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

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

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

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

Qing China and Meiji Japan

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

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

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

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

Korea

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

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

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

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

The Tonghak Rebellion

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

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

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

Japanese Victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

2 Ibid., 26

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

4 Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Szczepanski, "The First Sino-Japanese War"

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Age of in Reform in Japan and Ryokichi Minobe

One of the defining characteristics of Japan has been the consistency of its national politics, which since 1955 has been almost continuously dominated by the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Here, Vittorio Trevitt looks at this in the context of Ryokichi Minobe.

Ryokichi Minobe in 1967.

In most liberal democracies, voters have become accustomed to alternations in power between parties of diametrically opposed ideological persuasions. This feature of democracy is alien to Japan, where there have been only two occasions since the first LDP government (originally from 1993-94 and again from 2009-2012) when opposition parties were able to form administrations. Neither of them, however, succeeded in breaking the LDPs long-term stranglehold over national politics. But on a regional and local level a different picture has often existed, where opposition figures have on multiple occasions held sway. Such a trend was particularly prevalent during the Sixties and Seventies, when several prefectures and councils elected progressive reformers dedicated to policies of reform and innovation often different from those pursued by the hegemonic LDP.  One of the most important of these was the governor of Toyko, Ryokichi Minobe.

A socialist of the Marxist tradition, Minobe had previously served in various government positions while also working as an economics professor. He became a known television personality, with a popular economics show where he discussed economic issues in an accessible way for people, while also conveying a positive image. When an election was held in 1967 for the position of Tokyo governor, Minobe stood as an independent candidate backed by the Socialist and Communist parties, winning a plurality against the LDP-backed incumbent. Minobe was the first progressive governor of the country’s leading metropolis to be elected to this post, one he would hold for the next 12 years.

Power

Minobe’s ascension to power, as historic as it was, was not a unique phenomenon. Instead, it was a reflection of the electorate’s appetite for fundamental change after decades of LDP rule. During the Sixties and Seventies more than 200 mayors supported by a socialist-communist alliance were elected, with more than 50% of Japanese by the end of Sixties already living under either a progressive mayor or governor, or even both. Progressives presided over measures such as the establishment of new social security benefits and (in the case of Kawasaki) compensation for victims of pollution, while also fighting successfully for the right to increase taxes on corporations; one that all local governments came to enjoy.

The rise of the Left on a local and prefectural level was in many ways the LDP’s own making. In the decade following its formation, the LDP had presided over a strong economy together with big rises in living standards. Nevertheless, they failed to prevent problems such as city overcrowding and pollution, while also failing to overcome deficiencies in housing, public transportation, and facilities for child care and the elderly. These contradictions provided fertile ground for reformers to build electoral support and tackle these problems headlong. In a speech he made following his election as governor, Minobe highlighted these contradictions by noting that ownership of TVs and electric washers existed alongside unpaved streets, an incomplete sewage system and cases of drinking water being shut-off. This was the situation that Minobe inherited; one that his administration offered the hope of rectifying. The legislative environment was favourable for Minobe, who had the benefit of working with a reformist majority made up of left-wing parties in Tokyo’s legislature. This included not only members of the Socialist and Communist parties, but also the Democratic Socialists (a moderate progressive force) and Komeito; a religious Buddhist party that supported improvements in amenities and welfare services, amongst other goals. This provided a strong basis for Minobe to put his ideals into practice. Free municipal transport passes and medical care for those aged 70 and above were introduced (the latter measure being one that other localities would subsequently adopt), together with nurseries for mothers at work, allowances for children and facilities for handicapped residents. Pensions were also expanded, while efforts were made to elevate conditions in Sanya, a slum area in Tokyo, with more up-to-date flophouses constructed and better waste collection. An emergency shelter for separated wives with children in the process of divorce was also established; the first of its kind in Japan.

Living standards

These programmes reflected Minobe’s belief in the universalistic “civil minimum system,” in which facilities existed that were essential for the maintenance of minimum living standards for citizens. Much of Minobe’s reform agenda focused on environmental matters, with pollution control standards adopted that were more stringent than those in place nationally. He also backed national legislation in 1970 that led to the introduction of 14 ordinances aimed at tackling pollution in the Tokyo area. “Pedestrian paradises” were also set up, in which cars were barred from some of Tokyo's major shopping and amusement areas on Sunday afternoons; an initiative which improved air quality for Tokyoites. In addition, pay was increased for welfare institution workers, the rights of sanitation workers (a discriminated against group) were improved, and a training school was set up to help senior citizens make a living past retirement. Government sponsorship of race tracks was also brought to an end, reflecting Minobe’s view of gambling being an unofficial tax on poor individuals. Minobe also believed in getting people involved in decisions that affected their lives, conversing directly with residents in town hall meetings in the belief that Tokyo’s residents could become managers of their own city.

Minobe’s reforms had an impact on the LDP, who introduced on a nationwide basis several of the measures that Minobe and fellow progressives across Japan had inaugurated. When Tokyo’s government announced plans in 1971 for free medical care for children who had cancer, the national administration adopted its own plan. Two years later, the national government introduced new entitlements including indexed pensions and free medical care to the over-70s. Kakuei Tanaka, the prime minister who presided over these policy decisions, interpreted Minobe’s victory as a reflection of people’s frustration with overcrowding in big cities, and his government also initiated laws making it hard for large plants to be constructed in metropolitan areas while incentivising firms to locate new manufacturing facilities in the countryside. Arguably, the LDP’s decision to introduce several of the social programmes launched by local progressives on a nationwide basis was a reflection of their realisation of the electoral implications that such schemes could have on their incumbency. Indeed, it enabled the LDP to overcome the challenge that local progressives posed to them, who had taken the initiative in tackling issues concerning welfare and the environment. It also demonstrates how far Minobe’s influence, and by extension that of his progressive counterparts across Japan, went beyond local and regional boundaries in shaping that country’s social and economic development. Minobe was also a popular figure. When re-elected four years later, he did so with 65% of the vote and three-quarters of the electorate casting a ballot; a record at that time.

Historic continuity

It is arguable that Minobe’s agenda represented a historic continuity with the reform efforts of past leftist leaders, the lasting impact of which reverberated throughout Japanese society. During the Twenties and Thirties Japan was led on two separate occasions by the liberal Kensekei and Rikken Minseitō parties. Although the former presided over a tough law allowing for individuals that the government viewed as subversive to be imprisoned, and the latter for carrying out economic austerity during the Great Depression, they nevertheless delivered tangible results for ordinary citizens in the passage of visionary measures including a widening of the franchise, factory reform, health insurance, and legislation aimed at helping tenant farmers. Similar reforms were carried out under the socialist-led coalition of Tetsu Katayama that briefly led Japan in 1947, such as the granting of organisational and collective bargaining rights to workers and a Ministry of Labor which promoted the rights of not only workers, but also those of women and children in postwar Japan. The policy agendas of Minobe and other local progressives were part of this reform tradition in Japanese history, and offered the prospect of the Japanese Left replacing the LDP as the dominant force in national politics. But this was not to be.

