experience of wartime diplomacy and absorption in English culture. After the war, he became a political journalist who entertained America's foremost intellectuals at his homes in Washington and Boston. During his lifetime, he was best known for The History of the United States of America 1801–1817, a nine-volume work.

No, he was never elected President, like his father and his grandfather, and so he is often taught superficially as a man who failed. But his public service saved our country, documented who had assisted the enemy, and sought and obtained reparations from a foreign power for prolonging the war. He changed forever what neutrality entailed. And it turned out he was not only the right man for the job, he was in fact the only man who could have succeeded at it.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Reconstruction Era in America

In their novel, The Gilded Age, Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner noted that the Civil War and its immediate aftermath, ‘uprooted institutions that were centuries old, changed the politics of a people, and wrought so profoundly upon the entire national character that the influence cannot be measured short of two or three generations.’ In the hope of rebuilding the broken pieces together, every aspect of society, from urban life to class system to agriculture and industry had to be touched upon. The process of institutional transformation came to be known as the Reconstruction (1865-1877).

Aarushi Anand gives her take on the Reconstruction era.

A Visit from the Old Mistress. Winslow Homer, 1876.

The task of reconstructing the union initiated the transition from conflict to peace by targeting fundamental components of the rebuilding framework.  Restoration of "physical infrastructure," a traditional area of strength, involved expensive maintenance services like rebuilding rail and road networks, reconnection of interrupted water supply and racial desegregation of schools and hospitals. The process of social and emotional reintegration becomes more difficult when conflicts, especially those that last for a long period, damage the fabric of society and render a return to the past impossible or undesirable. Slavery was formally outlawed in the entire United States through the 13th amendment (1865). In order to determine what kind of reconstruction policies to implement, the nation had to first decide whether the Confederacy be treated with leniency or as a conquered foe?

President Abraham Lincoln was of the lenient persuasion as is evident from his second inaugural address “with malice toward none; with charity for all...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.” He started off the Ten-Percent Plan (1865–87) which imposed a minimum requirement of political loyalty for southern states to rejoin the Union. Following President Lincoln's assassination, his successor Andrew Johnson and his administration drafted what is now known as Presidential Reconstruction. Johnson, a former enslaver, was deeply racist and recreated conditions in the South which were largely the same as they were before the war. Case in point, he set up all-white government and appointed a trust-worthy provisional governor in the South. During his administration, a number of draconian laws known as the Black Codes (1865–1866) were passed, limiting the civil and political rights of blacks in the South. Since most freed blacks had only the skills to work on plantations the black code stipulated that black workers would be legally bound to the plantation owner. Each year blacks were required to sign a labor contract to work for a white employer and if they did not do so they'd be arrested for vagrancy and then sold off. According to several historians’ Black codes marked the continuation of ‘slavery in all but name.’

The Radical Republicans, who at the time-controlled Congress, were opposed to Johnson's clemency or his role in the South's resegregation. To this end, they passed 2 pieces of law that granted black citizenship rights while also calling for the racial integration of workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, and universities. First, the Freedmen's Bureau, a coalition of Northern officials and Union Soldiers, was set up all over the South. Its goal was to help reunite families separated by slavery which over the course of 250 years had split apart millions of people. In one of its main roles, securing fair labor contracts, the Bureau proved to be redundant.  The Bureau was crucial in helping Black Americans pursue formal education. According to historian James McPherson, there were over 1,000 schools in existence by 1870. Second, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted Black Americans citizenship and guaranteed their equal civil rights, including the ability to enter into agreements, acquire property, and give testimony in court. Republicans sought the 14th constitutional amendment (1868) to bolster these rights and prevent overturning of the central government's directions out of a fear that the Civil Rights Act would be struck down. For nearly a century, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized. African Americans in Southern states were successfully denied the right to vote through the imposition of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other techniques (e.g. permitting only registered voters since the 1860s to vote).