The one factor that helped stem the progressive tide was the 1973 oil shock, which saw Japan’s Gross National Product fall for the first time since the war. This lowered the rise of tax revenue for local governments, which in turn limited the ability of progressives to fund imaginative reforms. Bureaucrats and the LDP rallied against welfare, associating it with societal problems including crime and divorce, and progressive local governments were criticised by the LDP “for throwing around money for welfare.” Such scaremongering helped conservatives score major gains locally. During the late Seventies several progressives either stood down or were defeated, replaced by figures from the political Right. Although Minobe was elected to a third term in 1975, he did so by a narrow margin. His tenure also had its shortcomings. Reflecting his belief in popular democracy, Minobe espoused a “philosophy of the bridge,” vowing that he wouldn’t construct a bridge if it faced opposition from just one resident. Although there were instances of local policy decision making working well, this philosophy had unfortunate consequences. Public housing projects, for instance, were delayed in the face of opposition from certain residents, with cuts in the number of new homes built despite the need for the latter in the face of a housing shortage. In a way, Minobe’s own ideas backfired and worked against his own agenda. In 1977, Minobe lost his majority in the Tokyo legislature, and two years later the LDP and Komeito teamed up to prevent a Socialist-Communist candidate from winning that year’s gubernatorial election. The following year only four opposition figures were left that held the post of governor. The golden age of local progressivism in Japan, which for a time seemed likely to usher in a new dawn in national politics, had finally ended.

Although Minobe and his fellow progressives failed to replicate their electoral successes nationally by becoming a viable, long-term alternative to the established LDP, the fact that they achieved so much on behalf of their communities is not only indicative of the pivotal role that local reformers have played in changing Japan for the better, but it also gives an idea of what the Japanese Left can accomplish if it were to attain national power. The growth in income inequality in recent years, together with surveys showing widespread public dissatisfaction with the existing democratic system, offers fertile ground for such a seismic shift in Japanese politics to take place. For Japanese progressives who hope to achieve their aims of electoral victory and a more egalitarian society, the Minobe era is a model worth emulating.

What do you think of Ryokichi Minobe? Let us know below.

Murders in a Nazi Prisoner-of-War Camp - And Canada's Last Mass Execution

Here Nathan M. Greenfield tells us about his book: Hanged in Medicine Hat: Murders in a Nazi Prisoner-of-War Camp, and the Disturbing True Story of Canada's Last Mass Execution (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

Medicine Hat railway station in the early 20th century.

On 5 March 1946, 16-year-old Joyce Reesor played truant from her high school in Medicine Hat, Alberta –to watch the end of what would ultimately be six of the most unique trials in Canadian history.  In each, a German POW, some former Afrika Korpsman others who had belonged to Hermann Göring’s Luftwaffe, stood on trial for his life for the killing of two other POWs, one in 1943 and one in 1944.  The denouement of Rex v. Werner Schwalb that Reesor witnessed – Judge Howson’s saying of the ancient words, “and shall be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and may the Lord have mercy on your soul”–was hardly a surprise.  Hamstrung by the lack of character witnesses, defence attorney Louis S. Turcotte declined to mount a defence, and had been reduced to sniping at the case presented by Alberta’s deputy attorney journal, H. H. Wilson, QC, who appointed himself crown prosecutor.

Turcotte landed a few blows, successfully arguing on the first day for the case against the three POWs accused of killing Private August Plaszek in 1943 to be split into separate trials.  He forced the pre-war lawyer Hans Schnorrenpfeil to growl “Nein” when pressed on his previous statement that he had actually seen the men secreted behind a screen in a POW hut whose job it was to take down the testimony of men being interrogated for treason against Germany.  He led the court through a mind-numbing excursus on whether Boden meant clay or earth, which Howson ended by declaring, “ ‘clay’ is earth and earth is ‘clay’ ” and Plaszek was struck in the head by a large clod wielded by a POW.

Camp 132

But in the end the six men on the jury believed the story that began with around 5 p.m. on July 22, 1943, Private Reginald Back of the Veterans Guard saw a man waving a white cloth and running toward the warning wire of Camp 132. But no soccer ball had bounced out of bounds. No one was playing soccer when Back looked down from his perch in Tower No. 7. Rather, he saw that the man waving the white cloth was being chased by hundreds of angry, shouting inmates. Once the desperate POW crossed the warning wire, his pursuers halted, knowing that without white flags they risked being shot. To ensure that the mob respected the boundary, Back ostentatiously aimed his rifle.

From their vantage points on Towers 7 and 4 respectively, Back and Sergeant Frederic C. Byers struggled to make out which of the prisoners was being dragged backward away from them, and the faces of the two men who were doing the dragging.

The tower guards could see Plaszek being taken toward the west recreation hall. Back called the guard room asking for scouts to return to the enclosure, make their way to the recreation hall and free the man.  Byers also called the guard room with the same request. In an effort to deter the four men manhandling Plaszek, Back called the sentries in Tower No. 6 and ordered them to fire shots over the men’s heads, but for reasons unknown, the men in this tower did not follow Back’s orders. After ten minutes, with no sign of the scouts re-entering the enclosure, Back called the guard room again. By this time, he “felt the man would be dead because of the delay.”

The first senior POW to hear of what happened to Plaszek after he was dragged to the recreation hall appears to have been Dr. Nolte, who saw “a body hanging by the west wall.” The rope had been passed around the victim’s neck twice and drawn so tight it cut into his flesh by about an inch. After pushing his way through the crowd, Nolte felt for a pulse but “found no sign of life” and ordered Plaszek’s body to be cut down.

Plaszek’s body was a horrible sight. Said Royal Army Medical Korps Captain W. F. Hall: “[The] face of the deceased was very swollen—the tongue was sticking out slightly and there was blood from the nostrils and mouth and also from the back of the head.”

*****

As would be true during their investigation of the killing of Dr. Karl Lehmann on DATE, the RCMP and Military Intelligence faced something approaching a wall of silence enforced by the camp Gestapo; when the cases were broken after Germany’s surrender in May 1945, Canadian authorities discovered that Lehmann’s murder had been ordered by the Gestapo.  Slowly, however, POWs came forward and the RCMP charged men with Plaszek’s murder and the four men charged with killing Lehmann.  One of the key pieces of evidence against Adolf Kratz was his swagger: another was boast after the killing, as he ate a hard-boiled egg “The egg tastes that much better because I have helped hang a traitor.”  Lehmann’s killers had each signed a confession, which provided little more than a tied ribbon at the end of the story of the bloody killing of a fellow Afrika Korpsman.

*****

In the end, for killing Plaszek, one man was found innocent and two guilty, this second being Schulz.  Just before the trap door opened and his body fell, he called out, “My Fuhrer, I follow thee.”  The four men charged with killing Lehmann were hanged on 18 December 1946, the last mass hanging in Canadian history.

Today

Now an appellate court would almost certainly declare each of these trails a mistrial. We need look no further than the contentious use of evidence of homosexuality by both the Crown and the defense, each an POWs sexual past in an attempt to shake the jury’s belief in the evidence he presented: perhaps the most egregious statement being “Let us step a little deeper into the mire” in defense attorney Rice’s questioning of Wilhelm Wendt, who had been camp 132’s Man of Confidence, i.e., the leader of the POWs and, secretly, a lead Nazi.

Even in the context of 1946, the trials and their outcome are highly debatable.  As was argued in detail in the appeal of the convictions for killing Lehmann, the trials took place in the wrong venue. Both the War Measures Act and the Geneva Convention called for such important charges to be adjudged in military –not civilian – court.

Notwithstanding Judge Howson’s statement from the bench, “I am of the opinion that the land comprised in the Prisoner of War Camp, No. 132, at Medicine Hat, is part of the Dominion of Canada,” things were not the clear cut.  Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war remain under the military law of their home army, which is why the Convention recognizes the right of a POW to try to escape when his home army makes that a duty, as both the German and British military codes did.  The Convention also recognized that, for example, in the case of POW Camp 132, German military law prevailed within the wire.  Accordingly, once, following the failure of the Bomb Plot in 1944 Hitler gave the order to liquidate traitors, German soldiers in Canada had reason to consider themselves bound to do so: Lehmann was suspected of treason (and, in fact, did give Canadian authorities information).  Indeed, in a similar case in South Africa, the judge ruled against the death penalty saying that the German POWs feared for their lives if they did not carry out the orders of their camp’s Gestapo.

Nathan’s book is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

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

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

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

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

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

American Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

Admiral Zheng He and Chinese Explorers in the 1420s

Did Chinese explorers discover America in the 1420s? This theory was advances in the 2002 book by Gavin Menzies, 1421:  The Year China Discovered America. Here, Capers Jones looks at some of the evidence for this.

Editor’s Note: Many of the claims in the book 1421:  The Year China Discovered America have been challenged as being speculative and many claims have little evidence.

A Chinese woodblock print, that is said to represent Zheng He's ships.

Introduction

In the year 2002 a retired British submarine commander named Gavin Menzies published a controversial book entitled “1421:  The Year China Discovered America.”  The book put forth a speculation that a Chinese Admiral named Zheng had taken a fleet around the world and made landfall in America in the year 1421.

Thirty years before Menzies book, a Baptist missionary in China named Dr. Herndon Harris purchased a map at a shop in Taiwan.   This map now known as the Harris Map was supposedly published in 1418 or 74 years before Columbus took his first voyage.  The map clearly shows both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of America and also much of the continent of South America.  This kind of geographical knowledge should not have been possible in 1418 and probably not until over 300 years later after the voyages of Captain Cook.

The map clearly shows both the north and south poles, both North and South America, Panama, Australia, and all of Africa and Europe.    A world map with this kind of accuracy should not exist in 1418.

This map is apparently based on the world voyages of Admiral Zheng he and shows knowledge of both coasts of North America as well as South America.  Assuming that the reported 1418 date is valid and the map is authentic, it shows that China did indeed have a blue-water fleet that carried out very extensive voyages of exploration prior to Columbus.  In fact it has been suggested that Portuguese spies in China had brought such maps back to Portugal and that Columbus may have seen the Chinese maps prior to his departure.

Chinese ship-building

What may surprise readers is that the Chinese sailing ships circa 1400 were much larger and more sea-worthy than European ships of the same era.

Chinese sailing ships towered over European ships.  Americans and Europeans are not taught much about early Chinese history.

The authenticity of the 1418 map has been challenged on several grounds, and there are claims that it may either be a recent map constructed to prove theories of Chinese nautical prowess or at any rate a recent map pieced together in perhaps the 1700’s from other recent maps.   

Until the 1418 map is authenticated it is premature to judge its accuracy circa 1418.  However in theory no map circa 1418 should be able to show both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the Americas and also Canada and the Isthmus of Panama, all of which appear on the Ming map.

Admiral Zheng He was born in 1371 and died around 1433.  He was an actual Chinese admiral and it is known that he did sail a large fleet on seven voyages of exploration.

Chinese maps showing the routes of Admiral Zheng He’s seven voyages do not go as far as the Americas but legends show additional voyages that do arrive in the Americas.

The authenticity of the 1418 map is questionable as of 2022.  However Admiral Zheng He was an actual historical personage and it is known that he was a master mariner who carried out seven voyages of exploration.

Historical data confirms that Admiral Zheng He did command a large fleet of blue-water sailing ships in the early 1400’s.  Whether or not Admiral Zheng He’s fleet reached America is unclear as of 2022.

Surprisingly there is evidence of even earlier visits to America by Chinese navigators.  The evidence is based on American corn, which is a native American crop and should not be found in China before the 1700s.

There are several recognizable images of corn from China, including from the Hongshan culture.  Incidentally the known dates of the Hongshan culture are from 4700 to 2900 BC which is actually older than the use of corn in the Americas.

Earlier visits?

There are even older records of possible visits from China that date back to 450 AD.  Hui Shen is a Buddhist monk who reportedly visited Mexico and Central America circa 458 AD.  He is not reported to have visited North America or the Narragansett Bay, and his legend is included just to show that Chinese court records did indicate some trans-Pacific travel at an early date.  Hui Shen was not a native Chinese but apparently a Buddhist monk from the area of Kabul in modern Afghanistan.

As background, the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni, was born in Northern India in 563 BC and lived to be about 80 years of age.  During his lifetime Buddha formed an order of monks and gave them instructions to travel and spread Buddhism widely.  Thus Buddhism, like Christianity, had a long tradition of missionary travel.

Chinese court records show that Hui Shen and four other monks spent almost 40 years in Central America.  Apparently Hui Shen was presented at court in 502 AD to the emperor Wu Ti of the Liang Dynasty.  The emperor had Hui Shen’s story recorded for court records.  Because Hui Shen did not speak Chinese very well, he apparently was regarded by the Chinese as an ambassador from Central America.