CARPETBAGGERS

Despite being eligible to run in elections, it was a harsh reality that an all-black government would not succeed and would require white allies to form an inter-racial coalition.  This raises the issue of whether white people are willing to participate in the reconstruction of government in conjunction with African-American voters. The carpetbaggers come first for the purpose. Carpetbagger is a political term used to describe a northerner who united with blacks and the Republican Party and advocated the new constitutional rights of African-Americans. During the Civil War, Union soldiers and commanders who chose to remain in the South after the army were demobilized made up the majority of the northerners who traveled there. In office, the performance of the carpetbaggers was mixed. While some were dishonest, others, “were economy-minded and strictly honest.” For instance, carpetbag lawyer Albion W. Tourgee contributed to the drafting of the North Carolina Constitution (1868), opposed the Ku Klux Klan (1869–1870) and fought for blacks in Louisiana against a law requiring segregation in railroad cars (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).

SCALAWAGS

Although the carpetbaggers managed to occupy positions of authority, they were insufficient to form a voting bloc. So, in terms of voting power, the other real group is the so-called scalawags. The majority of them were Whigs, lower-class whites, and Southern unionists who opposed secession.  James Lusk Alcorn, one of Mississippi's wealthiest planters, a large slaveholder, and a Whig opposed to secession, popularized the term "harnessed revolution," which refers to the period of time when White people like himself would lead the Reconstruction process. By far less affluent white people in the upcountry made up the greatest number of scalawags. The number of white Republicans in states like Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia was sizable. These Republicans did not want the planters to regain power and felt that the only option is black suffrage.  Internal conflict also plagued these regions

KU KLUX KLAN

It is crucial to remember that white supremacist opposition to the Radical Republicans' agenda manifested itself as covert organizations. The Ku Klux Klan was one such group that fostered homegrown terrorism in the United States. Members of the Klan rode across the nation in white sheets throughout the night to conceal themselves and use violence for political purposes. Violence was used to frighten black and white Republicans to keep them from casting ballots. Additionally, it was done to unite white people under the idea that race was the main concern. The glorification of the Ku Klux Klan in the movie "Birth of a Nation" is based in part on the notion that the group was merely exploiting people's superstitions.

The ferociousness of Ku Klux Klan attacks in 1870 and 1871 convinced many that additional laws, either state or federal, along with a vigorous enforcement, were essential to the security of the new order. Carpetbagger Amos Lovering, a former Indiana judge, contends that "universal education in morals and mind" is the only effective way to permanently quell the Klan's brutality. Many of these measures failed. In the South, most white people continued to own weapons. The government was unwilling to deploy armed blacks after the white knight riders since such a move would only intensify racial tensions.

W.E.B Du Bois, described the Reconstruction period as a moment where "...the slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery." By the end of the 19th century, 2,500 Black people would be lynched across the South. Occasionally people say that Reconstruction failed, but it would be more accurate to say that it was violently overthrown. It did not fail to succeed because Black people were incapable of governance but because white Southerners did everything in their power to obstruct Black mobility and opportunity.

CIVIL RIGHTS

In a variety of ways, reconstruction prepared the way for future struggle. The 1960s Civil Rights Movement was frequently referred to as the second reconstruction, the country's second attempt to face the issue of racial equality in the law, politics, and society. The movement was a nonviolent social movement and campaign to abolish legalized racial segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement throughout the United States.  Reconstruction also opened discussion on how to deal with domestic terrorism. Racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan thrived throughout reconstruction and made its imprint on American society via racial bloodshed. The Black Power movement emphasized how little tangible progress had been made since the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and how African-Americans continued to experience discrimination in jobs, housing, education, and politics. Reconstruction is still relevant today because it raises fundamental questions about   American society that are still being debated, such as who is eligible to become a citizen, how the federal government interacts with the states, who is in charge of defending  citizens' fundamental rights, and how one deals with homegrown terrorism.

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

References

1.     Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History: Seagull Fourth Edition. Vol. WW Norton & Company, 2013.

2.     Foner, Eric. "The new view of reconstruction." American Heritage 34, no. 6 (1983).

3.     Grob, Gerald N., and George Athan Billias. "Interpretations of American History Patterns and Perspectives." (1972).

4.     Harris, William C. "The Creed of the Carpetbaggers: The Case of Mississippi." The Journal of Southern History 40, no. 2 (1974): 199-224.

5.     Trelease, Allen W. "Who were the Scalawags?" The Journal of Southern History 29, no. 4 (1963): 445-468.