Reportedly Hui Shen and his party traveled by boat along the Aleutian Island chain in a Chinese junk and arrived near Vancouver.  Then the party went down the West Coast of North America and Central America.  It is not clear why they went all the way to Central America, except that perhaps they were aware of the major civilizations to the south.

Although Hui Shen and his party only passed along the West Coast of North America, other Chinese court records indicate some knowledge of the interior.  A description of what might be the Grand Canyon occurs. (Incidentally Hui Shen’s route down the Aleutians might possibly have been used by Paleo-Indians many thousands of years ago.)

Do you think Chinese explorers visited America in the 1420s? Let us know below.

Editor’s Note: You can read more about 1421:  The Year China Discovered America in a book review here and by an archaeologist here.

Copyright © 2022 by Capers Jones.  All rights reserved. Article published on History is Now with the permission of Capers Jones.

References

Gavin Menzies’ book about 1421:  The Year China Discovered America is the prime reference.  Also Google searches on “Admiral Zheng He” or “Ancient Chinese voyages” will turn up additional citations.

Spain in the New World: The Revolutionary Abdications of Bayonne

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

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

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

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

Napoleon Shackled to a Corpse

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

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

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

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

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

Godoy

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

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

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

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

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

Ferdinand vs. Carlos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tumult of Aranjuez

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dos de Mayo Uprising

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

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

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

Napoleonic Maneuvers

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

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

Spain Rises Up

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

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

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

Creation of the Supreme Central Junta

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

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

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

Spread to the Americas

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

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

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

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

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

President Buchanan’s Blunder Before Battle

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

Lillian Jiang explains.

President Buchanan (center) and his cabinet.

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

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

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

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

Inauguration

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

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

Bleeding Kansas

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

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

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

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

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

Poor judgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spain in the New World: Francisco de Miranda’s Travels and Independence Leader

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

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Venezuelan military leader and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda. Here he looks at Francisco de Miranda’s further travels and how he came to declare independence in one part of South America.

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

A painting of General Francisco de Miranda by Martín Tovar y Tovar

Francisco de Miranda, now back in Britain, was determined to carry out the mission he had given himself so many years ago: leading the movement for the independence of Spanish America. This can be seen in his first letter to Prime Minister William Pitt. Miranda addresses himself to Pitt as the “Principal Agent of the Spanish American Colonies, commissioned to treat with the Ministers of His Britannic Majesty.” He had been accredited by no government. What he did understand, however, was the time and the societal structure he lived in. He knew he had to “sound important.” Walk the walk, so to speak. He was showing himself as an important man, the leader of a people, addressing other world leaders. When he was able to meet with Pitt and was asked for his credentials, Miranda would hand Pitt the Act of Paris.

Just as the last time he was in Britain, he knew the British government was the key to financial and military support for his aims. With Britain and Spain at war again, Pitt and his ministry were only too happy to support Miranda, but again, they would only do so on their own terms. Miranda, aware of the duplicitous nature of international politics, had been courting the Americans as well. For all the letters he sent to Pitt outlining plans for expeditions to South America, he was also sending letters to his old friends in the United States. Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1800, and Jefferson and his new Secretary of State James Madison were counted by Miranda as friends. Miranda knew both men were interested in spreading the “benefits of republican government.” Using the known expansionist designs of the Americans as a counterbalance to the power of Great Britain would help Miranda in his cause. He tried to force on the British a sense of urgency. The British better help him, and by extension keep their influence over him, or else the Americans would help him, and they would have influence.

This would not be enough to force the British into helping him. Miranda knew he would have to pressure the British government into helping him. To do this, he chose to go over the heads of the government, and appeal directly to the British people. The hope was to create overwhelming support for Spanish American independence, that the ministry would be forced to act through public pressure.

Miranda’s Widening Net

One of the most important publications that helped Miranda’s cause was not written by Miranda himself. Also in London at the time was Juan Pablo Viscardo y Guzmán. Viscardo was a Jesuit from Peru who was expelled from Spanish America on royal orders dissolving the Jesuit order in Spanish territory. While in exile, Viscardo became a staunch supporter of South American independence. He would publish the “Open Letter to the American Spaniards.” This publication, seen by many at the time, and by later historians, as a South American Declaration of Independence or Declaration of the Rights of Man, was more akin to a version of Common Sense by Thomas Paine. It laid out all the legal and emotional reasons why Spanish America should be independent.

When Viscardo died in 1798, his papers were given to Miranda, who could recognize the rhetorical power of Viscardo’s arguments. Since Viscardo was no longer around to challenge Miranda, his legacy could easily be adopted and coopted into Miranda’s own operation. This, and other writings by Miranda, would be published in the numerous newspapers and pamphlets that dotted London at the time.

It is also at this time that Miranda would begin to cultivate relationships with many younger firebrands who lived in London at the time. The first was a young man, the illegitimate son of the Viceroy of Peru, Bernardo Riquelme. Later as Bernardo O’Higgins, he would help lead the liberation of Chile, and contribute to the liberation of Peru. O’Higgins, meeting Miranda in his late teens, was extremely impressionable and searching for a father figure to teach him. Miranda filled this role splendidly. The same impetuosity displayed so many times by Miranda would characterize the life and governance of O’Higgins. This secondary role that Miranda took upon himself, that of a father figure and mentor to young revolutionaries would have far-reaching impacts on the course of revolutions throughout South America.

Years would pass before Miranda would have success in his relations with the British government. It was only in 1805 that the British government began seriously studying the many plans Miranda had presented for military action. When this grand study was conducted, it concluded that the best way to foment an uprising in South America was to…attack Buenos Aires. Miranda was devastated. Buenos Aires was not what he considered a ripe ground for liberation. He wanted to go back to his homeland and initiate an uprising there. Just like last time, Miranda was so fed up with the British government, that he decided to leave. Unlike last time though, he would go back to the New World. He would go to the United States.

The Leander Expedition

While in the United States, all the contacts Miranda had made would pay off for him. Whereas in Britain, he had faced roadblocks and frustrations, in the US his friends would outdo each other in helping him. Jefferson and Madison, the President and Secretary of State respectively, would provide him access and (unofficially, of course) weapons made in US armories. He was able to recruit members for his planned expedition without any legal hindrance, regardless of US neutrality laws.

On February 2, 1806, Miranda and his motley crew of about 180 men set sail from New York aboard the Leander (named for Miranda’s young son), the small ship that would give the expedition its name. After a short layover in Haiti, supported there by the revolutionary government of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Miranda and crew would sail for their target, Venezuela. During the journey, the crew was presented with uniforms for the new army that they were now members of. Miranda unfurled the tricolor that would eventually be the basis for the flags of three nations. After another stop in Aruba for rest and resupply, Miranda was joined by two other ships, the Bee and the Bacchus.

For Miranda, this was the moment his life had been leading up to. He had men under arms following him. Bright, velvet uniforms adorned those fighting in the glorious cause of freedom from colonial tyranny. Proclamations had been written and printed, which once distributed, would drive the people into a revolutionary frenzy. Everything was in place for the victory that Miranda believed was his destiny.

It began to fall apart almost at once. A landing was attempted at the small town of Ocumare on April 27. The Spanish were ready to oppose them with two ships. Miranda would order his ship, Leander, to sail away. The Bee, however, did not get the message and was captured, left to its fate while Miranda retreated.

If at first you don’t succeed…

Arriving back in Aruba, Miranda would receive help from the British. The Royal Navy officers in the area were sympathetic to his cause. With this help, he was finally able, on August 3, to land on Venezuelan soil, at La Vela de Coro, the site of the old colony of Neu-Augsburg. Upon occupying Coro, he found the city almost deserted. The people had been told to evacuate by colonial authorities to escape the barbarities Miranda would visit upon them. For his part, Miranda had ordered persons and property respected. It did not matter, there was no mass uprising in the revolution’s favor.

Within a few days, Spanish forces reacted and began to approach Coro. The hero was not about to let himself be captured by the enemy, so he ordered his men to retreat to the coast. Miranda threatened to leave behind the wounded if it slowed the retreat. One man who voiced complaints was threatened with execution at Miranda’s hand. Once aboard the ship, Miranda would order his expedition to head back to Aruba. The entire invasion lasted eleven days. It was a complete failure. Adding insult to injury, one of the local commanders of Spanish forces was Juan Manuel Cagigal, Miranda’s old friend from 30 years before who now called him a fanatic.

Back to Britain, Again

From Aruba, Miranda would find his way back to Britain. As soon as he arrived, he announced his presence to the government and began planning a new expedition. The new Prime Minister, the Duke of Portland, was more open than Pitt had been to Miranda’s advances. Portland viewed the war against France as the world war that it was and wanted to strike at Spain’s soft underbelly in the Americas. In furtherance to this end, a large expedition was assembled which would strike at Spanish America. Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington, would command. Fate, as it always seemed to with Miranda, intervened. Napoleon, with the help of Spain, had forced the Portuguese royal family to flee Iberia and take up residence in Brazil, the largest colony of Portugal. Sensing an opportunity, the British diverted the army meant for South America to Portugal to begin the famous Peninsular Campaign.

Despondent, Miranda could not believe the opportunity that had been lost. A major army under competent command was lost to him and his cause. Shortly, however, fate would intervene again. Napoleon had invaded his own ally, Spain.

Napoleon Provides the Opportunity of a Lifetime

Napoleon had begun to worry about his Spanish ally. Napoleon was willing to accept the horrifically incompetent administration of the Spanish government led by the Queen’s lover Manuel de Godoy, one of the most corrupt men in the annals of history. He was also willing to accept the cartoonishly stupid King Carlos IV and his only slightly less stupid son, Ferdinand. Napoleon understood that the corrupt and stupid can be controlled, especially by someone as brilliant as himself. The problem was the Spanish people were not willing to continue to submit. After several attempts by Ferdinand, and Ferdinand-aligned elements of the Spanish government, to overthrow Godoy and Carlos, Napoleon intervened and tricked both Carlos and Ferdinand to abdicate their claims to the Spanish throne. Napoleon then named his brother Joseph King José I. All over Spain, uprisings began resisting the French occupation of the country. These uprisings and their leadership committees, called Juntas, pledged their loyalty to Ferdinand, now called Ferdinand VII.

Overnight, these events changed the entire dynamic for Miranda. His primary patron had always been Great Britain. He had always looked primarily to Britain for support. Now, Britain and Spain were allies. Instead of trying to undermine Spanish rule in America, now the British wanted to reinforce it. Within a year, Juntas began springing up in Spanish America, officially pledged to the cause of Ferdinand VII.

These Juntas were led by local criollos who occupied second place in the Spanish colonial hierarchy. The taste of power and local self-rule would not be lost by these men. These Juntas were pledged to Ferdinand VII, yes, but not necessarily to Spain itself, a hair-splitting distinction, but a distinction, nonetheless. Here were the mass independence movements that Miranda had been waiting his whole life for. The movements that he felt it his destiny to lead.

Miranda Goes Home

In 1810, the Supreme Junta of Caracas, exerting power supposedly over the whole of Venezuela, removed the colony’s Spanish government. The Junta claimed that it was simply exercising authority on behalf of Ferdinand until he could return to the throne. It was on this basis that a delegation was sent from the Junta to Britain to garner support. This delegation had as one of its members a certain Simón Bolívar. A young hot-headed Venezuelan, Bolívar was awed by Miranda and his reputation. As he was always keen on mentoring young revolutionaries, Miranda took a liking to this young man. When the delegation attempted to persuade Miranda to return to his homeland, it did not take much convincing. What the delegation did not tell Miranda was that their instructions specifically forbade them from bringing him back with them when they returned. It did not matter. Miranda was going home.

The First Venezuelan Congress assembled on March 2, 1811. Declaring itself the legitimate government of Venezuela, it began setting the stage to take complete control. On July 5, 1811, Congress would declare Venezuela independent of Spain. It would also establish the new country as a republic, styled the American Confederation of Venezuela. A constitution was written, allegedly based upon the principles of liberty and reason. It was unveiled on July 14, Bastille Day.

Back in Command

Miranda was given the task of suppressing royalists around Valencia. Given his military experience, this was a natural assignment. It was not the one that Miranda wanted. Although he was able to easily bring these loyalists to heel, Miranda did not want to be overly brutal. He saw these people as countrymen and wanted to reconcile them with the new republic. When he returned to Caracas after his successful campaign, he received a hero’s welcome. The people crowded him on the streets and cheered his name. This further fueled the jealousy felt by members of the Republic’s government. They were afraid that Miranda and his friends, whom they saw as Jacobins and a Masonic conspiracy, of plotting to overthrow the Republic and install Miranda as a dictator. These fears were certainly not alleviated by Miranda’s letters written to the government during his campaign. Miranda did not believe in the federalist bent of the new republic. He was a centralist and made thinly veiled references about how the men with the most experience should be the ones called to ultimate authority.

During these events, the Spanish were not idle. Despite the massive war and insurrection occurring in Spain, the Supreme Junta of Spain was already making plans to re-exert control over Venezuela. With the covert support of the British, the Spanish government was already accumulating troops in Puerto Rico to attempt a reconquest. A political campaign stressing the racial, cultural, and religious ties to Spain was intensified. As Spain gained sympathizers, the government of the Republic became more radical in its laws and pronouncements. One pronouncement granted freedom to any slave who enlisted in the Republic’s army for a term of ten years. This caused many landowners who were already skeptical of the Republic to openly support Spain. On March 26, 1812, a massive earthquake hit Venezuela and caused widespread death and destruction, much of which occurred in areas that had large numbers of supporters of the Republic. It seemed to many people that God himself was turning against the revolution.

Generalissimo Miranda

Only a week after the earthquake, on April 3rd, Miranda was named supreme commander of the army and head of the Republic with dictatorial powers, with the title of Generalissimo of the Confederation of Venezuela. This seeming height of his career would be fraught with challenges, but Miranda, ever confident, believed in his ability to handle them.

The Spanish chose this moment to attack. They besieged the fortress of San Felipe near Puerto Cabello. The commander was his old mentee Bolívar. When the fortress fell, things fell apart rapidly. The Spanish advanced quickly on Caracas. With no military force of consequence between the capital and the battle-hardened Spanish Army, Miranda knew the cause was hopeless. He sent commissioners to discuss surrender terms with the Spanish commander, Domingo Monteverde. Miranda chose to not confide the surrender terms to others in the Venezuelan government. This led to suspicions about his motives. On August 3rd, the Spanish Army took Caracas. What would later be called the First Republic of Venezuela was gone, snuffed out in the blink of an eye.

Betrayal and Arrest

For Miranda, there were only thoughts of exile, yet again. As he was preparing to sail away, other Venezuelan leaders saw this man, supposedly their leader, leaving them. Some believed he was taking the nation’s treasury with him, although the evidence is contradictory. Bolívar and a group of army officers arrested Miranda before he could leave the country. He was handed over to the Spanish. Although the terms of Miranda’s surrender of the country promised him safe passage out, Monteverde gleefully took custody of the prisoner.

Miranda was placed into a cell and secured to the wall by chains. He would be held in Venezuela until transferred to Spain, where he would be held in the La Carraca prison in Cádiz. Charged with treason against the crown, Miranda waited to be tried and executed. But this would not come. Miranda would constantly petition King Ferdinand to release not only him, but his country from bondage. He asked to be sent to exile in Russia or the United States.

Being held in prison is harmful to your health in the best of times. To be held in a 19th century dungeon as a political prisoner was even worse. Miranda was already elderly for the time and suffered from ulcers and rheumatism. On March 25, 1816, he suffered a stroke leading to seizures. Once he recovered, he caught typhus. Only with foreign pressure did Miranda’s Spanish jailers remove his leg irons as a humanitarian gesture. He would linger on for a few months of agony until he died on July 14, 1816, the anniversary of Bastille Day.

Francisco de Miranda was many things. Visionary, a man of letters, a man of the world, he embodied the traits of the ideal man of reason envisioned by the thinkers of the enlightenment. He was also vain, a megalomaniacal, and in the end, overly concerned about his own importance and self-preservation. Like Moses, he would never reach the promised land. Undoubtedly, like Moses, he was one of the primary reasons why his people reached that promised land. The Forerunner, the Precursor, the Moses of South American freedom. All these titles describe Francisco de Miranda.

What do you think of Francisco de Miranda? Let us know below.

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

The Italian Front in World War One

When conjuring up images of the First World War one may visualize the iconic and murderous trenches of the Western Front. Or perhaps the epic dogfights fought between intrepid pilots in rickety machines when aircraft was only in its infancy.  But the global nature of the war witnessed fighting on a massive scale from the frigid waters of the North Sea to the scorching deserts of the Middle East and the mountains of the Alps where. In the Alps close to 700,000 Italians and half as many Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) combatants would ultimately lose their lives in a brutal meat grinder in which combat was at times the not even the most dangerous contender.

Brian Hughes explains.

An trench of the Austro-Hungarian Army at the peak of the Ortler in 1917.

On May 23, 1915, Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary thus abandoning her initial neutrality. It had been nine months since the largest war in European history had begun, starting in August of 1914 when the other Great Powers of Europe, Great Britain, France, and Russia (The Entente) went to war against Germany and her ally Austria-Hungary (The Central Powers) in a complicated yet lethal system of alliances with one of the main aims of the Entente being to check the rising power of Germany on the continent. Italy, like the other belligerent nations, entered the war with the goal of “reclaiming” regions inhabited by Italian speaking peoples such as the Trentino in the Alps and Trieste on the Adriatic Coast, then in the possession of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Italy had only been unified as a cohesive nation in 1861, the first time in which they entire peninsula had coalesced under one government since the Roman Empire. The Entente hoped that by opening a brand-new front especially one so close to the heartland of Austria-Hungary would significantly relive the immense pressure in which the Central Powers had been administering to their foes in the Eastern and Western Fronts respectively.

Italy’s initial plan at the start of war was to begin a major offensive through the mountains of the Trentino in the Alps. Their objective was simple. Utilizing an overwhelming advantage in manpower the massive army would slice through the undermanned and poorly equipped Austro-Hungarian defenses like a hot knife through butter. Exploiting the gaps created by the enormous offensive thrust, the Italians would not only quickly retrieve the much sought-after Trentino region but simultaneously open roads to Ljubljana in present day Slovenia and Vienna, the Imperial Capital. But not everything went according to plan.

For starters, the Italian Peninsula is not ideally poised for offensive military operations to her northeast given that the mountain ranges of this region are amongst the highest in Europe. This gave the Austro-Hungarian defenders a significant advantage in that they could subsequently negate the numerically superior adversaries. Another factor was the lack of combat experience in the Italian Armed Forces. Prior to the outbreak of World War One Italy had fought a series of colonial wars in Africa against the Ottoman Empire. These engagements were comparatively small and drastically differed in men, material, and terrain now present on the Italian Front. This, combined with the outdated and draconian leadership within the Italian Army embodied especially by Chief of Staff Luigi Cadorna would yield disastrous results.  It seemed that the Italian High Command did not seem to notice or comprehend the brutality in which industrialized warfare enabled horrific carnage in France, Belgium, and the Eastern Front throughout the first year of the war. In addition to this, recent Central Power successes in Galicia enabled additional troops with valuable combat experience to be moved to the new front.

War at altitude

Prior to the 1984 Siachen dispute between Indian and Pakistani troops battles had for the most part never been waged in as high of altitudes such as in places like the Julian Alps of the Italian Front where peaks rise to an average height of 1300 meters. When fighting in these conditions an enemy’s bullet or stray shell could sometimes be less deadly than the environment itself. Soldiers had to contend with avalanches, rockslides, frostbite, freezing temperatures, and razor-sharp rocks to name just a few of the appalling hazards do not present in other theatres of the Great War. In order to tactically operate under these harsh conditions both Italian and Austro-Hungarian armies fielded units of specially trained Mountain soldiers who maintained the proper skills for conducting warfare in the mountains. The Alpini, on the Italian side were formed in 1872 and were the oldest “mountain corps” in the world. Recruited from the towns and villages along the Italian Alps, the Alpini were adept climbers, skiers, and hunters who were familiar with the latest innovations in mountaineering equipment and could sustain themselves for prolonged periods of time in hazardous mountainous surrounding as often they found themselves perched upon dangerous precipes and slopes in which they had to bivouac. The Habsburg Army confronted the Alpini with their own specially trained mountain corps knowns as the Alpen Kaiserjager. Like the Alpini, these men were recruited from mountainous regions throughout the Empire such as the Carpathians, Tatras, and Balkans. Heroic clashes and counter attacks between these elite units would become a trademark of the war.

The Isonzo (Soca) River Valley would become the major geographical focal point of the conflict, witnessing twelve major Italian Offensives all of which yielded horrific casualty rates. Once again, the Italian High Command did not seem to notice or even care about the difficulties exasperated by the terrain and poor quality of their troops. These murderous offensives would eventually culminate in October 1917 at the Battle of Caporetto, one of the deadliest battles of the Great War in which a combined Habsburg-German army valiantly resisted and ultimately routed a major offensive push by the newly equipped and colossal Italian Army. Caporetto would ultimately be the worst defeat suffered by the Italian Army throughout the war. Roughly 280,000 prisoners were taken in addition to the mass desertions of near 350,000 and some 40,000 killed or wounded.

Recovery

Despite these detrimental setbacks the Italians remarkably recovered. Chief of Staff Luigi Cadorna would ultimately be sacked and was replaced with General Armando Diaz. The war would continue for another year until eventually the Habsburg Army who had held out for years undergoing unimaginable stress and demoralization from near constant shelling, hunger, cold, and the despair of losing friends and comrades would lay down their war weary arms. The last major chapter of the Italian Front occurred on October 23, 1918, in which finally a massive Italian artillery barrage accompanied by an equally formidable offensive finally routed the Austro-Hungarian army forcing an armistice on November 3rd, 1918.

World War One displayed loss of life and unimaginable suffering not yet seen in the course of human history. Despite the inconceivable numbers of men, animals, and materials lost the Italian theatre remains to this day one of the more obscure fronts as ultimately it became yet another stalemate in which old fashioned commanders ordered suicidal charges indifferent to the casualty rates just as on the more famous Western Front. The major difference being the terrain in which the soldiers fought. Instead of the mud in Flanders tit was the snows of the Alps where countless numbers of young men from all over Europe fought, died, and now rest under the placid valleys and dazzling peaks of one of the most beautiful corners of the continent.

What do you think of the Italian front in World War One? Let us know below.

Sources

Websites 

Siachen dispute: India and Pakistan’s glacial fight - BBC News

Caporetto, Battle of | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1) (1914-1918-online.net)

Books 

Gooch, John: The Italian Army and The First World War Cambridge University Press

Macdonald John: Caporetto And The Isonzo Campaign and Sword Military 

Thompson Mark The White War Life and Death on The Italian Front 1915-1919 Basic Books 

Sweet Home Chicago: Migration and Music in Post-War America

The music of early post-war America has become synonymous with one style: Rock ‘n’ Roll. However, it was The Blues that was key in creating Rock ‘n’ Roll. Here, Matt Austin looks at migration and music in post-war America.

Muddy Waters in 1978. Source: Jean-Luc Ourlin, available here.

It is one of the great narratives of American History: The post-war boom. Following the Second World War, the United States enjoyed rapid, almost limitless, economic development. With Europe reeling from the devastation of war, the United States industrialised quickly to respond to the demand for wartime production. It therefore found itself in a far stronger economic position than prior to the war, to the extent that it was able to pull itself out of the Great Depression, which had ravaged the country throughout the 1930s.

As outlined by Sarah Pruitt, factory production, which had proven to be essential to the war effort, quickly mobilized for peacetime, rising to the needs of consumers.(1) This newfound ability to produce on a mass scale contributed to a post-war boom that was entirely consumer driven. Those who had saved money during the war now had an unprecedented amount of expendable income and as such, the opportunity to purchase affordable houses, cars, clothes and leisure activities, including of course, records.

The music of early post-war America has become largely inseparable with one style: Rock ‘n’ Roll.(2) The rise of Rock ‘n’ Roll and its youth revolution has come to dominate the narrative surrounding the development of music in this period. However, it is often overlooked that it was in fact a different genre that experienced an incredible transition, incorporating styles that would later feed into the vastly more popular Rock ‘n’ Roll: The Blues.

The Blues

As is a frequent consequence of wartime, an increased demand for production results in an increased demand for labour. This was certainly true of the Second World War in the United States, with a large increase in rural to urban migration, most notably among African Americans. This took place against the backdrop of The Great Migration, a period between 1910 and 1970 in which 6 million African Americans moved from the rural South to urban centres in the Northeast, Midwest and West.(3) The demand for labour created by the First World War had initially resulted in considerable spikes in migration,(4) whilst the Second World War created a “second wave” of wartime migration, in which a further influx of migrants moved north seeking to ditch the fields for the factories.(5) Isabel Wilkerson identifies the importance of this decision, noting that: “it was the first time that the nation’s servant class ever took without asking.”(6)

The African Americans who made the trip carried with them what little belongings they had, but more importantly than possessions, they brought a culture that had been cultivated in the rural South. With it they brought their “outdoor” music to urban centres, such as New York or Chicago.(7) These cities subsequently saw a huge rise in street performers, with many notable Bluesmen beginning their careers busking on street corners, such as the Mississippi born influence of the Rolling Stones, Jimmy Reed. It is important to note, however, that the big city was not a complete unknown to Southern Blues musicians of the early 20th Century. For musicians during this time, it was expected, as was industry standard, that records were to be made in the North, with many performers having to make the pilgrimage to record in Chicago or New York, among them “Father of the Delta Blues,” Charley Patton. This northern exposure even extends to the fact that the seminal 1928 recording “It’s Tight Like That” by Georgian born Tampa Red, is often referred to as the first “city” blues, with its style anticipating much of what would follow in later decades.(8)

Difference

Nevertheless, there was however something different about the Blues of the post-war era. Even Tampa Red’s style, although ahead of its time, had a distinct rural quality. The post-war Blues was new, exciting, and revolutionary. These are characteristics it owes to one word: amplification. It is not certain how or when the decision was made to transition from acoustic from electric guitar, but it was a seamless, almost overnight phenomenon, as if the guitarists of the North woke up in the morning and decided to go electric. Francis Davis suggests that the amplification and big beat added to the Blues of the post-war era may have been a necessary response to the roar of the big city.(9) Muddy Waters, upon his arrival in Chicago in 1943, was one such musician to quickly make the transition from acoustic to electric, reasoning that “couldn’t nobody hear you with an acoustic”, against the overpowering noise in the city’s overcrowded clubs.(10)

This created an ever-growing disparity between the music of the rural South and its harder, faster, rougher contemporary in the urban North. What marked this emerging style as clearly different to its elders lay with the increased urgency and flamboyance of its guitar playing.(11) Possibly the greatest example of this can be heard in Elmore James’ 1951 hit, “Dust My Broom”. A tribute to his Delta predecessor Robert Johnson’s 1937, “I believe I’ll Dust My Broom”, in adopting an electric guitar and a slide, Elmore James unknowingly went on to create one of the famous riffs in The Blues.(12) Despite being recorded in Mississippi, James’ version has become emblematic of big city Chicago Blues and more importantly as a symbol of the transition from acoustic to electric, from rural to urban. Only a mere fourteen years separate these songs, yet they sound worlds apart.

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Elmore James was not one of the quarter million African Americans to migrate to Chicago in the 1940s. Rather, upon completing his military service during the war, he returned home to Mississippi. Following early success with a handful of hits, he followed the music and made the move north in the early 1950s. His legacy has endured as a founding influence on the Chicago Blues scene and it is clear why, when listening to the up-tempo, heavy beat of his 1961 “Shake Your Money Maker”, for example. He may have had his start in the delta, but like many of his contemporaries, his style heralded in a new era of popular music; a new era of African American culture.

The Blues is a genre that takes its influence from the everyday troubles faced throughout life. However, one of the most surprising elements of the post-war Blues is an incredible lack of reference to its musician’s surroundings in the industrial North. Despite its new and upbeat style, the music of artists such as Muddy Waters was evocative not of a day spent working in the train yards and factories, but of one in the fields.(13) Guitar mentor Lynwood Perry notes that the Blues of the North was played to dance to, but the Blues of the South possessed a deeper message, telling of the many troubles in life.(14) Where the post-war northern blues truly stand out, is that it ultimately contained elements of both. Not only did it rely on a fast-paced pounding style that would lay the groundwork for Rock ‘n’ Roll, it also had a nostalgic quality to it, an echo of the Southern Country Blues on which many of its artists had been raised. No track better exemplifies this than Muddy Waters’ 1948, “I Can’t Be Satisfied”, with the B-side, “I Feel Like Going Home.” The latter track, with its rather unsubtle title, sent those who listened to the record back home to Mississippi, if only symbolically.(15) This was, in fact, as suggested by Davis, as close to a return trip as many African Americans would have wanted to take.(16) It is certainly true that life was better to Northern migrants than those in the southern states, a notion long held before the Second World War. Giles Oakley states that many compared the pilgrimage North to the Flight Out of Egypt.(17) This homage to the bible would present the North as the Promised Land, an opportunity to escape racial segregation and intimidation in the South.

Tough life

Life in the North however, was not easy. Muddy Waters, despite possessing a highly trained ear and a knack for the guitar, had made the journey for work. And for a black uneducated southerner in 1940s Chicago this meant one thing: hard, manual labour. He possessed no illusions as to his chances of music stardom, and whilst he may have held such fantasies deep in the back of his mind, he ultimately took the first job he could find at a train yard. This was, after all, the last era of American popular music in which its stars were neither youthful, or naïve. They had experienced largely ‘normal lives’ up until that point, as the early Chicago Bluesmen had, after all, moved north for opportunities, and whilst they would certainly have been confident in their abilities (why else would Muddy have packed his guitar?), they were under no illusion that success was not guaranteed.

This is in no way to belittle the efforts of those breaking into the music world in the following decades, a feat that has and will be never be easy. However, the few months spent by Elvis Presley as a truck driver, or George Harrison as an electrician cannot compare to years spent in the fields and factories. This is what arguable gave the big city Blues its distinct, inexhaustible style.

The Second World War modernised America and its musical styles. The Blues was especially not immune to change as a consequence, the transition from field to factory made the slow country blues of the rural South seem even further detached from the pounding electric blues of the urban North. It was the war that brought them there, and the likes of Muddy Waters and Howlin’ Wolf carried with them not only their guitars on their backs, but also the dream of a better life. They took their early influences and adapted them to the harsh backdrop of the urban North and like the cities they now called home, the Blues became fast-paced, loud, and most importantly, inescapable. They were the country’s first Rock stars, a statement that is inclined to make the most devout Blues fans wince, but the decision to amplify the sound of the rural South in the urban North would ultimately place the Blues on a rapid, irreversible path towards its sudden explosion as Rock ‘n’ Roll, the phenomenon that would change the face of American popular music.

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

1 Sarah Pruitt, “The Post World War II Boom: How America Got Into Gear,” History, accessed 12/08/22, https://www.history.com/news/post-world-war-ii-boom-economy#:~:text=After%20years%20of%20wartime%20rationing,war%20to%20peace%2Dtime%20production.&text=Collection%2FGetty%20Images-,After%20years%20of%20wartime%20rationing%2C%20American%20consumers%20were%20ready%20to,war%20to%20peace%2Dtime%20production.

2 Robert Palmer, “The 50s: A Decade of Music That Changed the World”, Rolling Stones, accessed 12/08/22, https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-50s-a-decade-of-music-that-changed-the-world-229924/.

3 “The Great Migration (1910-1970)”, African American Heritage, National Archives, accessed 12/08/22, https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/migrations/great-migration.

4 “America: The Story Of Us”, Episode 8: Boom, History, 2010, accessed 12/08/22.

5 Mike Evans, The Blues: A Visual History (Atglen: Schiffer Publishing, 2014), 82.

6 Ibid, 83.

7 Bruce Conforth and Gayle Dean Wardlow, Up Jumped the Devil: The Real Life of Robert Johnson (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2019), 240.

8 Francis Davis, The History of the Blues: The Roots, The Music, The People (Boston: De Capo Press, 1995), 138.

9 Ibid, 181

10 Ibid, 179.

11 Ibid, 198-199

12 Gerard Herzhaft, Encyclopedia of The Blues (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1992), 442.

13 Davis, The History of the Blues, 181.

14 Evans, The Blues: A Visual History, 14.

15 Davis, The History of the Blues, 180

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid, 180-181.